Loading...
Town Council Resolution 25 2015TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 25 SERIES OF 2015 A RESOLUTION APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, THE BASE VILLAGE MAJOR PUD AMENDMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION (INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION ISSUES UNIT MIX, EMPLOYEE HOUSING, COMMERCIAL MIX, RETAILfFB.B, MASS & SCALE, ARCHITECTURE, SITE PLANNING, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, OPEN SPACE, PROJECT PHASING, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN, PROPOSED VARIATIONS AND OFFERED COMMUNITY PURPOSE CORE ISSUES), AND ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO PROCEED TO FINAL PUD SUBMISSION. WHEREAS, the Base Village Final Planned Unit Development ("BV PUD") was approved by Town Council Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2004 ("Ordinance 21"), which was amended and updated by Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2007, among other Minor PUD Amendments for certain buildings within Base Village; and WHEREAS, a Base Village Minor PUD Amendment vesting extension with certain milestone dates was approved via a Development Agreement by Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2014, on October 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Snowmass Acquisition Company LLC, ("Applicant") formally submitted on October 15, 2014 a Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan for Base Village meeting the initial milestone established through the Development Agreement for vesting extension passed by Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2014; and WHEREAS, as part of the Preliminary Plan submission and its completion review process, the Applicant requested a waiver of the Sketch Plan application which request was granted for the Lot 2 hotel proposal but denied for the remainder of the project by the Town Council via Resolution No. 37, Series of 2014, on November 17, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a Sketch Plan application on December 1, 2014, and the Applicant was granted permission from the Town Council on April 13, 2015 via Resolution No. 17, Series of 2015, to proceed to the Preliminary Plan level provided certain directives were addressed with that submission or review process; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Plan application for the proposed major PUD amendment on May 29, 2015 which application was revised on June 9, 2015 and supplementary updated on .tune 29, 2015 (Volumes 1, 2 and 3) mainly in response to completion review comments issued by the Town on .June 11, 2015; and Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 2 of 27 WHEREAS, said Preliminary Plan application proposes no changes to the existing surface development on Lot 1, but does propose reprogramming summarized as follows on; Lot 2 to include a 102 unit hotel in Building 5 with 15 upper level condominium units, relocation of the Snowmass Mountain Club from Building 8 to Building 5, with check-in for the hotel on the P3 garage level, reallocation of parking on the P2 and P3 levels, and removal of Buildings 9AB and 9C to make room for a new landscaped events plaza, and two versus three employee units housing 7 seasonal employees together with common areas, now to be known as a portion of Phase 2 of the project; Lot 3 proposing the reprogramming of the mix of units and commercial spaces in Buildings 6, 7 and 8, to include a new Community Purpose facility and coffee shop in Building 6, central check-in for Buildings 7 and 8 (to include the previous entitled Medical Clinic facility location), removal of the surface pool area on the north side of Building 8 for a loading/unloading area, an increase of the condominium units in Buildings 7 and 8 from 35 to 41 units, including the introduction of a minimum of 11 fractional units and the relocated 5 units from Building 6 to an additional level on Buildings 7 and 8, and the relocation of two employee units in Building 8 to Building 7 to increase the employee units in that structure to 4 units, also to be known as a portion of Phase 2 of the project; Lot 6 with a proposed combination of existing Lots 4 and 6 to accommodate a re- design and orientation of Buildings 10AB, as modified by the accepted September 2, 2015 First Amendment, with one and one-half below -grade parking levels with approximately 141 spaces, including 23 extra contingency spots above the parking requirement, the addition of 20 actual condominium units increasing the unit count from 90 to 110, together with needed variations and development parameters for current Lot 4 in particular, and the incorporation of additional commercial space of approximately 6,081 square feet near the northeast corner of Building 10AB; Lot 5 proposing a reduction of wholly owned condominium units from 50 to 25 larger -sized units within the same floor area of Building 11 and reducing the number of parking levels from two to one with 32 parking stalls; Lot 7 proposing a reduction of wholly owned units from 41 to 20 larger -sized units within the same floor area of Building 12 and maintaining the one -level undergrounding parking level of 37 parking stalls; Lot 8 planned for Building 13B proposing a reduction in the number of wholly owned condominium units from 67 to 49 larger -sized units as well as a reduction in the number of employee units from 8 to 7; and modification of the P1 level to incorporate a kids play space; and Lot 9 retaining the entitled hotel in Building 13A of 152 wholly owned condominium lodge units (reduced to 151 units by Planning Director Record of Decision #41 dated September 8, 2015) and two employee units, retaining the existing two-level parking facility of 206 spaces, subject to the Applicant's right to request an amendment; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plan application also proposes variation requests, as modified by the accepted September 2, 2015 Amendment, from required "Mixed -Use -2" Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 3 of 27 zone district standards and/or the existing PUD standards involving, a) an increase in the project's maximum buildout/unit equivalency from 394.35 to 416.75 UE, b) increases in the maximum Floor Area Ratio variations on Lots 2, 3, 6 (combined with current Lot 4) and Lot 8, c) modified variations to the minimum Lot Size requirements on Lots 3 and 6, and d) height variation and increases in the building heights up to one story for Buildings 7 and 8 and for Building 10AB, according to the existing PUD standards, on existing Lot 4 exceeding the established height limit of 38 feet in the underlying "MU -2" zone district; and WHEREAS, a joint Town Council and Planning Commission meeting was held on June 24, 2015 to primarily hear a presentation by the Applicant of the proposed Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan application and to begin discussions regarding the directives for review to be provided to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16A -5-50(a)(1) of the Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code ("Municipal Code"), Town Council passed Resolution No. 22, Series of 2015, on July 6, 2015 granting the Applicant's request for, a) accepting computer generated three dimensional imagery in place of block models, and b) deferring condominium association documents until the Final PUD submission, thus allowing the application to be deemed complete; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16A -5-340(d) of the Municipal Code, Town Council passed Resolution No. 23, Series of 2015, on July 6, 2015 to outline directives for the purpose of identifying the specific components within the application, including project elements, specific areas of the Municipal Code or core issues, that the Planning Commission should focus upon during the course of its review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission provided its recommendations to the Town Council on the relative core issues in Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 05, 06 and 08, Series of 2015; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2015 a public hearing notice for the initial Town Council hearing on August 3, 2015 was printed in the Snowmass Sun, and the Applicant submitted signed affidavits regarding the mailing and posting of the public hearing notice pursuant to Section 16A-5-60, `Notice of public hearing' in the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held public hearings to review the Preliminary Plan application on August 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31, 2015 and September 8, 15, 21, and 28, 2015 at which meetings it heard a presentation by the Applicant on the scheduled core issues or topics, heard the recommendations of the Town Staff, reviewed the application, considered comments from the public, Town departments, referral agencies or districts, and reviewed and acted upon this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a First Amendment dated September 2, 2015, incorporated by reference, to the Preliminary Plan application which was Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 4 of 27 presented to the Town Council at a continued public hearing on September 8, 2014 at which time the Town Council accepted the amendment without remand to the Planning Commission and allowed the application to proceed for review by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Amendment, in summary, proposed an enhanced front fa+ ade entrance to Building 7 (Arrival Center), a revised Building 10AB site arrangement (on proposed combined Lots 4 and 6) creating a larger 30 -foot setback buffer from Wood Road, a widened pedestrian trail connection to 40 feet between the buildings, reconfigured mass and scale, a maximum height change elevation to 8501 (for Building 10B), three additional garage parking spaces, accommodations for solid waste removal, deck space and storage for employee units (in the garage); and WHEREAS, the variation changes in association with the First Amendment include increasing the unit equivalency by 0.2 UE while maintaining the proposed maximum buildout/UE for the project at 416.75 UE by reducing the banked amount from 5.75 to 5.55 UE; increasing the proposed FAR Variation on Lot 6 from 2.07:1 to 2.11:1 up to 2.12:1; and modifying the proposed height on Building 10B on existing Lot 4 up to an elevation of 8501; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a Second Amendment dated September 22, 2015 to the Preliminary Plan application to update its community purpose offerings in response to the Town Council continued hearing and meeting discussions on September 21, 2015. The Second Amendment was presented to the Town Council at a continued public hearing on September 28, 2015 at which time the Town Council did not allow the amendment; and WHEREAS, the Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan application was processed pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 16A-5-390, 'Amendment of Final PUD,' Section 16A-5-300 "Purpose; overview; general restrictions,' Section 16A-5- 310 'Review standards,' Section 16A-5-340, `Preliminary plan,' and Section 16A -5- 340(k), 'Amendment,'of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Findings. The Town Council generally finds for a Preliminary Plan level of review that: Application material sufficiency. The Applicant has submitted sufhclent information pursuant to Section 16A-5340 of the Municipal Code, including the extraneous submission items (proposed amended development agreements) not necessary for a Preliminary Plan level of review, to permit the Town Staff, Planning Commission and Town Council an adequate review of the proposed Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan application„ as amended on September 2, 2015. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 5 of 27 2. Public Hearing Notices. The Applicant met the minimum public hearing notice requirements outlined in Section 16A-5-60, "Notice of public hearing' in the Municipal Code. 3. Conformance with Municipal Code Requirements. Except with respect to the notable items for a Preliminary Plan level of review described in Section Two below, relative to the core issues involving transportation, unit/commercial mix, architecture, site design, employee housing, project phasing, construction management plan, proposed variations and the offered community purposes, the application is in compliance with Section 16A -5-300(c), `General Restrictions,' and Section 16A-5-310, `Review Standards,' of the Municipal Code. Section Two; Specific Findings related to core issues. For a Preliminary level of review, and subject to the Applicant implementing the conditions in Section Four of this resolution, the Town Council more specifically finds that: Road standards, circulation, transit. There remain problematic pedestrian safety, traffic conflicts and poor level of service turning movement functions along Lower Carriage Way and Wood Road intersections that require further mitigation as part of the phased development and must be addressed more definitively with the submission of a Final PUD application. 2. Snowmass Village is experiencing extraordinary transit ridership demand during peak periods during the winter season. There is increased transit ridership, in particular on RFTA buses, which are nearing or exceeding capacity especially during peak periods and at a time when the Base Village is only one-third complete and not fully built out. The remaining development will likely generate more employees and transit ridership demands in the future. 3. RFTA's "Future Service Planning" improvements is a viable interim solution for winter 2015/16 to service increased peak hour transit ridership demands as well as the future service needs (when Lots 2 and 3 are completed), subject to funding availability as further described in Attachment "A" of RFTA's page 13 presentation to the Town Council at their continued public hearing on August 10, 2015. Parking. 1. The proposed new parking rate of 0.5 parking space per hotel unit for Building 5 on Lot 2 appears adequately justified and acceptable considering the satisfactory reallocation of the parking by use within the constrained, finite supply of the parking stalls provided within the three-level main parking garage beneath Lots 2 and 3 subject to certain contingency parking arrangements being accounted for Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Rase Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 6 of 27 east of the ski -back trail and documented in an updated Parking Management Plan. 2. The reduction of units in Buildings 11 and 12 with larger -sized units in particular considering these structures are single -use buildings with separate check -ins and underground parking facilities, together with the reprogramming for additional and larger -sized units in Building 10AB, appear to warrant at minimum a 1:1 parking ratio per unit for Buildings 11 and 12 and a minimum of 0.75:1 for Building 10ab, with any remaining spaces that should be reallocated, reserved and documented for contingency parking purposes for the project as a whole. Pedestrian connections and trails. 1. Overall pedestrian safety, circulation, connections, convenience and other options should continue to be explored for employees, visitors 1 guests and residents to and from Base Village. Unit Mix. 1. Even with the proposed increase of larger -sized units, the bedroom to unit ratio increase from 1.78 to 1.83 demonstrates that most of the units in Base Village are still considered "high occupancy turnover" (H.O.T.') beds, which is acceptable in light of the current market demand. Commercial Mix (Retail f F&B). 1. It is important to increase the yield to maximize retail 1 Food & Beverage sales and sales tax. Reducing the spending leakage should be the goal, and the proposed plaza space framed with commercial and nonresidential buildings that provide all day vitality should assist in reducing the leakage. The Town's economic consultant, EPS, represented that the dollars exist to support additional commercial. The overabundance of commercial that may dilute sales is not desired, but critical mass is important to achieve as well, including the diversity of the commercial/retail mix. Building 6 is an appropriate location for uses that encourage vitality. Employee Housing. 1. The Applicant satisfactorily represented that the municipal code's restricted housing standards are being met and that the Exhibit `A' table of mitigation formulas and provisions are consistent with the framework of allocations, provisions and credits within past restricted housing agreements. 2. The Applicant sufficiently and acceptably represented that the private amenity spaces for the buildings, in particular the larger amenity spaces in Building 8, are unmanned and self-serving with the exception of the spa space in Building 13A. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment. Preliminary Plan - Page 7 of 27 Mass and Scale. 1. Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(2) and 16A -4-340(a, b and c), the proposed changes to the buildings, in particular Buildings 7 and 8 on Lot 3 and the modified Building 10AB per the Amendment dated September 2, 2015 on proposed combined Lot 6 (with existing Lot 4) remain consistent with the review criteria because the revisions, a) still preserve the Town as a unique mountain setting, b) do not dominate the natural environment and features, c) the structures are designed so they do not overwhelm the surrounding mountain environment, and d) continue to remain compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and do not substantially adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. 2. Pursuant to Section 16A-4-340(c)(2)a, the height and mass of the building modifications, in particular for Buildings 7, 8 and the modified 10AB per the September 2, 2015 Amendment, continue to relate to the prevailing scale, form and proportion of surrounding buildings, to avoid overwhelming or dominating the existing character of the area. 3. The increase in height for Buildings 7 and 8 require modified height variations not previously requested or specified in earlier entitlements or with the Sketch Plan review. These modified height variations trigger exceptional and special circumstances and community purpose offerings pursuant to the municipal code, as satisfactorily described in the application and its amendments. Architecture. 1. Pursuant to Section 16A-4-340(2), the buildings appear mostly designed to create design articulation with offsets and projections to avoid creating a "wall" or "`row" effect with buildings situated on the site so their longest frontages are not on their most visible sides. The human scale, mechanical equipment screening, building material authenticity, and the proper climate/solar orientation appear to have been achieved. 2. Pursuant to Section 16A -4-340(c)(5), the buildings, in particular the revisions to Buildings 7 and 8 on Lot 3 as well as the rearrangement of Building 10AB appears oriented to take advantage of views and view corridors. Buildings 7, 8 and 10B should preserve to an acceptable level important sight lines, overlooks and landmarks as viewed from public roadways, other public spaces, and as viewed from neighboring developments. Site Planning, Landscaping, Open Space, Utilities. 1. The minimum 25 percent open space requirement on each lot is acceptably being met. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 8 of 27 2. The landscape and planting plans appear to sufficiently buffer the uses from one another both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding lands to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts and creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas which are consistent with the character of the Town. 3. With the proposed extension of Building 10AB onto existing Lot 4 (or proposed combination with Lot 6), variations from maximum F.A.R., minimum lot size, buildout/unit equivalency and maximum height are being sought on Lot 4, as modified by the accepted September 2, 2015 Amendment, where variations were not needed before, either with previous entitlements or during the Sketch Plan review. The municipal code's variation standards have been evaluated at a preliminary plan level which trigger unique and exceptional circumstances, exceeding the PUD review criteria, and community purposes for the new variations proposed. 4. There continue to remain outstanding issues regarding the timing and completion of appropriate easement grants on the property. 5. Convenient pedestrian circulation and connectivity is a goal within the project as well as connection to neighboring properties and the community as a whole. 6. The Applicant acceptably represented that the proposed Lot 2 Plaza area community purpose would be designed for multi -seasonal and multi-purpose events owned, controlled and operated by the Master Association, and that a Use Agreement with the Town similar to the Fanny Hill Events Lawn operations would be entered into. Project Phasing. 1. The project phasing brought ongoing public interests and desires that the Applicant install, a) the employee housing, b) contingency parking, c) commercial square footage, d) trail connections, e) shared private pool amenity also for use by the Base Village Phase 1 owners, f) the bus pull out areas, and g) the public improvements, as soon as practical east of the ski -back trail. The Applicant shall be allowed to proceed on their own phasing schedule, for subsequent phases, considering the anticipated construction staging constraints. The Applicant's proposed project phasing schedule is found to be acceptable. Construction Management /Flan. 1. The master CMP appears acceptable overall for a preliminary plan level of review, but the proposal lacks a framework for a reasonable restoration and/or remediation contingency plan to mitigate impacts resulting from any potential Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 9 of 27 extended interruption of construction affecting the community as a whole, of which financial security is necessary to ensure implementation of the plan. Utilities. The Snowmass Water and Sanitation District indicated that pursuant to a Base Village Water & Facilities Agreement dated September 27, 2005 (the "Line Extension Agreement"), Applicant is obligated to provide permanent public utility easements to the Snowmass Water & Sanitation District ("SWSD"), in a form acceptable to SWSD, for all public water and sewer infrastructure constructed to serve Base Village that was not located within easements previously dedicated to SWSD. The SWSD represented that although the infrastructure has been completed, Applicant has yet to provide all required utility easements to SWSD. Additionally, pursuant to an Improvements Agreement (Sewer and Water Line Upgrades) dated August 30, 2013 (the "Improvements Agreement"), with the exception of Building 13B, the Applicant is not entitled to any further or future connections to SWSD's public water or sewer systems until the portion of an existing waterline that was installed by the Applicant along Brush Creek Road between Lower Kearns Road and Upper Kearns Road at a depth of less than eight (8) feet (the "Substandard Waterline Section") is brought into compliance with SWSD's standards (which require a depth of at least 8 feet). General Restrictions (Sec. 16A -5-300(c)): Buildout/Unit Equivalency Variation. The proposed UE/Buildout for a preliminary plan level of review and the adequacy of 'High -Occupancy Turnover' Beds including the 20 additional actual units in Building 10AB (which UE was increased by 0.2 UE by the September 2, 2015 Amendment), and the 22.4 UE increase project -wide from 394.35 to 416.75 UE, mainly for the less in number but larger -sized units east of the ski -back trail, seems amenable. This includes 2.15 UE applied to the reprogramming on Lots 2 and 3 as well as a 5.55 UE bank for future proposal via the September 2, 2015 Amendment. Per the code, exceeding buildout limits by more than 100 percent requires unique and exceptional circumstances as well as the PUD exceeding the review standards, such as a) completion of the Base Village will help achieve the Town's aspirations to become the leading multi -season, family-oriented inclusive mountain resort community, b) improving the quality of life and economic vitality, c) exceeding the open space requirements, and d) providing a new pedestrian connection in front of Building 7, as described on page 51 of the Applicant's application supplement dated June 29, 2015. The code requires a super -majority vote by the Town Council for the modified buildout/UE variation at the time of Final PUD ordinance. Also, the additional units equate to approximately one unit equivalent on average, thus retaining a "H.O.T. Bed" component. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 10 of 27 2. The variation request for additional buildout requires by code a community purpose, which is economic sustainability based per the application. Town Council finds that the economic sustainability should address the proper mix and balance of residential and retail/FSB uses. 3. As further modified by the September 2, 2015 Amendment, the proposed Building 10AB reorientation, configuration, density and the mass/scale expansion onto existing Lot 4 and the effects of new variations needed from the development parameters for this request, which were proposed but not sufficiently described with the Sketch Plan review, require additional community purpose offerings, in particular since no variations were needed previously for existing Lot 4 with the original approval in 2004. Dimensional Limitations Variations. 1. Maximum allowable height: a) Building 5 — The proposed roof form changes maintaining a maximum height elevation of 8504 at the center highest roof pitch measured 92 feet above prior existing grade, remains acceptable as the overall height does not change; b) Building 7 — With the relocated units from Building 6, the additional level adds over 10 feet up to elevation 8481.3, 98.0 feet above prior existing grade and 88.5 feet above finished grade measured at the front entry gable of the building; c) Building 8 — Also with the relocated units from Building 6, there is a proposed additional three (3) feet up to elevation 8491.2 to 113.2 feet from prior existing grade at the highest centrally located roof pitch; the roof pitch closest to Wood Road increases by 8.5 feet up to elevation 8485.5 or 115.5 feet above prior existing grade and 91.5 from current finished grade; d) Building IOAB - The highest roof form on Building 10A on existing Lot 6 is being reduced by three (3) feet to elevation 8501 measured 87 feet above prior existing grade; Building 10B's extension and expansion onto existing Lot 4 needs a height variance to elevation 8493.4 measured 70.4 feet above prior existing grade as further modified up to elevation 8501 by the September 2, 2015 Amendment, since Lot 4 is currently limited to 38 feet in height; The mass and scale of Building 10AB is being spread over onto existing Lot 4, but in relation to Building 10A on existing Lot 6 it is being lowered from three (3) feet to up to 20 feet (an average lowering of approximately eight (8) feet). As further modified by the September 2, 2015 Amendment, and following evaluation of the view simulations, before and after building elevations and the computerized imagery, these height variation changes appear acceptable for a preliminary plan level of review, provided sufficient community purposes and/or improved designs are offered. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 11 of 27 The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that, a) the effect of the mass and scale of the modified buildings does not substantially adversely affect adjacent properties, b) the provision of a new Building 6 as an essential and necessary community purpose for ownership by the Town is an exceptional and special circumstance to justify the height variations in particular for Buildings 7 and 8, c) the proposed structures will be compatible, in terms of height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration, with other structures in the PUD and with adjacent structures, and d) the granting of the variations would assist in achieving the community purposes. Ridgeline protection standards (Review Standards, Sec. 96A-5-390). The municipal code's ridgeline protection provisions do not apply to Base Village. The Base Village site is not located within a ridgeline protection area. It is instead positioned at the bottom of the hill near the Brush Creek valley. 2. Minimum open space: The minimum 25 percent open space requirement on each lot is acceptably being met or exceeded. 3. Maximum allowable floor area.- Lot rea: Lot 2 — The application proposes a floor area increase of 1,496 square feet from 115,624 to 117,120 square feet (for Buildings 4AB and 5) which in return would vary the maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) from 1.68:1 to 1.71:1 on Lot 2. The affected lot area of 1.58 acres or 68,824 square feet remains unchanged. Lot 3 — With the five previously planned units in Building 6 being relocated to Buildings 7 and 8, and despite the reduction in floor area in Building 6 (from 17,177 to 9,741 square feet) for a proposed community purpose facility, the applicant requests a variation to exceed the previously established floor area on Lot 3 from 142,544 to 149,273 square feet resulting in an increase in the maximum F.A.R. by 4.7 percent from 1.321 to 1.39:1, The affected lot area of 2.481 acres of 108,072 square feet remains unchanged, Lots 4 and 6 - The maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) set by the updated Final PUD Guide per Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2007, is 0.13:1 for Lot 4 and 2.07:1 for Lot 6. With the extension and expansion of the development or density from Lot 6 onto Lot 4, the total floor area in Buildings 10AB increases from 118,400 to 185,868 square feet, as further increased in Building 10B by 1,982 square feet to 187,850 square feet by the September 2, 2015 Amendment. The proposed combined lot will contain 2.034 acres or 88,601 square feet, meaning that the F.A.R. calculates to a requested 2.12:1, as proposed in the September 2, 2015 Amendment. Lots 5 and 7 — While the number of units is being decreased with an increase in larger -sized units in Buildings 11 and 12 on Lots 5 and 7, the residential floor Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page fit of 27 area remains generally the same, the mass, scale and heights of these buildings do not change, and a variation from the minimum lot size standard is not required. With the larger sized units proposed, the unit equivalency / buildout calculation increases for Building 11 from 28.95 to 35.4 UE and from 24.0 to 30.05 UE for Building 12. Lot 8 - The Building 13B floor area would increase approximately 1,500 square feet for an added lower level play area next to the parking garage, and the calculable F.A.R. would increase from 1.80:1 approved in Ordinance 6, 2013 to 1.83:1. These F.A.R. modifications for the affected lots and the change in the calculated Maximum F.A.R. for the project as a whole from the entitled gross building area of 1,018,496 square feet with an overall F.A.R. of 1.22:1 to the proposed gross building area of 1,092,040 square feet (as increased by 1,982 square feet via the September 2, 2015 Amendment) calculating to an overall floor area increase of 75,544 square feet and a cumulative proposed F.A.R. of 1.31:1 on the developable site area of approximately 19.1 acres, results in an approximate seven percent (7%) increase for the project measured by F.A.R., which is visually imperceptible as a whole and therefore will be acceptable provided sufficient community purposes are offered. 4. Minimum area of lots: Lot 2. With the proposed conversion of 57 condominium units to 102 hotel units and 15 condominium units with an overall reduction of 33 bedrooms (not including the hotel units), Lot 2's minimum lot size standard would reduce, with the interpretation that hotel units are not considered dwelling units (i.e., "exclusively for residential occupancy" per the municipal code definitions). Lot 3. With the conversion of Building 6 into a proposed community purpose facility together with the relocation of its units, Buildings 7 and 8's total number of units would increase from 35 to 41 larger -sized units thus increasing the number of bedrooms from 77 to 133. This would calculate to a required minimum lot size of 110,500 square feet or 2.54 acres where 2.481 acres or 108,072 square feet exists as platted for Lot 3. Lots 4 and 6 (combined). For the proposed combined lot area of 2.034 acres or 88,601 square feet, the proposed expansion of Building 10AB from 90 to 110 units and from 184 to 211 bedrooms, which would not change as a result of the September 2, 2015 Amendment, would calculate to a required minimum lot size of 218,500 square feet or 5.02 acres. Lots 5 7 and 8 — While the number of units is being decreased but with larger - sized units in Buildings 11, 12 and 13B on Lots 5, 7 and 8, respectively, the residential floor area remains generally the same, the mass, scale and heights of Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 13 of 27 these buildings do not change, and a variation from the minimum lot size standard is not required. With the larger sized units proposed, the unit equivalency f buildout calculation increases for Buildings 11 from 25.95 to 35.4 UE and from 24.0 to 34.05 UE for Building 12. Considering the minimum lot size standards applied as a whole, the requested variations will be acceptable, provided sufficient community purposes are offered. 5. Minimum setbacks for buildings: The application proposes to modify the building setbacks, but when comparing the before and after setback maps, most of the setback dimensions remain similar except for some modifications, including the larger 30 -foot setback from Wood Road for reoriented Building 10B in the September 2, 2015 Amendment, which appear acceptable as there are no minimum setback standards listed for the underlying `MU -2' zoning district, and the PUD per the municipal code is allowed to establish the setback dimensions. Community Purpose Offerings. 1. The Applicant proposed a Second Amendment dated September 22, 2015 updating its community purpose offerings, which was not allowed. The Applicant has stated that the community purpose offerings are intended to be applied globally for all the variations proposed in the application. 2. The Town Council finds as follows regarding the proposed Community Purpose offerings: a) The total Community Purpose package proposed by the Applicant is not sufficient to justify all of the variations proposed, in particular the new variations proposed on existing Lot 4 (to be combined with Lot 6) due to the proposed extension and expansion of Building 10AB onto that property that previously did not require variation under the original approval in 2004. b) The proposed Lot 2 Plaza area and the shell of Building 6 for a Community Purpose facility is a favorable option, considering that the existing infrastructure, structural foundations and platform have been already installed. c) Building 6 seems appropriate for Lot 3 as it assists in framing the important outdoor people spaces and augments the adjacent plaza area on Lot 2. d) The provision of additional employee housing is an ongoing concern. e) A cash contribution for community purposes should also be offered. f) The provision of additional retail in the core is an ongoing concern. Other PUD Amendment Criteria (Sec. 96A-5-390(3)): Viewed as a whole, and subject to the conditions in Section Four below, there are many aspects of the proposed PUD Amendment, as further modified by the September 2, 2015 Amendment, that are consistent with the original Base Village Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 14 of 27 PUD project, but in the end, it is mostly an enhancement of the original PUD approval. 2. The proposed PUD Amendment, as further modified on September 2, 2015, as a whole does not have a substantially adverse effect on the neighborhoods surrounding the land where the amendment is proposed, or has a substantially adverse impact on the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street from the subject property. 3. The proposed amendment, as further modified on September 2, 2015, does not change the basic character of the PUD or surrounding areas. 4. The proposed PUD Amendment, as further modified on September 2, 2015, is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Section Three. Action. The Town Council approves, with conditions, the Preliminary Plan application relative to the core issues and upon final review of all topic areas, hereby allows the Applicant to proceed to the Final PUD stage, without referral to the Planning Commission for review, subject to implementing the conditions in Section Four below. Section Four: Conditions of Approval. The Town Council approves the following conditions that shall be implemented by the Applicant and addressed with the Final PUD application: Intersection Improvements: The Applicant shall deliver an acceptable agreement with the Final PUD application for consideration that shall include the following elements, which will be further refined to include baseline and threshold standards for subsequent measurement and evaluation purposes by the Town, generally as follows: a) The provision of the construction and delivery of a mini -roundabout or other physical/engineered improvement that provides an overall LDS C at the Wood/Lower Carriage Way intersection, outlining a stepped approach that includes the following components in order: j. As an interim initial condition and prior to the roundabout improvements at the Brush Creek Road/Wood Road/Upper Kearns Road intersection, the Applicant shall provide the total of two offered traffic control officers at the Treehouse and Wood/Carriage Way. The Town will add a stop sign, supplemental 2 -way stop panel, and stop bar to the northbound approach of Wood Road, as approved by the Town Engineer, to be installed prior to the 2015-16 winter season. Ongoing monitoring of the traffic, stacking and its impacts shall occur before and after both the installation of the `initial interim conditions' at Lower Carriage Way 1 Wood Road and the roundabout at Brush Creek Road/Wood Road/Upper Kearns Road intersections. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2075 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 15 of 27 ii. The agreement shall include standards for measurement such as identifying the acceptable performance levels, peak period time frames, traffic movements, counts and maximum queue lengths, affected access points, sight distance, measurement tools or devices, acceptable alternative C permanent intersection designs, deadlines for design plans, future financial security for traffic control measures and intersection improvements at Lower Carriage Way and Wood Road, if it is determined that the interim intersection improvements fail. 2. Final 90 percent design plans for the Roundabout at Brush Creek/Kearns Road shall be provided as part of the Final PUD submission. Construction on the intersection improvements shall begin in accordance with or as defined within the approval documents or agreements to date. Parking Enforcement; The Parking Management Plan (PMP) shall document the maximum membership cap of 228 and a maximum of 57 spaces for the Snowmass Mountain Club including how that limit would be enforced during the winter season and that any overflow vehicles be directed off site but not to the Town public parking lots in West Village. 2. That parking for Snowmass Mountain Club (SMC) members shall be managed and enforced by one owner/operator/entity to ensure that only the 57 designated SMC spaces are used and not allow club members to park in the residential spaces. The hotel operator (if different than ASC) shall have an agreement with ASG, or its assigns, that the SMC spaces are available during the summer for overflow parking for hotel guests. 3. The PMP shall add back in a separate section the Base Village shuttle management program or similar alternative to encourage visitors not to rent vehicles for use while visiting Snowmass Village. 4. All Base Village employers, per the PMP, shall provide subsidized transit bus passes for all Base Village employees consistent with the alternative parking criteria in the Municipal Code. 5. The parking rate of 0.5 spaces per unit for the proposed Limelight Hotel is acceptable, provided that any excess in parking demand be adequately managed by one owner/operator/entity on private property. 6. The Applicant shall explore the possibility of relocating and redistributing the required amount of accessible parking spaces with the Final PUD submission and updating the PMP in efforts to create additional regular spaces for residential uses in particular on the P2 Level. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 16 of 27 7. The structural support columns in the parking garage shall be color -coded and properly signed to clearly show the segmented sections by usage. 8. The updated PMP with the submission of the Final PUD shall also include the following provisions: a) Inclusion of the enforcement provisions to be administered and enforced by the operator/entity of the main Base Village parking garage, including the allowance for violation notices and penalties for noncompliance or lack of enforcement; b) Inclusion of enforcement provisions to be administered and enforced by the individual operators/entities for buildings east of the ski -back trail in regard to the reservation, availability and provision of the contingency parking spaces; c) A provision that if there is a reduction or increase in the demand of parking for a particular use, the allocation between any use, as requested by either the owner or the Town, could be modified for future consideration by the Town Council; and d) Valet parking provisions to park in the contingency parking spaces provided at Buildings 1 OAB (Lot 6), 11 (Lot 5) and 12 (Lot 7). 9. If construction worker parking is to be provided at the Intercept lot, the applicant shall provide approval from the Aspen Parking Department, or entity which manages that lot, and shall provide alternative private transit for workers. 10. The Parking Management. Plan with the Final PUD shall apply to all garage owners. Parking Contingency Overflow On -Site: 1. As a prudent safety valve considering the multiple uses utilizing the constrained, finite main parking structure, the PMP shall add back the contingency parking provisions in the buildings east of the ski -back trail and the shared arrangement project -wide as well as the inclusion of a separate umbrella and shared cross - parking agreement among all the lots in Base Village to include as follows: a) That the applicant shall be allowed to provide parking under Building 10AB on Lot 6 of 141 parking spaces meeting the 0.75 parking rate per residential condominium unit, one space for each employee unit, also accounting for the commercial parking requirements as well as the inclusion of the 23 additional contingency parking spaces, as proposed in the Preliminary Plan application; and b) That the applicant provide the second P2 parking level with 33 parking spaces in proposed Building 11 on Lot 5; or Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 17 of 27 c) That if the Applicant is able to adequately demonstrate, through daily parking monitoring data to the satisfaction of the Town, that the additional parking that would otherwise be provided in P2 of Building 11 is not needed to satisfy the overall needs of the Base Village Phase 1 and 2 development, then this requirement for additional parking may be administratively removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for Building 11; and d) Whichever b) or c) scenario above is subsequently accepted and employed above, any remaining contingency parking below Buildings 1OAB, 11 and 12 [either: a) 23, 7 and 17, respectively, equaling 47 total contingency spaces; or b) 23, 40 and 17, respectively, equaling 80 total contingency spaces — per Item la above], shall be covered under a comprehensive cross access and parking agreement for the PUD in addition to including such contingency parking provisions into the project's Parking Management Plan, as it documents the management and control of the parking for the Base Village project as a whole. 2. Overflow parking shall be mitigated on site in future Buildings 1OAB, 11 and 12 as outlined above. No parking permits for the Town lots (Numbered and Alphabetized lots or Rodeo lot) will be issued to residents, employees or guests of the proposed Base Village development. Parking Contingency Off -Site: 1. Base Village employees shall not be allowed to park at the Rodeo Lot, and off- site parking shall be limited to the Highway 82 Intercept Lot or private lots as previously provided in the PMP. Overflow parking demand from the entire Base Village project, including but not limited to the Limelight Hotel and the Mountain Club, shall be prohibited from utilizing the Town public parking lots. 2. The Applicant shall provide at the time of Final PUD application submission written verification from the Aspen Parking Department or affected management entity documenting the acceptance for the use of the Highway 82 Intercept Lot to accommodate overflow parking demands in Base Village during peak times. 3. The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) shall attempt to amend its Administrative Modification agreement with the Town regarding the use of the Black Saddle Parking lot to include the Limelight Hotel and Mountain Club employees (whether owned by ASC or some other ownership) who must utilize the remote lot per the PMP, and complete such action prior to issuance of a building permit for Building 5. Aspen Skiing Company and Limelight employees shall not be allowed to park at the Rodeo Lot during the ski season. Parking Traffic Control: Town Council Resolution No. 25, series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary flan - Page 18 of 27 1. The commercial valet and check-in vehicular functions for Buildings 7 and S and all ingress and egress functions of the garage shall be monitored by the applicant and Town to minimize traffic conflicts near the garage entry. The Town shall have the authority to require the applicant to make any necessary changes in the form of travel lane or turning movement striping, signage, median modifications, and/or pedestrian connections/crosswalks to this area should it be determined that alternative traffic/transportation movements would improve traffic/circulation flow in and out of the garage and transit center. Parking Miscellaneous: 1. The entry garage to the clinic parking area shall satisfy the tenant, which is expected to be Aspen Valley Hospital. 2. The Applicant shall address with the Final PUD submission back of house operations, deliveries and access to transport solid waste off-site for all buildings, meeting the Town's truck turning radius and height clearance standards, so as not to affect parking numbers, to the satisfaction of the Town. 3. The applicant shall incorporate at minimum in the updated PMP at Final PUD a private car -sharing program for the main parking garage for use by commercial businesses, residents and guests, and the employees in the Base Village project. Roadways, Pedestrian circulation, escalators, transit: 1. Final 90 percent civil design plans and details for the Upper Wood Road infrastructure shall be submitted in accordance with and as defined in the approved documents or agreements in place that shall include the following information: a) delineation of pedestrian crosswalks and connections from new bus pullout areas overall within the public rights-of-way connecting to the private walkway system within the Base Village; and b) further detail on the sight distance for the entrances, pedestrian crossing points and fire vehicle / bus stop locations off of Wood Road between Buildings 12/13B and Building 1QAB. This includes site distance triangles, road profile sections, and geometric design details. 2. The Applicant shall provide additional snowmelt on Wood Road and adjacent sidewalk up to and including the medical clinic entrance and emergency vehicle area from the bridge over the ski back trail west to the existing system that currently terminates near the parking garage entrance. 3. The Applicant shall submit an updated snow management plan at Final PUD submission to ensure there is sufficient area available for snow storage. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 19 of 27 4. All construction workers shall be required to utilize car-pools or private shuttle services from Highway 82 Intercept Lot versus the public transportation system during high demand, peak hours, which shall be more specifically defined in the CMP as to what constitutes high demand, peak hours. This requirement shall be incorporated into the construction management plan for conformance purposes. 5. In lieu of the Applicant submitting plans for a second escalator for the Transit Center to the Village Level pursuant to the provisions in the "Building 7 Essential Public Facility" Development Agreement as referenced in Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2009, approved February 17, 2009 for a Minor PUD Amendment to Building 8, the Applicant shall provide the following elements or components as alternative solutions: a. Use of a second elevator and the existing stairway for use by the general public from the Arrival Center area to the Village level only as well; b. Additional internal way -finding signs to all vertical circulation facilities, to also include accessible routes and medical clinic access information; c. The manning of the entry areas at both the top and/or bottom levels during the operation of the existing escalator during peak times to provide improved customer -friendly assistance. Until Building 7 is fully operational, the Applicant shall use Ambassadors to man these locations; d. The speeding up of both of the elevators to their maximum speed, operating 2417 and managed to provide maximum capability; and e. Improvements to the stairwell that will include, as a minimum, paint, murals and improved lighting. 6. The affected bus bays in the Transit Center shall be modified with the submission of the Final PUD to show adequate width, spacing and separation between the curb and the existing structural support columns to allow for proper clearance of bus appurtenances. 7. The Applicant and the Town shall work together with other interested parties to explore feasible alternatives to improving/enhancing the connectivity between the Mall and Base Village. 8. The Applicant shall re -grant a realigned trail easement from Upper Wood Road through combined Lots 4 and 6 at the time of the concurrent submission of the plat amendment and the Final PUD involving the proposed combination of Lots 4 and 6. 9. The pedestrian surface connection between Lots 4 and 6 from the Enclave Condominiums shall be a minimum of 8' wide, snowmelted and lighted in order for it to be publicly accessible 24/71365 with the building spacing at 40 feet in width per the September 2, 2015 Amendment. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 20 of 27 10. Plans for an improved pedestrian connection between Lot 6 (Buildings 10AB) and Lot 2 (Limelight Hotel) complying with Municipal Code standards shall be provided as part of the Final PUD submittal in order to provide better access to the majority of the Base Village commercial core area. 11. The staircase from Building 7 to the intersection of Carriage Way and Wood Road shall be designed to a "World-class" level defined as being more direct, grander, wider and snowmelted to allow for side by side pedestrians to walk up and down the stairway carrying skis and backpacks. 12. Any easements needed on the Base Village site for the future aerial connection and/or alternative connectors to the Snowmass Center/Point site area and to the adjoining public rights-of-way, shall be subsequently granted and addressed in an updated Subdivision Improvement Agreement as well as shown on the amended Final Plat. 13. The applicant shall update the sign plan for consistency with the previous Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP) standards regarding advertising, way -finding and public realm signs relative to Phases 2 through 5 for review, acceptance and installation prior to the issuance of C.O.'s for buildings within each phase. External and internal directional and informational signs shall include accessible routes and medical clinic access information. The updates or amendment to the CSP once submitted shall be reviewed and processed administratively by Town Staff. 14. The applicant shall provide an interim and final accessibility plan for the intended built project with the Final PUD application. Unit Mix: The PUD Guide with the Final PUD application shall be modified to: a. Permit fractional units as an allowed use in Buildings 1 OAB and 12 similar to that proposed for Buildings 7, 8 and 11, subject to the restrictions in the Planning Director administrative consideration provisions; b. Allow changes to the number of fractional units up or down by 5 units to be administratively approved by the Planning Director, similar to the parameter for multi -family units. Increases or decreases in fractional units in excess of five (5) units shall require Town Council approval; and c. Include modifications to the Building 6 development parameters on Lot 3 to the benefit and satisfaction of the Town. Air Quality: 1. The Applicant shall demonstrate there is adequate capacity in the garage air handling system to accommodate idling vehicles and ambulances with the Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 21 of 27 submission of the Final PUD application and with subsequent building permit construction plans to demonstrate compliance with the building codes. Retail/Commercial square footage for vitality and fiscal impact: The Applicant shall provide a minimum of 68,750 square feet of retail/restaurant/entertainment (excluding all skier services space, as specified in the PUD, as well as excluding exterior seating areas and temporary vending carts) within Base Village for purposes of vitality and fiscal strength. The uses proposed for Building 6 may be counted toward the minimum square footage. Upon completion of Phase 2 and prior to Final approval for Buildings 10ab, 11 and 12, the Applicant shall conduct a fiscal impact analysis to determine whether the minimum square footage should be adjusted to ensure vitality in Base Village, and reflected in the Final PUD plans. 2. With the proposed minimum of 68,750 SF of retail/restaurant space approved, flexibility shall be provided in the Final PUD Guide to allow up to a maximum of 75,000 square feet pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan to permit more restaurant and retail as the market might dictate, subject to meeting the mitigation requirements or as determined by the Town. 3. The Base Village commercial core success shall be the primary focus, and any future commercial, beyond what is proposed and whether located in the core area or east of the ski -back trail, shall not be restricted to a specific commercial use to achieve market flexibility. 4. As part of the Final PUD application, the Commercial Covenant shall be further updated to include the future or new commercial areas, stating that commercial offices shall be prohibited in Buildings 4AB, 5, 10AB, 11, 12 and 13B in space otherwise intended to be used for retail/restaurant. Employee Housing: 1. Retain eight employee units in Building 136 as previously permitted as the current building permit remains active, or provide an alternative acceptable to the Town. 2. Each employee unit parking space shall be identified and shown in the PMP and affected drawings and signed on the site. 3. The incorporation of exterior deck spaces for the 'for -sale' employee units shall be further explored and addressed at the time of Final PUD application. 4. Correctly correlate any figures in the tables/matrices of a restricted housing agreement with the typical floor plan sizes for the affordable housing units at the time of Final PUD application. Town council Resolution No. 25, Series 2415 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 22 of 27 5. Identify and label the employee housing storage areas in the parking garage per the September 2, 2015 Amendment. Architecture; The Applicant shall address the `combustible materials on building exteriors' requirements to the satisfaction of the SWFPD at the time of Final PUD submission or at minimum prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The Final PUD architectural plans shall incorporate recesses and projections into the final building designs to the extent feasible to provide visual relief and interest and that such plans incorporate some masonry/stone treatment on all sides of the buildings for aesthetic continuity between phases, as demonstrated in the visuals presented during the public hearing process. 3. The Applicant shall address how it intends to minimize noise from events and activities that may occur in the proposed plaza area for those units facing the proposed plaza area. Site plan configuration -- including Building 10AB on Combined Lots 4 and 6, Utilities 1 Solid Waste, Grading and Drainage, Landscaping and Open Space: 1. Prior to the Town's issuance of additional building permits for each structure, all public utility easements required by the Line Extension Agreement shall be completed and submitted to SWSD, in a form and with title assurances acceptable to SWSD. At the written request of the Applicant, Town staff shall have administrative authority to defer this obligation to be a condition of issuance of certificate(s) of occupancy upon a demonstration by Applicant that it has made best efforts to diligently complete these easement obligations. At the time of any deferral request, consideration may also be given as to whether Applicant should be required to post financial security for the benefit of SWSD in order to guarantee completion of these easement dedications. 2. Prior to the Town's issuance of additional building permits for each structure east of the ski -back trail, the Substandard Waterline Section (at the Brush Creek/Wood Road intersection) shall be brought into compliance with SWSD standards unless the Improvements Agreement is amended, with the approval and in the reasonable discretion of the Town and SWSD, to allow additional water or sewer service connections within Base Village while the Substandard Waterline Section remains in place. 3. That adequate ambulance and circulation for emergency equipment and access be provided around Building 10AB to the satisfaction of the SWFPD at the time of Final PUD submission. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 23 of 27 4. An amended final plat application with a draft plat map that includes proposed lot lines and easement grants, must be provided concurrent with the Final PUD submittal and review. 5. The applicant shall address, as part of their Final PUD submittal, whether the runoff from the proposed snow melted roads discharge into the storm water system or randomly to surface receptors (drywells, lawns, etc.) and whether the existing storm water system can properly treat additional flows. 6. Public restrooms shall be incorporated into proposed Building 6 that will be accessible from the Lot 2 Plaza area and village street. 7. As agreed to by the Applicant, outdoor drinking fountains shall be noted on the Final PUD plans in the Lot 2 Plaza area for subsequent installation. 8. The plan shall address locations designed to handle the load-in/out and coordination of operations needed for special events that will be brought to Base Village. 9. 'WiFi-enable the "public" areas within the Base Village development and offer service complementary to all. 10. Modify the lighting plan to better address lighting around buildings 16A and 11 and the steps along the north side of Building 6. 11.Address how the Phase I water feature will be implemented, modified and/or replaced with plantings or hardscape with the Final PUD plans. 12. Substitute Maple, Ash, or other hardwood species for the cottonwood plant material at Final PUD submittal. 13. Pursuant to Section 16A -4-436(a)(2) of the municipal code, provisions shall be made for irrigation, when necessary, to ensure survival of plants. 14. Provide more variety of deciduous species for visual interest, including non -fruit bearing, flowering trees, such as Malus sp. and Prunus sp. 15.A streetscape features and furniture design plan shall be provided with the Final PUD application and include electrical outlets, lighting, and additional benches on the perimeter of the proposed plaza to the north of Building 4 and to the south of Building 6 as well as adjacent to the pedestrian/fire lanes. 16. Roof overhangs shall not encroach into public rights-of-way and fire lanes. 17. Include a public art placement location map with the Final PUD application. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 24 of 27 18. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Aspen Skiing Company to provide a second staircase or site work acceptable to the Town on the embankment area between the ski back trail and the base of Fanny Hill and the Base Village plaza area, generally below where the existing staircase is located between Wood Road and the ski back trail south of Base Village at Final PUD submittal. Construction Management Plan: 1. The environmental related comments shall be resolved with the Final PUD submission to ensure the individual CHIP submissions with the building permit application will be acceptable to the Town. 2. The Applicant shall provide a framework of an appropriate construction interruption or remediation plan that will require financial security consistent with the development agreement language for Phase 2 and the subsequent phases with an updated CMP at Final PUD. 3. The updated CMP submitted with the Final PUD shall include a phased accessibility route map for each affected construction period. 4. A more detailed fugitive dust control plan shall be submitted as part of the CMP approval prior to issuance of building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, in accordance with review comments, future CMPs must provide more detail in the following areas: 2.1 wetlands, 2.3 hazardous on site conditions, 2.4 cleaning of construction vehicles, 2.5 storm and sediment control, 2.7 noise, 2.9 pile driving, 2.12 air and dust management, 3.1 construction waste recycling, 3.2 material storage, 3.22 unsightly premises, and 4.8 drainage. Variations and Community Purposes: 1. As a means for the applicant to justify as a whole the new variations proposed (e.g., increased buildout/UE for overall village, modified heights on Buildings 7 and 8, and the existing Lot 4 new variations relative to buildout/UE, height, maximum F.A.R. and minimum lot size, as well as the minimum Jot size and F.A.R./maximum floor areas variations or modifications thereof on other affected lots), the Town will accept conveyance of Building 6 for Town ownership as an occupied community purpose or other space creating unique, exceptional and special circumstances exceeding PUD standards, subject to meeting the following conditions: a. That Building 6 be finished, as a minimum, to include all utility and service lines (plumbed, wired and ducted), restrooms, all fixtures and lighting for occupation purposes, but not customized for a particular tenant (to be Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 25 of 27 Valued at approximately $5 Million with the existing infrastructure improvements); b. That the Town not be bound by any leaseback to the applicant for any space within Building 6; c. That the Applicant develop architectural design programming appropriate for the Building 6 Community Purpose facility, with input from the Town; d. That the completed Building 6, following final inspections, be conveyed to the Town by December 1, 2017; e. Improvements to Lot 2 Plaza area at an approximate value of $2 Million, which will include a refrigerated ice skating system, fountains, children's play area and all improvements outlined in the Preliminary Plan with Final Design to be approved by the Town; f. Develop a shared use management plan for the Lot 2 plaza area among the Applicant 1 Master Association, the Town and the Aspen Skiing Company, ensuring that smaller events do not preclude planned larger events; g. A $500,000 cash contribution offering for use at Town's discretion relative to the improvements or tenant finishes needed for Building 6, an RFP process, public art and/or other community purpose items selected by the Town; and h. Common Area Maintenance (CAM) fees to be paid by all owners of Base Village, excluding the residential owners in Hayden Lodge (Building 1) and Capitol Peak (Building 2A, 2B & 2C), for a period of fourteen (14) years from the time of acceptance of Building 6 by the Town. Setbacks. 1. With the submission of the Final PUD design plans, the planned landscape islands, seating, conversation areas and roof overhangs shall not conflict with the granted fire lane and access easements nor encroach into the required or desired width thereof, including any dedicated public rights-of-way. 2. The note on the Setback Plan that states, "the minimum distance between all buildings shall be 25 feet, except that as between building in which the adjacent portion of either building exceeds 4 stories in height the minimum distance shall be 40 feet," shall be removed to reflect consistency with existing and proposed conditions. Miscellaneous. 1. Applicant will adequately resolve all outstanding issues identified by Staff and referral agencies with the formal submission of the Final PUD. 2. All civil drawings, site plans, landscape plans and other supplemental layout plans be consistent among each other at the time of Final PUD submission. Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 26 of 27 3. That a pool facility amenity be provided on Lot 6 (Building 1 OAB) for usage by the existing Phase 1 residential condominiums at an equitable cost, to be included with the Final PUD application. 4. Establish a marketing program acceptable to Snowmass Tourism or provide funding for proactively communicating to consumers during construction that Snowmass is open for business. 5. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding invoices related to this Preliminary Plan Amendment review in full to the Town prior to any referral, review and processing of a Final PUD Application. Section Five. 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, as amended, by the motion of Town Council Member Butler and the second of Town Council Member Madsen by a vote of 3 in favor and 0 against, on this 28'" day of September, 2015. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL G" rkey Butl r, Mayor AT Rhonda Coxon, Town Clerk Exhibits incorporated herein: Attachment "A" - RFTA's page 13 presentation to the Town Council at their continued public hearing on August 10, 2015. Exhibits incorporated by reference: Review comments from Town Departments, consultants, referral agencies and districts relative to transportation issues, including: o Memorandum from the Town's Police Department dated June 24, 2015; o Memorandum dated July 2, 2015 from the Town's Public Works Department; o Memorandum dated July 2, 2015 from the Town's (SGM) Traffic Engineering consultant; Town Council Resolution No. 25, Series 2015 Base Village Major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan - Page 27 of 27 n Memorandums dated June 15, 2015 and July 6, 2015 from Town Transportation; and • Letter from RFTA dated May 19, 2015. Q RFTA Future Service Planning options from page 13 of RFTA presentation made to the Town Council at their public hearing on August 10, 2015. o Letter dated August 20, 2015 from Applicant outlining alternative vertical circulation improvements in lieu of a second escalator. Preliminary Plan application materials submitted May 29, 2015 as revised on June 9, 2015 and supplementary updated June 29, 2015 (Volumes 1, 2 and 3). Amendment dated September 2, 2015. Future Service Planning Snowmass Village Increased Services For Winter 2015/2016 Add 5:37 & 6:07 Down Valley BRT makes stops at Intercept Lot Eliminate 5:45 BRT and add 4:45 Downvalley Local Extra Trips During Ski Hours: Mon -Fri 3:15pm SM Mall to INT Lot. 3:45pm SM Mall to INT Lot, 4:15pm SM Mall to INT Lot. Weekends: 3:15pm and 4:15pm . Daily: 4:45pm SM Mall to INT Lot. Future with Limelight on line Run 7 minute service from 5:30 to 7:22 pm Run 15 minute service from 8:15— 11:30 PM (now half an hour service) Base Village buses starting at 3:15 through 5:15 every half an hour— buses go through Intercept Lot RECEIVED JUL 2 :1015 Snowmass Village Community Development D D Future Operating Costs = Approximately $200k, but may need an additional bus or two. C7 2 K M z ATTACHMENT B REFERRAL AGENCY qprqlli� COMMENTS TO: JULIE ANN WOODS, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: ANNE, MARTENS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: BASE VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION — (JULY 15, 2015 PLANNING MTG) DATE: JULY 2, 2015 CC: CLINT KINNEY, TOWN MANAGER DEAN GORDON, TOWN ENGINEER In reference to the Snowmass Acquisition Company LLC application for major PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan application of the Base Village PUD, submitted on May 29, 2015 the following comments are being submitted: Volume I Application — Preliminary Plan Review - Article II Written Description: 2.9 Parking The applicant is proposing a reduction in the PUD parking rate which is already at a reduction. A comparison to the Aspen Limelight is cited which is stated to never experience a shortage during the winter season. There is no data to back up what the parking actually is in Aspen. In addition there is on street parking adjacent to the Limelight in Aspen, which is largely used by the patrons of the hotel F & B space. It is of concern to allow this additional reduction in parking and further information should be provided to back the comparisons. 2.14 Energy Conservation The applicant states they are working with the design team to reduce the amount of snowmelt areas to conserve energy conservation. However, in their response to Sketch Plan comments in Appendix E response to the public works comments it is stated that the applicant will provide a snow management plan, but so much of the ground or village level horizontal surfaces are snow melted, there isn't a significant need for snow storage. These statements appear to conflict each other. The snow management plan needs to be submitted for approval prior to the final PUD approval to ensure there is amble area available for snow storage. 3.3 Proposed Program It is of concern that the entrance to building 8 has been modified to include four angled check-in "valet" parking spaces at the entrance to this building. This is in close proximity to the entrance to the parking garage. Building 7 may be a better alternative for the valet and check-in function for Buildings 7 & 8. There are several access points and activity all at the entrance to the parking garage and the main ingress 3745 OWL CREEK ROAD, P O BOX 5010, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 (970) 923-5110 (fax) (970) 923-3794 works(i ,tosv.com www.tosv.com and egress to the transit hub. Any delays or confusion at this location has great impact on the transit system. The success of this development is reliant on the transit system for shuttling employees, residents and guests within the community. 3.12 Landscaping We agree with the addition of the staircase from building 7 to the intersection of Carriage Way and Wood Road, but think it should be wider and more inviting to make a statement to welcome the community; visitors and residents. There is often pedestrian traffic in this area that are carrying skis and backpacks. There should be enough room for side by side pedestrians to walk up and down the stairway. In addition, the alignment of the stairway in Volume III p. 161 differs slightly from sheet C-102, 103 and 107. The stairway should align with the crosswalk / ADA Van Accessible area. 3.14 Energy Conservation Same comment as 2.14 above. 4.7 Parking The back of house collection of the solid waste is addressed in Appendix I, however it does not address access for collection of the solid waste. There is not enough room to collect the solid waste to transport it offsite. This needs to be addressed and may impact the parking count as proposed 4.12 Energy Conservation Same comment as 2.14 5.2 Proposed Program It is confusing because the application states that the site for Lot 6 will still maintain two curb cuts on Upper Wood Road, however the architectural and civil drawings only show one driveway entrance to Lot 6. Under the overall square footage for the new proposed Lot 6 it states there will be 4,800 SF of employee housing. This differs from section 5.7 and the table in Volume III under Lot 6. 5.3 Amendment to Final Plat The application for amended final plat including lot lines and easements needs to be submitted for review. 5.7 Employee Housing The on-site employee housing square footage differs from the statement in the Proposed Program. 5.8 Parking The back of house collection of the solid waste is addressed in Appendix I, however it does not address access for collection of the solid waste. There is not enough room to collect to solid waste to transport it offsite. This needs to be addressed and may impact the parking count as proposed. In addition due to the proposed programming the plans in Volume III indicate back of house operations which may be assumed to be a loading dock, however it is blocked by parking which is not practical or feasible to access.. 3745 OWL CREEK ROAD, P O BOX 5010, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 (970) 923-5110 (fax) (970) 923-3794 works(&tosv.com www.tosv.com 6.12 Energy Conservation Same comment as 2.14 7.12 Energy Conservation Same comment as 2.14 22 Solid Waste Disposal Plan Back of house operations and access to transport solid waste offsite has not been resolved for several of the buildings. 27 Transportation Impacts The applicant continues to offer the proposal of a Traffic Control Officer at the intersection of Wood Road and Carriage Way instead of researching all options. In addition, the service agreement proposes that the costs of the Traffic Control Officer will be switched from the developer to the Metro District and / or Town. This just puts the burden of poor design onto the community. The alternatives proposed are of concern because they are at a LOS C or less, as well as result in queue lengths that will result in further congestion on Wood Road and the entrance to the parking garage. This area is confusing for visitors with a lot of activity. Lastly the shading of building 8 onto the Wood Road during the winter month is also of concern without a snowmelt system. Appendix E — Responses to Sketch Plan Review Section 1 Applicant Response to Section Two and Three of Town Council Resolution no. 17, Series 2015 Section Two: Specific Findings 5. Parking a. Data has not been provided to demonstrate why the parking generation rate for Building 5 should be supported. 6. Road Standards b. The material submitted does not show all of the alternatives discussed and at one time analyzed. See SGM's review memo. 6. Road Standards e. The bus stop location need to be finalized as part of the final PUD submittal. 6. Road Standards f. The pedestrian crossings need to be finalized as part of the final PUD submittal. Article IV, Development Evaluation Standard' 5. Streets and related improvements. The applicate or Town Engineer at the cost of the applicant needs to further review the viability of the alternative designs for the Wood Road and Carriage Way intersection. 6. Trails. The connection between Lot 4 & 6 from the Enclave is not adequate and appears to go through the pool area. In addition the connections from the Ski Way / single track trail needs to be improved to get access from the plaza. Lastly the connection for Building 7 to Wood Road / Carriage Way needs to be increased to provide more inviting connection to the complex. Section III: Directives 3745 OWL CREEK ROAD, P O BOX 5010, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 (970) 923-5110 (fax) (970) 923-3794 works@tosv.com www.tosv.com 14. Public improvements / traffic volume mitigation / pedestrian connections — a. i. The applicant is proposing to provide an additional TCO, one for the tree house entrance and one for the intersection of Wood Road / Carriage Way. This is not an acceptable option for the Town and shows that the design of the facilities are not appropriate or satisfactory. In addition, the service agreement calls for the cost for this to be turned back to the town in the future which is also not acceptable for the community. c. The applicant has not submitted all alternative options for Wood Road and Carriage Way. It is still staffs recommendation that the committed to infrastructure of a Roundabout at Wood Road and Brush Creek Road is the best option which provides the best LOS into the future and provides transit, pedestrian and aesthetic facilities. e. The connection between Lot 4 & 6 from the Enclave is not adequate and appears to go through the pool area. In addition the connections from the Ski Way / single track trail needs to be improved to get access from the plaza. Lastly the connection for Building 7 to Wood Road / Carriage Way needs to be increased to provide more inviting connection to the complex. Section 2 Applicant Responses to TOSV Staff / Referral Agency Sketch Plan Comments Public Works — Anne Martens — Access — The access points off of Wood Road are being proposed to being modified and further detail needs to be provided to be able to review the site distance for the entrances, pedestrian crossing points and bus stop locations. This includes site distance triangles, road profile sections, and geometric design details. Public Works — Anne Martens — Snow storage — The snow management plan needs to be submitted for review and comment. The available snow storage areas for the sidewalk / roadway along Wood Road is of concern due to the proposed improvement and shading from buildings. Public Works — Anne Martens — Solid Waste Management Plan — The plans submitted only show back of house facilities. The plans do not demonstrate if there is ample space for the facilities and access to transport the solid waste is not adequately demonstrated and is of concern because it will impact the parking counts. Public Works — Anne Martens — Clearing, Grading and Drainage comments still need to be addressed. Public Works — Anne Martens — Drainage / Water Quality comments still need to be addressed. Appendix I — Solid Waste Management Plan The details for the collection of solid waste offsite still needs to be addressed for building 10 AB, 11 and 12. The plan and architectural drawings submitted only address onsite collection. In order to collect the solid waste and haul it offsite adequate space and access need to be provided. This will result in a loss of parking and / or reconfiguration of the parking garages. In addition, the access and location for deliveries needs to be addressed. Appendix L — Clearing, Grading and Drainage Under the discussion regarding Future Road Improvements the infrastructure on Wood Road was never accepted by the Town and is in a temporary state. The roadway needs to be raised, curb and gutter, sidewalks and utilities such as storm drain inlets completed. As a result of the temporary condition, the existing infrastructure will need to be cleaned and inspected prior to starting the construction of the final infrastructure. 3745 OWL CREEK ROAD, P O BOX 5010, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 (970) 923-5110 (fax) (970) 923-3794 worksCa tosv.com www.tosv.com Final Plan details for the Wood Road infrastructure needs to be submitted for review and approval prior to approval of the Final PUD. APPENDIX P — Adequate Public Facilities Report All outstanding as -built and easements with the Water and Sanitation District should be resolved prior to Final PUD approval. APPENDIX V — Intersection Alternatives Refer to the SGM and Transportation comments. Volume II Exhibit 2 — Services Agreement Article II Obligations - 2.1 Traffic Control Officer The proposal of a traffic control officer at the tree house entrance and the intersection of Wood Road and Carriage Way is not an acceptable design solution. In addition section (c) discusses the turning over the cost of this proposal to the Town. Volume III Lot 3 — Building 7 Preliminary Floor Plan for employee units 7-AH1, AH2, AH3 and AH4 are not included in the submittal. Lot 3 — Building 8 The Employee housing unit table lists 4 one bedroom units but the floor plan and square footage indicates studio units. Public Works & Town Engineer Comments Referencing Sheet C-102, Civil Site Plan with respect to proposed improvements along the Wood Road corridor: • Those improvements which are proposed as part of this submission o Reconstruction of a roadway platform from the approximate entrance to Building 12 to just uphill from the ski over bridge. o Asphalt overlay, curb and gutter and concrete sidewalk, generally in front of the Crestwood. o Bus stop, both sides of the roadway, between the Enclave and Building 10. o Fire vehicle pull off, adjacent to Building 10. o Fire pull -off, adjacent to Building 8. • Those additional facilities that should be considered o Additional uphill bus stop, just uphill from the fire access/pedestrian corridor, opposite the existing bus stop in front of the Viceroy. o Additional crosswalk in the vicinity of the driveways to Building 12 and Building 10. o The limits of the roadway work needs to be prior the building 12 and building 10 A/B entrance 3745 OWL CREEK ROAD, P O BOX 5010, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 (970) 923-5110 (fax) (970) 923-3794 works(i&osv.com www.tosv.com o Add additional snowmelt pavement from the current termination point just uphill from the transit center entrance to the downhill side of the ski under bridge; this recommendation recognizes the shading that will occur once Building 8 is constructed and the significant congestion that is now occurring between the intersection of Lower Carriage Way and the future entrance to Building 8. o Consideration should be given to designating a "Pedestrian Zone" from the intersection of Lower Carriage Way to just below the ski over bridge, and perhaps as far as the future entrance to Fanny Hill cabins. Facilities might include a designated lower speed limit (for instance 20 mph), pedestrian activated crossing signals and special signage. • Other Comments o The uphill terminus of the Wood Road overlay needs to be coordinated with the Fanny Hill Cabin project so that there is a seamless roadway improvement to a point above the Fanny Hill Cabin entrance to Wood Road. o There is currently an operational entrance across from the Crestwood to service portions of the upper side of Base Village. Coordinate with Ski Company and Base Village Operations to verify whether an additional curb cut needs to be placed at this location. o Referencing the Roadway and Grading Report Update, dated May 27, 2015 contained in Appendix L, the term "pavement" should be clarified. The entire structural section of Wood Road needs to be addressed, including the asphalt pavement, the base course and the soil separator fabric. The entire structural section of the roadway has not been accepted by the Town to date. Detailed plans and specifications need to be submitted for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. 3745 OWL CREEK ROAD, P O BOX 5010, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 (970) 923-5110 (fax) (970) 923-3794 works(dtosv.com www.tosv.com MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Martens, Public Works Director TOSV CC: Dean Gordon. PE, SGM FROM: Lee Barger. SGM DATE: July 2, 2015 RE: Base Village PUD Amendment, PUD Preliminary Plan Review Transportation Analysis & Parking Management Strategy 2015 Update 1 Alternative Analysis Brush Creek R€iadlWood Road and Wood Road/Carriage Way I reviewed the Transportation Analysis and Parking Management Strategy 2015 Update, FHU May 2015 (2015 Update) and the Alternative Analysis Brush Creek Road/Wood Road and Wood Road/Carriage Way, FHU May 2015 (Alternatives Analysis) to formulate the comments contained in this memo. Any comparisons made to the 2004 study or references to "tracking" of volumes between these studies are purely for informational purposes only. This is a new stand-alone study. utilizing updated existing volumes and forecasts (agreed to by the Town and the Applicant) to better reflect today's baseline and future conditions. Although current volumes may track below the forecasts presented in the 2004 study, there are still deficiencies at many intersections in the study area that have become evident since the initial construction of Base Village. Some of these deficiencies were cited in the 2004 study and have proven to be sources of continuing traffic congestion that should be addressed or improved as a part of this current application. Furthermore, the statement made that volumes are "notably less than those previously projected" raising the question as to "whether investing in the roundabout is still a prudent course of action" is misleading. SGM demonstrated to Town Council on March 22, 2015 that the intersection volumes from MLK weekend 2014 currently meet the peak hour warrant for signalization during AM and PM peaks and thus concluded that "a higher form of traffic control beyond stop signs" is necessary now, as well as upon buildout of Base Village. Nonetheless, Council requested further analysis of additional options at this intersection (which had also been conducted in 2002 and concluded that the roundabout was the preferred solution.) General Traffic Comments: 1. I do not agree with the results in the Alternatives Analysis that a 4 -way stop will generally have the same or shorter queue lengths as a roundabout. In most cases I've analyzed, the opposite is true. Furthermore, a queue length exceeding 150 feet on Westbound Brush Creek Road is not acceptable due to the excessive grades (>6%) that these vehicles would be required to stop (and get started) on. 2. A uniformed traffic control officer (UTC) is not an acceptable long-term solution for any intersection within the study area. The Town's police chief cannot continue to allocate resources for the Treehouse intersection which often demands peak hour control 4 days per week during the ski season. The current agreement calls for the applicant to staff a UTC at Wood/Carriage when congested. The applicant has proposed providing the manpower for UTC at this intersection (in addition to the Wood/Carriage intersection), but the Town disagrees that Wood/Carriage will operate as analyzed based on the experience of UTC at this intersection during seasonal peaks over the past several years. Although the report cites that initial analysis of a UTC work well, experience on busy days this past winter demonstrated otherwise. The volumes were simply too high for the officer to keep queues in either direction from extending across the bridge and spilling into the Brush Creek/Wood intersection and the Carriage/Wood intersection. This results in queues extending past the entrance to the garage and negatively impacts the town and regional transit systems. 3. The reference to hotel shuttles using Building 7 is already reflected in the new baseline and forecast volumes. These vans and shuttles now using Building 7 for drop-off simply moves some congestion from the Treehouse intersection to the intersections to Building 7. All traffic accessing Building 7 is still going through the Wood/Carriage intersection twice (in most cases) for a pick up or drop-off. The applicant should evaluate if there are better circulation options for shuttle access to Building 7. 4. The study acknowledges that buses currently operate at full conditions for "a couple of hours per day on the peak days" but offers little to mitigate this situation. With the potential for 278 new employees associated with the buildout of Base Village, the applicant should propose additional service to handle this demand. Assuming that the "popular free RFTA service" will be able to accommodate 83 riders (30% of 278) during peak periods without additional service is not acceptable. 5. The first paragraph on "Traffic Operations" on page 27 is misleading. The peak conditions represented on Figures 7 and 8 were developed using 2014 MLK weekend volumes. These represented typical winter weekend volumes which, depending on quantity of snow that has fallen that season, will occur more or less in the future. Based on parking data from this past winter, the Town experienced peak traffic conditions on 22 days, where a `peak day' is when the parking garage and Rodeo Lots fill. This tends to support that the volumes used are more representative of typical weekend conditions rather than an average of the 10 busiest days throughout the winter. These conditions are not "relatively rare" nor do they occur "relatively infrequently". If volumes representative of the average of the 10 peak days were utilized for this analysis, the results would likely be worse than what is presented, similar to the results of the sensitivity analysis. 6. It is difficult to tell if a direct staircase from the Building 7 parking area to the Carriage/Wood intersection is shown on Figure 13? This connection would provide a non -ADA route that follows the line -of -sight for pedestrians traversing from Base Village to the 5nowmass Center. 7. Better pedestrian signing through Base Village, the transit center, garage, Treehouse, and key intersections is needed to guide pedestrians along the correct sidewalks to get to their destinations. 8. The Aspen Ski Company employee shuttle that picks up below the Treehouse on Carriage Road is a source of significant pedestrian activity at the Treehouse during peak hours. It is recommended that the applicant address this and develop ways to better delineate pedestrian crossings to better separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 2 9. A two-way stop at Carriage/Wood will create queues on the downhill approach of Wood Road that extend about 60 feet past the snowmelt section (to the crosswalk above the garage entrance). This poses a problem for vehicles approaching the stop sign since this entire area is in the shade during the months of December and January. This also poses a problem for vehicles exiting the garage. A mini roundabout is a potential solution for the Wood/Carriage intersection that had been analyzed at a preliminary level at one time by FHU, but is not included in the supplemental analysis provided by FHU. I've attached the analysis that was provided, which should be updated with the correct heavy vehicle factors and grades so we can complete the comparative assessment of operations. 10. A conceptual layout of the mini roundabout should be developed to show a third option for the Wood/Carriage intersection could fit in the space provided with no impact to the bridge abutment and minimal impact to the snowmelt system. 11. Ongoing monitoring of transit demand and service is noted as a requirement, but the Town also requests that parking lot and garage demand be monitored, as well as traffic volumes into and out of the village during winter weekends in the future to better track the overall demands on the entire transportation system. 12. There are some discrepancies between some of the measured peak hour factors and those applied in the model. We would recommend a 0.90 AM peak hour factor and a 0.95 PM peak hour factor be used across the board for all capacity analyses. Attachment (1) 3 Snowmass Base Village Brush Creek Rd./Wood Rd./Kearns Rd. Intersection Alternatives Analysis All -Way Stop (50 Pedestrians Per Hour on Each Approach) Movement LOS Dela s (') 95th % Queue ft (Z) AM PM AM PM NB Wood Rd. Northbound A (3.4) Thru/Left Thru/Left A (8.6) A (8.6) 50 50 Right (Free Flow) A (1.4) A (1.9) < 25 (Free Flow) < 25 (Free Flow) WB Brush Creek Rd. Left (Free Flow) A (1.4) A (0.9) 75 50 Left C (15.1) A (9.5) 225 125 Thru/Right A (8.7) A (8.9) 100 100 SB Kearns Rd. 75 EB Brush Creek Rd. LefUThru/Right A (9.6) A (9.7) 75 75 EB Brush Creek Rd. Left/Thru/Right B (11.2) B (10.8) 75 100 Notes: (1) Reported delay is based on the average of 5 SimTraffic simulation runs. (2) Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 ft. 3 -Way Stop (50 Pedestrians Per Hour on Each Approach) Movement LOS Dela s ('' 95th % Queue ft (z) AM PM AM PM NB Wood Rd. Northbound A (3.4) Thru/Left C (19.9) B (11.4) 50 50 Right (Free Flow) A (1.4) A (1.9) < 25 (Free Flow) < 25 (Free Flow) WB Brush Creek Rd. Southbound A (5.5) Left (Free Flow) A (1.4) A (0.9) 75 50 Thru/Right (Free Flow) A (0.7) A (0.8) 50 50 SB Kearns Rd. Left/Thru/Right D (25.6) B (13.5) 125 75 EB Brush Creek Rd. Left/Thru/Right C (23.9) C (17.3) 125 125 Notes: (1) Reported delay is based on the average of 5 SimTraffic simulation runs. (2) Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 ft. Roundabout (50 Pedestrians Per Hour on Each Approach) Approach LOS Dela s ('� 95th % Queue ft) «) AM PM AM PM NB Wood Rd. Northbound A (3.4) A (5.2) 75 125 WB Brush Creek Rd. Westbound B (12.4) A (5.2) 225 100 SB Kearns Rd. Southbound A (5.5) A (4.7) 75 50 EB Brush Creek Rd. Eastbound A (7.3) A (7.3) 75 75 Notes: (1) Reported delay is based on the average of 5 SimTraffic simulation runs. (2) Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 ft. Snowmass Base Village Wood Rd./Carriage Way Intersection Alternatives Analysis Traffic Control Officer Movement LOS Dela Movement 95th % Queue LOS Dela (s) 95th % Queue ft (2) AM PM AM PM NB Wood Rd. Left/Thru A (1.8) A (1.2) 50 50 SB Wood Rd. Left A (9.5) A (9.3) 75 75 75 Thru A (2.6) A (4.8) 100 75 100 SB Wood Rd. Notes: (1) Reported delay is based on the average of 5 SimTraffic simulation runs. (2) Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 ft. 50 50 EB Carriage Way Thru/Right A (4.5) A (5.7) 100 100 EB Carriage Way 125 Right A (4.3) A (4.2) 50 Left B (16.5) B (15.0) 100 125 Right A (5.1) A (4.5) 75 125 Notes: (1) Reported delay is based on the average of 5 SimTraffic simulation runs. (2) Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 ft. 1 Lane Roundabout Movement LOS Dela s) 95th % Queue ft (2) AM PM AM PM NB Wood Rd. Left/Thru A (1.8) A (1.2) 50 50 SB Wood Rd. 75 Thru/Right A (1.3) A (2.1) 75 75 EB Carriage Way 100 Left/Right A (3.2) A (3.6) 75 75 Notes: (1) Reported delay is based on the average of 5 SimTraffic simulation runs. (2) Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 ft. 50 Two -Way Stop Movement LOS Dela s) 95th % Queue (ft)(z) AM PM AM PM NB Wood Rd. Left A (7.5) A (7.3) 50 75 Thru A (5.0) A (6.6) 75 100 SB Wood Rd. Thru/Right A (1.4) A (1.5) 50 50 EB Carriage Way Left A (6.6) A (9.8) 75 125 Right A (4.3) A (4.2) 50 75 Notes.- otes:(1) Reported delay is based on the average of 5 SimTraffic simulation runs. (1) (2) Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 ft. MEMO To: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director From: David Peckler, Transportation Director Date: June 15, 2015 Re: Base Village Preliminary Plan Review VOLUME 1.- Application: : Application: Article 11 Written Description: 1. 2.7 — Page 9 Snowmass Mountain Club (SMC): With the relocation of the SMC from Building 8/P1 to Building 5/P2 how will management comply with the 57 member cap? Excess demand for the SMC parking raises the question of whether the valet can take the car to the Commercial !Valet spaces on P1 and how does the Parking Management Plan (PMP) address this? The staff should be directed to not park members in the residential or commercial spaces once the 57 spaces are full. 2.9 - Page 9-10 Parking: The applicant is proposing to revise the parking ratio of 0.75 spaces per residential unit (which is already a reduction) down to 0.5 spaces per unit for the proposed hotel. Overflow parking in the summer seasons will be managed by utilizing the SMC parking on P2 which is also owned and managed by the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC). There should be a covenant that the hotel will have continued access to the SMG parking in the summer for overflow parking into the future regardless of who owns the hotel. Given all the requested reductions in the parking ratios for numerous reasons (see Volume 2, Exhibit 4 — Parking Management Plan, Table 2) the applicant or their successors should be responsible for addressing any excess parking demand for their residential units. This can be covered within the complex or through agreement with another private entity to mitigate that demand at another privately owned site. Access to the Town managed lots should not be allowed. No parking permits for the Town lots (Numbered lots or Rodeo lot) should be issued to residents, employees or guests of the proposed development. 3. 2.10 -Page 10 No Substant4y Adverse Impact: Any parking encroachment onto neighboring properties should be addressed by the applicant or their successors. 3.3 — Page 12 Proposed Program, Building 7: 'Building 7 includes the entitled 'Arrival Center' for Base Village. The arrival concept and circulation remains relatively unchanged." The original concept was for a centralized check-in facility for the majority of the proposed development to help reduce traffic, consolidate functions, simplify arrival, and reduce redundant employee requirements. Diversifying the check-in functions can impact parking, traffic and transit services. The uses programmed for 7 Building (as noted in Volume 3 — 06 LOT 3, Building 7) are now solely Ski Related Facilities. 5. 3.3 —Page 12 Proposed Program, Building 8: 1 am concerned that the four check-in and two lay-by parking spaces may not be enough to accommodate the check-in parking for proposed Buildings 7 & 8 total 41 units with 133 beds and the 50 commercial valet parking spaces. 0 Page 1 Access to these parking spaces is at the entrance for the main garage. Building 7 & 8/Valet parking and the access lanes for the hotel are in very close proximity to each other, as well as the transit facility's lanes and the parking structure helix. This creates a very confusing and congested location. Building 7 may prove a better alternative for Commercial Valet and the check-in function for Buildings 7 & 8. 6. 3.3 —Page 14 Proposed Program, Parking: The unit count for Buildings 6, 7 & 8 did decrease, however the number of beds increased by a third from 99 to 133 beds. It takes the 0.5 parking reduction for the hotel units to maintain the status quo in parking demand. Overflow parking must be mitigated on site in future buildings or at another private location. No over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 7. 4.5 — Page 17 Parking: The proposed development is changing the mix of units to more 3 & 4 bedroom units which would be more appealing to family/group utilization. A parking rate of one space per unit may be more appropriate. In the end, any parking shortages must be mitigated on site or at another private location. No over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 8. 5.8 — Page 19 Parking: The management of any excess parking demand is the owner's responsibility and no over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 9. 6.7 - Page 21 Parking: The management of any excess parking demand is the owner's responsibility and no over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 10. 7.7 - Page 23 Parking: The management of any excess parking demand is the owner's responsibility and no over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 11. 9 — Page 25 Employee Housing: "The proposed program reduces the assumed number of new employees generated to 646 employees." Later in the application it states that (lots 2 through 8) could generate an additional 278 employees beyond current levels. I am concerned about the impact on mass transit services, particularly the regional (RFTA) service, in accommodating the additional 278 employees from the remainder of the development. Subsequent increases in operating costs for RFTA and potential corresponding revenues needed to cover those costs should be addressed in the Fiscal Impact Study. 12. 10. — Page 26 Parking: "This loss of parking is offset by a decrease in residential units, rebalancing of the retail/food and beverage offering as well as reduced parking generation rate associated with the Limelight Hotel." In Appendix R: Development Statistics Summary a matrix of just Buildings 1 through 8 (buildings that are associated with the core parking structure) shows an increase in: Residential & hotel GSF by 24,782, Unit Count for Residential/Hotel by 56, Community Facility by 2,964, and the # of Beds by 49, These increases are offset by reductions in the categories of Commercial services, Retail/Restaurant and Ski Related Facilities and one less employee housing unit. What makes this work is the reduction of the parking generation rate for the hotel rooms to 0.5. Approval of the parking rate reduction should come with the condition that any excess in parking demand be managed by the owner and that there will be no overflow parking into the Town's parking lots. No Town parking permits for the Number Lots should be issued to residents, guests or employees of the development. Employee parking in the new PMP is proposed to be "in the Highway 82/Brush Creek Intercept lot (Intercept lot) or the Rodeo lot." Base Village employees should still be directed to park in the Intercept lot. Given that the Rodeo lot is filling with regularity, it may become a paid parking lot to ensure access for day visitors. 13. 12. — Pages 26 & 27 Comply with Development Evaluation Standards: The Parking Management Plan (PMP) is proposed to be modified to address the reduction to 0.5 spaces • Page 2 per unit for the hotel. The parking plan in Volume 2 "replaces and supersedes" the original plan and describes the groups using the parking. The PMP divides the responsibility for managing the parking between the ASC, the Base Village Company (BVCO) and the Metro district. New in the plan is the statement that "employees ... will park in the Highway 82/Brush Creek Intercept lot or the Rodeo Lot." The Rodeo lot fills regularly during the peak periods and on powder days, so the addition of Base Village employees will undermine day skier parking there. It is my recommendation not to allow Base Village employees to park in the Rodeo lot. 14. 21. - Page 36 Fiscal Impact: The transit dependent resident population and the labor force that is proposed in the rest of the development may have an impact on RFTA, the regional transportation authority. It would help us to feel more comfortable with the proposed parking and transit plans to know if the projected revenues will support the expanded public services. 15. 27. — Page 38 Transportation Impact: It states "a comparison is presented to show how traffic volumes and forecasts are `tracking' with those presented in the 2004 study." I think comparing the two studies is a little like comparing a tangerine to an orange. I have no problem building on the most recent traffic study as long as we understand what it represents and what the potential impact of a peak season could mean. The original 2004 study was adjusted to reflect a peak condition in a peak year (1997198 with 884,066 skier visits). This was a concern because the recently amended Ski Area Master Plan Amendment of 2003 was projecting a "comfortable carving capacity" of over one million skier visits compared to the 884,066 visits in the peak season of 1997198. In a quick comparison of the "Existing Traffic" Figures in the two reports I found the 2014 data was 12.8% below the PM peak hour traffic volume used in 2004. The 2014 data in the report was collected during Martin Luther King weekend (Saturday, January 18, 2014). It was a busy day, but not an average of the ten peak days in a peak season. The 2014 data was not factored up to compare with 1996-1997 condition as the 2004 report was "the data (2002) were adjusted to reflect a peak condition similar to the 1996-1997 season." There have also been actions/events that have a direct impact on the traffic volumes in the 2014 report that make a comparison difficult: e.g. Base Village is partially built with Ski School now operating out of the Tree House and not at the Mall, No Fare Service funded by the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) between Aspen and Snowmass was started in 2009, and the hangover from the Great Recession was still lingering. For these reasons it is unwise to use a comparison of the two studies as a rationalization for reducing roadway improvements. 16. 27. — Page 38 Transportation Impact: "FHU has determined the 2004 traffic projections are 10 to 15 percent higher during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour projections are 40-45 percent higher." It is important to remember that the starting point for the AM and PM peak hour data in the "Existing" traffic in the 2014 study was 5% (AM) and 13% (PM) lower than in the original 2004 study as the starting point. The 2014 study was not adjusted for a peak season condition. For the reasons noted above in my comment #15, it may be impossible to make an "apples to apples" comparison of the two studies and the references to traffic reductions could be overstated. What is important is that FHU said in the current Traffic Impact Study "At the Town's request, a sensitivity traffic analysis has also been completed. Specifically, the PM peak hour traffic forecast was factored upward by 25 percent to replicate the extreme peak day ...The analysis shows that the Brush Creek Road=ood Road intersection would operate at a LOS C given the increased traffic conditions as a roundabout intersection." (Volume 1 - Appendix F, Page 30). The roundabout improvement for the Brush Creek/Wood Rd intersection will function adequately into the future in stronger seasons. 17. 27. — Page 38 Transportation Impact: "The original assumptions and trip -making parameters are conservative and appropriate for continued use." The assumptions favored a reduced traffic volume, so they would not exaggerate the potential growth in traffic and the related LOS for intersection analysis. All of the reductions point to the most favorable situation and still • Page 3 recommend an improvement to the existing intersection designs. I still support the roundabout as the most logical and best design solution. 18. 27. — Page 38 Transportation Impact: The second paragraph states that 2004 projections are 10-15 percent higher during the AM peak and 40-45 percent higher in the PM peak. However, the following paragraph states that the development with the proposed changes will generate a traffic volume only 2-2.5 % less than was originally estimated. This does not seem consistent. 19. 27. — Page 38 Transportation Impact: "Employment generation associated with all future development could generate an additional 10-15 riders per hour at peak times onto the regional transit service." To reduce the projected 278 future employees ( Volume 1 — Appendix F, page 20) to 10-15 riders on the regional transit system in the peak times requires aggressive assumptions about the existing Base Village employee housing credits, how and when Base Village employees will commute, and that half of the Base Village employees will be parking at the Rodeo lot to use the local service. Depending on the future plans for Town Park, there may not be a park -&-ride function out of this facility, or it may require a paid parking program to protect parking for day visitors or Town Park activities. I believe the impact to the regional system is understated. It is important to understand the potential cost of additional regional service and the off -setting revenues generated by the development to know if the regional service will be sustainable or require a subsidy. 20. 27. —Page 38 Transportation Impact: The parking rate assumptions have to work to make the 612 parking spaces in the structure adequate for the development. Again, my recommendation is that any excess demand for parking in Base Village should be managed by the owners of Base Village. There should be a regulation prohibiting Base Village residents, guests and employees from obtaining Town parking permits for the Numbered lots and parking for extended periods in the Rodeo lot to prevent these lots from being used for storage or overflow parking. 21. 27. — Page 38 Transportation Impact: I am grateful for the ASC's contributions to the local and regional systems to help move skiers and employees. They do deserve credit for their financial contributions. The Town also appreciates their continued efforts to move as many of their employees from the Rodeo lot to the Black Saddle parking lot. The Base Village development also needs to encourage their employees to use the Intercept lot as much as possible if we want to preserve the Rodeo lot for day skier parking. 22. 27. — Page 38 Transportation Impact: Using police officers to manage traffic in an intersection seems to be a poor use of resources and points to a poor intersection design. 23. 27. — Page 39 Transportation Impact: Alternatives for the Upper Keams/Brush Creek Road intersection have been studied. I believe that improvement of this intersection is important for the future of Snowmass Village. In my opinion the roundabout design remains the best solution for this intersection. The roundabout design is superior to all the alternatives in: improving the capacity and flow of traffic, improving safety by reducing speeds and eliminating the potential for left -tum right-angle and head-on collisions, improving pedestrian safety by providing refuge in the splitter -islands, reducing greenhouse emissions by eliminating unnecessary stopping and starting, and creating a sense of arrival through design for landscaping potential. I do believe that any one of the alternatives presented to the Conoco, whichever that they feel is best, would not adversely impact their business when compared to the improvement of the general public's safety. 24. 28. — Page 39 RFTA Aspen Snowmass Service Capacity: Not being party to the discussions or the data that was given to RFTA makes it difficult to understand RFTA's assumptions and conclusions in their letter. It would appear that they are focusing on the impact of the 0 Page 4 residential elements because they are focusing on the surplus capacity of the Snowmass Village to Aspen service. As noted earlier, I am not comfortable with the projection that only 10- 15 employee passengers will be added to the regional system in the AM & PM peak hours out of the 278 Base Village employees generated by the remaining development. I can easily see this demand being some 75 passengers in the peak hour, particularly if the employees are moved to the Intercept lot. Employees will be down valley bound riders predominately that will be trying to connect to the regional buses on the scheduled departures at 15 and 45 minutes past the hour. RFTA is likely assuming that the new employees will use the BRT service and for that reason can ride any bus to the Intercept lot. Adding the employee demand and the potential residential passengers for the Snowmass to Aspen service (say 40-50 guests) means potentially 115-125 passengers will be using the remaining average 94 spaces of average surplus capacity in the RFTA matrix. If this is correct, there may be capacity problems. In the RFTA letter the addition of one bus was projected at $50,000. In a subsequent response from RFTA it states "It isn't possible to provide a precise estimate ... However, as an order of magnitude, it could cost as much as an estimated $200,000 per ski season to fill in many gaps in back up service..." This is why it is important to understand a realistic service demand and the potential revenue generation in the fiscal analysis. Response to Sketch Plan Review Section One: - Council Resolution #17- Section Two: Specific Findings: 1. 5. Parking: The hotel parking rate reduction to 0.5 parking spaces/unit is requested in addition to the previously granted reductions based on a number of assumptions. If we accept the evidence for the parking rate reduction to 0.5, we should do so with the agreement that any overflow parking generated by the project will not impact any Town owned parking lots. Residents, guests and employees of the development should not be allowed to purchase parking permits for the Town owned Numbered lots and employees of the businesses in the development should continue to be directed to park in the Intercept lot. 2. 6. Road Standards–b. Lower Carriage Way and Wood Road Intersection: It is disappointing that we cannot develop a world class solution to this problem. 3.6. Road Standards. Control Parking by Signs: There are three participants in the PMP: ASC, Base Village Company (BVCO) and the Metro District. Each with stated enforcement or management responsibilities. However, there is only the comment that half of the projected employees will be parking at the Intercept lot with no explanation of how that is to come to fruition. What is the mechanism that keeps the 228 members of the SMC confined to their 57 parking spaces? Does someone pay for their access to the Commercial Valet spaces? Not sure these operational issues have been addressed in the Parking Management Plan, particularly for employee parking. 4. 6. Road Standards -l. Local and RFTA Buses are Nearing Capacity: Staff is not sure what was provided to RFTA other than the Traffic Impact Study which may understate the future impact to RFTA. It appears that the impacts to the RFTA system were minimized by moving half of the employee parking up to the Rodeo lot which is an impact on the local system that we had not contemplated. 5. 6. Road Standards. Bus Stop Locations: Staff is happy to be working with the developer on bus stop locations. Having learned that the Fire Department is willing to discuss sharing their staging pullouts as bus stops creates possible additional alternatives along Wood Rd. 6. 6, Road Standards --f. Pedestrian Crossing Signs: I am supportive of the roundabout design because of the pedestrian safety improvements that are an integral part of the roundabout 0 Page 5 design. If another design is developed, then we would support increased pedestrian safety improvements for the intersections. Response to Sketch Plan Review, Section One: - Council Resolution #17 - Article IV, 'Development Evaluation Standards' 1. 5. Streets and Related Improvements: I support the proposed roundabout design in the Sketch Plan and think looking for a better solution for the Wood Rd/Lower Carriage Way Rd intersection is merited. 2. 6. Trails: Glad to see the improvements to pedestrian access as noted and the trail to Andersen Lane. 3. 12. Off -Street Parking: The management of any excess parking demand is the owner's responsibility and no over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. Response to Sketch Plan Review Section One: - Council Resolution #17- Section Three: Directives: 6. V. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Once we understand the potential employee and guest movement generated by the rest of the development and the related impacts to local and regional transit services, the cost of those services to the potential revenues should be shown in the study. 7. Parking — a.: Hotel parking rate reduction to 0.5 parking spaces/unit is requested in addition to the previously granted reductions based on a number of assumptions. if we accept the evidence for the parking rate reduction to 0.5, we should do so with the agreement that any overflow parking generated by the project will not impact any Town owned parking lots. Residents, guests and employees of the development should not be allowed to purchase parking permits for the Town owned Numbered lots and employees of the businesses in the development should continue to be directed to park in the Intercept lot. 3. 7. Parking — b.: Agreements with the Mountain Club members should state that the arrangement for parking is for the winter only to allow for the overflow capacity that the hotel might need in the summer. Also, the hotel should have an agreement with the ASC that the spaces are available to them during the summer for overflow parking into the future. 4. 7. Parking — c.: The management of any excess parking demand is the owner's responsibility and no over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 5. 14. Public Improvements — a. i. Traffic Control Officer: It is disappointing that we cannot develop a world class solution to this problem. 6. 14. Public Improvements — a. ii. Sufficient Traffic Control Devise(s) at the Easterly Intersection of the Transit. Garage: Happy to work with the developer to find solution to garage access and egress. I am concerned about the number of turning movements for Building 8, 5 and the Commercial Valet parking all happening at the main entrance to the garage and transit center. 7. 14, Public Improvements — b. TIA and PMP Studies: Council should understand the consequences of the changes are to the TIA and PMP: e.g. The base line data for the traffic projection comparison is not the same, so the stated reductions in future traffic volumes are not relative and should not be used as justification for no or less efficient intersection designs. The PMP relocates half of the Base Village parking to the Rodeo lot, which may not have the capacity to absorb them or be available for employee parking in the future. 0 Page 6 8. 14. Public Improvements -c.: Lower Carriage Way & Wood Rd - It is disappointing that we cannot develop a world class solution to this problem. Upper Kearns/Brush Creek Rd — I am supportive of the Roundabout design solution for this intersection. 9. 14. Public Improvements — c.: Upper Kearns/Brush Creek Road: Alternatives for the Upper Kearns/Brush Creek Road intersection have been studied. I believe that improvement of this intersection is important for the future of Snowmass Village. In my opinion the roundabout design remains the best solution for this intersection. The roundabout design is superior to all the alternatives in: improving the capacity and flow of traffic, improving safety by reducing speeds and eliminating the potential for left -tum right-angle and head-on collisions, improving pedestrian safety by providing refuge in the splitter -islands, reducing greenhouse emissions by eliminating unnecessary stopping and starting, and creating a sense of arrival through landscaping potential. I do believe that any one of the alternatives presented to the Conoco would not adversely impact their business when compared to the improvements to the general public's safety. 10. 14, Public Improvements — e. & f.: Glad to see the improvements to pedestrian access as noted and the trial to Andersen Lane. During special events there is a lot of pedestrian movement down Fanny Hill tangent to the residential units as well, so access to the Base Village plaza at the Southwest corner of the Tree House would be preferable. A more direct pedestrian access from Building 10B to the Gondola would provide better access to the majority of the Base Village retail. Preserving the potential for an aerial connection to the Center is productive. 11. 15. Transit Ridership: 1.) Staff has not been provided the data or information that was given to RFTA and it appears that the impacts to the RFTA system were minimized by moving half of the employee parking up to the Rode lot. 2.) The single escalator has failed on occasion during the winter and this has proven problematic for people in ski boots. As the residential density in Base Village increases so will bi-directional movement which may exceed the capacity of the elevator. 3.) Staff is happy to be working with the developer on bus stop locations and having learned that the Fire Department is willing to discuss sharing staging pullouts as bus stops creates possible additional alternatives along Wood Rd. Response to Sketch Review, Section Two - Staff Sketch Plan Comments: 1. Staff report - Access and Circulation: It is disappointing that we cannot develop a world class solution to this problem. Staff Report - Parking: Hotel parking rate reduction to 0.5 parking spaces/unit is requested in addition to the previously granted reductions based on a number of assumptions. If we accept the evidence for the parking rate reduction to 0.5, we should do so with the agreement that any overflow parking generated by the project will not impact any Town owned parking lots. Residents, guests and employees of the development should not be allowed to purchase parking permits for the Town owned Numbered lots and employees of the businesses in the development should continue to be directed to park in the Intercept lot. 3. Staff Report - Trail Connections: Glad to see the improvements to pedestrian access as noted and the trial to Andersen Lane, even if it is only an unpaved trail, During special events there is a lot of pedestrian movement down Fanny Hill tangent to the residential units as well, so access to the Base Village plaza at the Southwest corner of the Tree House would be preferable. A more direct pedestrian access from Building 10B to the Gondola would provide better access to the majority of the Base Village retail. 0 Page 7 Transportation — David Peckler — Snowmass Mountain Club: The response seems to blur the lines defining one parking program from the other. In the PMP there is no discussion of how limits are set on the Mountain Club parking outside of there being no more SMG posted spaces in the residential area. The Valet parking plan has even less control and the PMP opens up both P1 and P2 residential parking for the program. If I became more mercenary in my thinking, I can envision Valet parking maximizing Day Skier parking in the structure well beyond the 257 identified for the Day Skier and Mountain Club parking spaces. This could result in greater negative impact to the PM peak hour traffic volume. 5. Transportation — David Peckler— Employee Housing: I don't mean to argue, but as stated in the Sketch Pian application "The original Base Village approvals allowed for a reduced employee housing mitigation rate based on the understanding that there were economies of scale in the operation of Base Village by utilizing a centralized front desk, management and back of house operations. While the proposed changes to Lot 2 will not utilize Building 7 as originally contemplated, ASC is in the unique situation to capitalize on efficiencies similar to those anticipated when the Town agreed to the lesser mitigation rate." Sketch Plan Application, Article II, 2.8 Employee Housing page 7. 1 stili feel that moving away from the centralized front desk will add to employee demand whether housed on site or through the transit systems and it adds to traffic searching for check-in facilities. 6. Transportation — David Peckler — Parking:: Hotel parking rate reduction to 0.5 parking spaces/unit is requested in addition to the previously granted reductions based on a number of assumptions. If we accept the evidence for the parking rate reduction to 0.5, we should do so with the agreement that any overflow parking generated by the project will not impact any Town owned parking lots. Residents, guests and employees of the development will not be allowed to purchase parking permits for the Town owned Numbered lots and employees of the businesses in the development should continue to be directed to park in the Intercept lot. 7. Transportation — David Peckler— Building 7: The description for Building 7 in the Applications 3.3 Proposed Program, page 12 states "the arrival concept and circulation remains relatively unchanged." With Buildings 8 and 5 check-in functions moving to their own location I would say there is a fundamental change taking place. The check-in functions as well as the valet function are proposed to "relocate from Building 7 in order to decongest that area that has become a public drop off area for most hotel and shuttle services." 8. Transportation — David Peckler— Building 8: 1 remain concerned about the multiple functions happening at the main entrance to the garage and transit facility with an access to Building 8 for check-in and valet parking as well as an access to Building 5 hotel check-in. If there is also a courtesy vehicle in the mix, this could be an issue because there is limited queuing space at the main entrance to the garage. We have witnessed backups in the main entrance for cars trying to access the garage under current circumstances. After the completion of Buildings 7 & 8 there should be a review of the performance of the check-in/valet facility to ensure it is working as presented. 9. Transportation — David Peckler — Valet Parking: The PMP provides little description of the management of the Valet parking program. 10. Transportation — David Peckler— UWR Bus Stop: I request a review of the proposed bus stop locations with the Public Works Director. 11. Transportation — David Peckler— Transportation: I am not convinced that the 278 employees identified as being generated by the remaining development will only generate 10-15 passengers on the regional system. 0 Page 8 12. Transportation —David Peckler— Traffic Impact Study: The traffic impacts at the Treehouse are caused by the lack of parking spaces for the activities happening in the circle. I do not believe that the roundabout on Brush Creek Rd will change the congestion that is happening with people trying to get into the Treehouse circle. Also, the original TIA projected very favorable LOS standards for the Treehouse intersection and this intersection continues to suffer traffic congestion. The statement has been made that in the traffic model the intersection should function well, it is the activity within the circle that causes the congestion. I am concerned about the LOS projections for the Brush Creek/Wood Rd and Wood Rd/Carriage Way intersection alternatives because of consequences that the modeling does not take into consideration. 13. Transportation — David Peckler — Access to Building 7: Glad to see that there will be improved pedestrian access to Building 7 from Wood Rd. 14. SGM — Dean Gordon — Traffic Impact: It is disappointing that we cannot develop a world class solution to this problem. Appendix F — Traffic Impact Study: Introduction — Page 2: "Further, this report illustrates the current traffic levels along TOSV roadways, and a comparison is presented to show how traffic demand volumes and forecasts at the busier intersections are `tracking' with those in the 2004 study." I think comparing the two studies is a little like comparing a tangerine to an orange. I have no problem building on the most recent traffic study as long as we understand what it represents and what the potential impact of a peak season could mean. The original 2004 study was adjusted to reflect a peak condition in a peak year (1997198 with 884,066 skier visits). This was a concern because the recently amended Ski Area Master Plan Amendment of 2003 was projecting a "comfortable carrying capacity"of over one million skier visits compared to the 884,066 reached in the peak season of 1997/98. In a quick comparison of the "Existing Traffic" Figures in the two reports I found the 2014 data was 12.8% below the PM peak hour traffic volume used in 2004. The 2014 data in the report was collected during Martin Luther King weekend (Saturday, January 18, 2014). It was a busy day, but not an average of the ten peak days in a peak season. The 2014 data was not factored up to compare with 1996-1997 condition as the 2004 report was "the data (2002) were adjusted to reflect a peak condition similar to the 1996-1997 season." There have also been actions/events that have a direct impact on the traffic volumes in the 2014 report that make a comparison difficult: e.g. Base Village is partially built with Ski School now operating out of the Tree House and not at the Mail, No Fare Service funded by the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) between Aspen and Snowmass was started in 2009, and the hangover from the Great Recession was still lingering. For these reasons it is unwise to use a comparison of the two studies as a rationalization for reducing roadway improvements. 2. introduction — Page 2: As it relates to the comparison of the traffic data, the following is a description of the 2004 data used for the "Existing Peak Season Traffic" in the report's Figure 4 'The 2QQ4 study was based on data from March 2002 which was a drought year and required adjustment to reflect a peak condition. "The 2001 2002 ski season was again not a peak year relative to skier visitation, and the traffic data confirm this. The traffic volumes shown in Figure 2 are 20 to 25 percent lower than the 1996-1997 peak season traffic (which is considered to be a peak condition relative to a traffic volume baseline). As such, the March 2002 data were factored up to better represent a peak baseline condition from which to base future traffic projections, ... but again the data were adjusted to reflect a peak condition similar to the 1996- 1997 season. The data presented in Figures 3 and 4 approximately represent an average of the top 10 peak days during a peak winter season." • Page 9 3. II. Existing Conditions — Pages 4 & 5: It is easier to understand and project traffic volumes in a community that does not have the resort fluctuations that we experience. The bullet points comparing the data from 2014 to 2015 demonstrates that we are not looking at a peak condition, but rather a busy day. The average of the 10 busiest days in 2014 was 1,240 vehicles in the peak hour. It should also be noted that the pm peak hour traffic volume is spanning two hours from 3:00-5:00 pm. What the conditions are on any given day can also have an impact on the movement through the community. It is interesting to note the 2015 PM peak hour data for Brush creek/Wood Rd is higher than 2014, but the PM peak hour data for the Wood Rd/ Snowmelt Rd is higher in 2014 than 2015. Again I have no problem moving forward with the existing data as long as we understand what it represents. II. Existing Conditions — Page 5: Again, the comparison back to the 2004 study on traffic growth is probably not entirely accurate. Also the soft retail performance of the existing commercial development would suggest that the buildings that are completed are not functioning to their full capacity. To me this means that the traffic volume at this paint is still under stated for the existing development and that higher volumes can be anticipated with the completion and resulting success of the development. The trip -making parameters are very conservative in this study and are low compared even to the average of the ten peak days which was 1,240 vehicles in the PM Peak Hour. 5. II. Existing Conditions — Pages 6, 7 & 8: Using the 2014 data probably helps the LOS operations in Figure 2 and 3. We witness low LOS operation at the Brush Creek Rd/Owl Creek Rd intersection than LOS C. I agree with the Statement that the contemplated roundabout at the Brush Creek rdANood Rd intersection "should alleviate these conditions and allow the intersection to absorb even more traffic." 6. IL Existing Conditions — Pages 6, 7 & 8: In Figure 3 it shows that the left hand tum into the Treehouse is rated as an LOS A, but we know that this movement is something less than that. It has been explained that the function of the intersection is fine, but it is the congestion in the parking area beyond the intersection that creates the lower LOS operation. I worry that the other problematic intersection (entrance to the main garage, the wood Rd/Carriage Way intersection and the Transit garage entrance) may have undetected circumstances that the modeling does not take into account. It is critical for this core area to function as well as it can. 7. ll. Existing Conditions — A. Transit -Page 9: It states that "RFTA has also made adjustments to the BRT service such that one of the BRT routes specifically serves Snowmass Village..."now afforded the option of directly boarding a BRT bus in Snowmass Village. This has helped the situation." IT can be interpreted that the BRT service is an addition to the regional service. The BRT bus is a conversion of a Regional Direct bus to a BRT bus. As shown in the RFTA letter there is little surplus capacity in the regional service. 11. Existing Conditions — B. Parking -Page 10: It states that on 22 days the parking exceeded 95 percent of the capacity (231) of the garage's 243 spaces. If you included the overflow parking in Lot C with the Base Village parking garage, the parking demand in winter 2013114 exceeded 95 percent of the capacity 2'9 times, peaking at 423 cars in the New Years week. This is basically a weekly occurrence spanning the weekend, powder days and/or holiday periods. This corresponds to the parking in the Rodeo lot with 30 days of over 350 cars or 20% of the season. 9. III. Projected Conditions — A. Traffic — Pages 11 to 19: It is assumed in the projection that all of the commercial and residential spaces in the currently developed properties are full and operating at a successful level requiring their full allocation of employees in the trip generation. The traffic model includes the reductions for central location and internal trips and projects "the long-term peak hour traffic shown on Figure 8 (page 16) shows a traffic level of 815 vph in one s Page 10 direction and 425 vph in the other." This totals 1,240 vph which includes a 10% increase to account for additional growth, Fanny Hill development, the units to be built in Sinclair Meadows, the 200 day skiers, and I assume the 57 SMC and 50 Valet parking spaces. The total of 1,240 vph coincidentally was the average of the ten highest days in the winter of 2013114. This suggests to me that the projection is very "conservative" in favor of a lower traffic volume for the traffic impact in the future. It is important to see the projection relative to our current history for the discussion about the level of roadway improvements that should be made to avoid traffic congestion in the near future. 10. III. Projected Conditions — B. Transit Page 20: The applicant estimates that the additional Base Village development could generate "an additional 278 employees." Of the 278 employees 60 percent (which takes into account existing employee housing credits which may already be occupied) will be commuting to work and "50 percent of these would utilize the popular free RFTA services." This calculation generates the projection that 84 riders will be on RFTA service going each way to work. The projection of 84 potential riders going in one direction is the basis for a conservative project for the impact to the RFTA service of 10-15 employees moving in the peak hour. My projection is this: of the 278 employees 60% do not live in the community (which is generous given existing credits) resulting in 167 employees that commute. Of the commuting employees 213s work during the day which equates to 110 employees. Of those 110 employees only 65% work on the same day which equals to 72 employees moving on any given day during the peak hours. 15. Ili. Projected Conditions — C. Parking — Page 20 & 21: The reductions made to the parking projections are generous and the developer feels that they are justified. Given that the community wants to see reductions in traffic volumes to project the limited capacity on the roadways the rates seem favorable to the community as well. However, should the rates be wrong or there is an unforeseen consequence, it should be the property owners responsibility to address any shortcoming in parking either on site or on another privately owned site. It should not be the Town's place to provide an alternative (beyond what we will be providing one way or the other for the employees) for the excess parking demand, There should be an agreement that any overflow parking generated by the project will not impact any Town owned parking lots. Residents, guests and employees of the development should not be allowed to purchase parking permits for the Town owned Numbered lots and employees of the businesses in the development should continue to be directed to park in the Intercept lot. 11. III. Projected Conditions — C. Parking — Page 21 to 23: Residential Demand = Looking at Table 2 for the parking structure there are issues of note. Of the 181 Residential parking spaces s noted in the Parking Garage Statistics the projected demand in Table 2 for the residential parking shows 182. The current resident parking demand for Buildings 1 through 3DE is 75 spaces (page 21) during the peak period. That is a 78% parking ratio for the 96 units already built (as noted in Appendix R). The proposed parking garage has a total of 181 residential spaces of which there will be 106 spaces remaining for Buildings 4AiB through 8. This means the remaining 167 units will have a parking space ratio of 63% (half hotel) and for the 289 beds a 37% parking space ratio. Again, there should be an agreement that any overflow parking generated by the project will not impact any Town owned parking lots. Residents, guests and employees of the development should not be allowed to purchase parking permits for the Town owned Numbered lots and employees of the businesses in the development should continue to be directed to park in the Intercept lot. 12. Ill. Projected Conditions — C. Parking — Page 21 to 23: Commercial Demand = In the commercial general public spaces there are proposed 353 spaces (Volume 3, 03 - Garage Statistics) of which 50 are valet parking spaces. (The SMC's 57 spaces and the Clinic's 21 spaces are locked off and not open to the general public.) The potential demand shown in Table 2 Peak Parking Demand for the core structure puts the total demand at 368 spaces. 0 Page 11 There is a need for the Shared Parking distribution over time to be taken into account to free up space. This paints to me a picture of a very busy place in the PM peak hours of 3:00-5:00. As much as we want to retain sales tax revenue during apres ski, we will need the day skiers to open up space for retail access. Also, the full allocation of the 127 Commercial -Restaurant demand for spaces are allocated to the Evening time when a portion of them will be occupied in the late afternoon. The 24 spaces for the Community Amenity will likely be in demand during the apres ski period. As noted above in #8 Existing Parking Conditions, the day visitor demand can be significant. The ability to communicate to day visitors that the parking in Base Village is full will be an important function that should be mentioned in the PMP. This may be the area where impacts can overflow into neighboring areas. As stated before, the management of any excess parking demand is the owner's responsibility and no over flow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 12. Ill. Projected Conditions — 2. Proposed Parking Plan, pages 24 & 25: As noted in the text and Table 3 the residential demand of the 270 residential units, including employee housing units, have an evening demand for 184 spaces (13 for the employee housing spaces). The parking ratio to residential units is 68%. The parking structure puts the available parking spaces at 181. Given that the residential parking spaces are in gated areas, I do not see how they lend themselves to the Shared Parking concept. 13. 111. Projected Conditions — 2. Proposed Parking Plan, pages 24 & 25: 1 see the peak hour traffic volumes happening between 3:00 to 5:00 pm. I think the parking demand graphing in Figure 10 should match the existing traffic volumes particularly for the day skier parking. The peaking parking demand in the early aftemoon in Table 3 shows a midday commercial and day skier parking demand for 384 spaces and the garage statistics shows a total capacity for 431 spaces. Taking out the SMC and Clinic because the have restricted access shows a demand to capacity ratio of 306 vehicles to 353 spaces. It is necessary for the day skier demand to be capped at 200 and the restaurant demand to be low to provide the surplus. Day skiers are likely a component of the restaurant parking during apres ski. Again, the day skier utilization of the parking spaces will be occupied until later in the afternoon. 14. III. Projected Conditions — 2. Proposed Parking Plan, pages 24 & 25: "Further, valet parking and its associated increased efficiency could further increase the structure's actual capacity." In looking at the design for the parking structure in Volume 3 — 03 Garage the doubling of parking spaces for the Valet service on P3 is already happening. The spaces for both the SMC and the Valet service must share the travel lanes within the parking structure, so doubling up on parking spaces outside of the specifically designed doubled spaces would encroach into the travel lanes. I would be concerned about the impact to access, egress and the public safety with too aggressive an over -parking concept. The Valet could open to general public use but the SMC spaces are within the residential gated areas. 15. III. Projected Conditions — 2. Proposed Parking Plan, pages 24 & 25: "The Base Village parking supply in the structure will exceed the demand requirements." As shown earlier the peak day visitor parking demand can be over 400 vehicles, so the cap of 200 day skier parking spaces has to be maintained. The current parking operations do not seem to be able to distinguish between user groups and operates on a first-comefrst-served basis. With the restricted access to the residential parking and the SMC and Clinic spaces, I see the structure being full in peak periods. 16. IV. Transportation Operations - A. Traffic and Pedestrians — 1. Traffic, Page 29 & 30: As stated above in #9 "The traffic model includes the reductions for central location and internal trips and projects 'the long-term peak hour traffic shown on Figure 8 (page 16) shows a traffic level of 815 vph in one direction and 425 vph in the other.' This totals 1,240 vph which includes a 10% increase to account for additional growth, Fanny Hill development, the units to be built in 0 Page 12 Sinclair Meadows, the 200 day skiers, and I assume the 57 SMC and 50 Valet parking spaces. The total of 1,240 vph coincidentally was the average of the ten highest days in the winter of 2013/14. This suggests to me that the projection is very "conservative" in favor of a lower traffic volume for the traffic impact in the future. I do not see this projection as occurring "relatively infrequently' or as a "relatively rare peak condition." Also, Council directive is to look for a solution that can achieve a LOS B criterion. 16. IV. Transportation Operations - A. Traffic and Pedestrians —1. Traffic, Page 29 & 30: It is disappointing that we cannot develop a world class solution to the Wood Rd/Carriage Way intersection. Trying to manage the three legs of the intersection as well as monitoring the entrance to the garage and the transit station is a pretty big challenge for the traffic control officer. I think a mini -roundabout should be studied for the intersection. 17. IV. Transportation Operations - A. Traffic and Pedestrians —1. Traffic, Page 29 & 30: In my opinion the "sensitivity traffic analysis' could become the "relatively rare peak condition" at completion of this project. We should be designing our transportation infrastructure for this level of demand to prepare for our future success. 1B. IV. Transportation Operations -A. Traffic and Pedestrians -1. Traffic, Page 29 & 30: Given that our current average for the ten busiest days is hitting 782 vph in one direction and the model of 1,240 in the peak hour already, I am not as confident that the capacity of 925 vhp in one direction will not be reached. 19. IV. Transportation Operations - A. Traffic and Pedestrians — 2. Pedestrians, Page 31: The stronger the pedestrian plan is for Base Village and the ability to access it form other properties will help achieve the aggressive parking reductions behind the traffic projections. A couple of recommendations to the pedestrian plan would be to 1.) Use the ski back trail as also a pedestrian connection from Build 10B to the Gondola and main plaza. 2,) Strengthen the pedestrian connection to Anderson lane to accommodate the access for properties along Lower Carriageway into Base Village. 3.) People walk from the Mall down the west side of Fanny Hill to access Base Village and there is no pedestrian connection there. They can use Skittles, but at times walking is faster. 20. IV. Transportation Operations - B. Transit, Page 31: 1 see the peak hour demand for RFTA services exceeding 70 passengers in the peak hour. To me the only way to achieve the lower passenger boarding of 10-15 riders is to increase employee access to parking in the Rodeo lot which transfers the burden to the local transit service. 21. IV. Transportation Operations - C. Parking, Page 33: The one-half of the remaining 60 commuting by automobile most likely are being targeted for the Rodeo lot. WE do not have the capacity for these vehicles today in the peak periods (20% of the season). If the suggestion in this section is that ASC employees working the hotel are part of the Black Saddle parking and ASC bus service, then this needs to be a requirement for the hotel into the future regardless of ownership. 22. V. Summary, Page 34, Bullet Point 2: If the 2013/14 average of the PM peak hour, one way traffic volume is 782 and 10% of the projected remaining 1,750 trips for Base Village move in the peak hour with a traffic split of 60% in the peak direction, the one way traffic volume without any additional growth will be 887 vph in one direction. This is close to the LOS C capacity of 925 vph in one direction for Brush Creek Rd. 23. V. Summary, Page 34, Bullet Point 3: As stated before, it is not and apples -to -apples comparison between the 2004 and 2014 traffic studies. I have shown that the average of the ten highest days in 2013114 has already reached the 1,240 vph the future projection in the 0 Page 13 current study. Also simply adding 10%ti of the Base Village growth projection of with a directional split of 60% generates a 887 vph in one direction which is very close to the 925 LOS C capacity for Brush Creek Rd. 24. V. Summary, Page 34, Bullet Point 4: 1 am supportive of the roundabout being built at the Brush Creek RdMood Rd intersection. It is the best solution to deal with current and future traffic. There will be the ongoing need for a traffic control officer at the entrance to the Treehouse until there is an alternative to all ski school drop-offs/pickups at 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. I think Wood Rd/Lower Carriage way needs a better solution than a traffic control officer. 25. V. Summary, Page 34, Bullet Point 5: We should be moving forward with a roundabout design for Brush Creek Rd/Owl Creek Rd intersection to address the LOS F left hand turn that exists today in the peak am and pm hours. 26. V. Summary, Page 34, Bullet Point 6: as stated before I see the peak hour demand for service on the regional system at 70-80n passengers during the peak periods and not 10-15.We also need to see if increased funding form sales taxes will support an increase in regional service. 27. V. Summary, Page 34, Bullet Point 6: Base Village will need all the parking spaces they have to manage the demand that they will generate with the 200 plus day visitors. They need to make agreements to address the parking reductions projected in the hotel operations and employee access. The development should mitigate any access parking demand on site or at another private location. This should not become a burden for the community. Appendix H - Fiscal Impact Analysis: If there is a negative impact on the regional bus service (RFTA) due to increased demand in the am and pm peak hours for both employees and guest of the Base Village properties, then RFTA will be adding service to meet that demand. In a response from RFTA it states "It isn't possible to provide a precise estimate ... However, as an order of magnitude, it could cost as much as an estimated $200,000 per ski season to fill in many gaps in back up service." This is why it is important to understand the potential revenue generation in the fiscal analysis. Figure 5 in the study states that the hotel will have an Average Annual Occupancy of 55% and the fractional units of 70%. For the hotel to be occupied for 201 days of the year in Figure 7 it requires being fully occupied most all of the winter (131 nights) and almost all of the summer (70 nights). The Nightly Rental Rates appear to be high for the hotel at $375/Night. It may be difficult to hit the occupancy rate without discounting the nightly rate. The occupancy rate is also a concern for the sales tax generation as well in Figure 6. A quick calculation of the potential RFTA sales tax revenues to offset the potential expenditures to add winter bus service is just over $200,000. If the assumptions are too aggressive, RFTA will be in an operating deficit. 2. RETT —Because RETT revenues support capital acquisition and maintenance for the local bus service, it is a bit of a concern that the potential revenues are declining. Increases in the general sales tax revenues will need to cover the loss in RETT revenues to support incremental increases in the cost of bus service to support the Base Village project. Appendix S — Garage Ventilation Summary: 1. At peak times of the day when a lot of buses are running through the transit facility in Base Village the air quality can decline for those that are waiting for the next bus to arrive. If there is some way to help improve the air quality in the peak times, it would be appreciated by those that work in the transit facility or have to wait for lengthy periods. 0 Page 14 Appendix S — RFTA Analysis: I do not think that the projected employee impact to RFTA of 10-15 trips in the peak hours is realistic. I also think that the transit dependent resident population (based on parking reduction credits taken for residential units of 0.75 and 0.5 for the hotel) will also add to the demand for service in the peak hours. RFTA's project of surplus capacity in the PM peak period is based on average occupancy of their vehicles. The 94 vacant seats identified on the backup buses in the off times may cover the residential demand. I worry that the employee movement to catch BRT or Down Valley local buses may overload the regional system if my projection of the additional 70-80 riders on the service in the peak hours is correct. In consideration of the higher number of potential riders RFTA stated that "However, as an order of magnitude, it could cost as much as an estimated $200,000 per ski season to fill in many of the gaps in backup service between scheduled SM -AS Direct buses during the PM peak period over the 137 -ski season." Appendix U — Construction Management Plan: 1. 5.1 - Worker Parking, Page 17: Worker parking is identified as being at the Intercept lot or on site. This should be approved by the Aspen Parking Department. 2. 5.1- Worker Parking, Page 17: The plan references "A combination of Private shuttles and Public Buses will be used to transport workers." RFTA service being open to the general public is already overwhelmed when groups of 10-15 preschoolers ride the bus for outings. If the developer is talking 1-3 riders at a time, then RFTA should be able to accommodate them. If a crew of workers plan on riding, then RFTA would need to know in advance, using the same protocol as the preschool children. Private shuttles would be the preferred solution for the abase Village works. 3. 5.3 — Traffic Control 17: Traffic Control should be aware that the regional runs at 15 and 45 minutes past the hour cannot be delayed too long or the transfers to the regional system will run the whole service late. Anything that can be done to accommodate the regional service getting through would be greatly appreciated. Appendix V— Intersection Alternatives: 1. "Recent traffic count data suggest that the peak season, peak hour traffic demands passing through the intersection are notably less than those previously projected." The current traffic projection for proposed Base Village totals 1,240 vph and includes a 10% increase to account for additional growth, Fanny Hill development, the units to be built in Sinclair Meadows, the 200 day skiers, and I assume the 57 SMC and 50 Valet parking spaces. The total of 1,240 vph coincidentally was the average of the ten highest days in the winter of 2013/14. This suggests to me that the projection is very "conservative" in favor of a lower traffic volume for the traffic impact in the future. I do not see this projection as occurring "relatively infrequently" or as a "relatively rare peak condition." Table 1 Alternatives Assessment Short List: In my opinion the roundabout design remains the best solution for this intersection. The roundabout design is superior to all the alternatives in: improving the capacity and flow of traffic, improving safety by reducing speeds and eliminating the potential for left -tum right-angle and head-on collisions, improving pedestrian safety by providing refuge in the splitter -islands, reducing greenhouse emissions by eliminating unnecessary stopping and starting, and creating a sense of arrival through landscaping potential. I do believe that any one of the alternatives presented to the Conoco would not adversely impact their business when compared to the improvements to the general public's safety. 0 Page 15 Volume 2 Exhibit 2 - Services Agreement 1. Article 2 - Traffic Control Officer: I believe the TCO is needed at the Treehouse intersection on a daily basis in the winter and for major special events. I do not think that a TCO will be able to manage the Wood Rd/ Lower Carriage Way intersection effectively. It is sad that we cannot come up with a world class solution to this key intersection. I believe looking into a mini roundabout solution has merit. 2. Article 2 — Compliance with Parking Management Plan: I believe there should be and agreement between the Town and the owners of Base village that overflow parking form Base Village will not impact the Town's parking lots. It should be agreed to that residents, guests and employees of the project should not be allowed to purchase Town parking permits for the Numbered lots. Exhibit 4 — Parking Management Plan: 1. Operation Plan b): Shuttle service to Eagle County Airport is now only offered in the summer. Yet, summer is the highest season when guests use cars. 2. Operational Plan — Employee Parking: Base Village employees were previously restricted to the Intercept lot. Now they are given access to the Rodeo lot. The rodeo lot is over the asphalt surface capacity 20% of the time in the winter. The Town does not run a park -&-ride service in the off-seasons or summer. Planning for the Entryway may not include major parking in the future, which would move many employees down to the intercept lot impacting regional bus service. 3. Operational Plan - Check -In Parking Nan Drop Off: Six of the seven bays in the transit facility are currently being used in the winter and the seventh bay is poorly design for a larger vehicle to pull in and out and still make the right hand tum onto Lower Carriage Way. A number of other bays are compromised by protrusions into the bus pullout space making them problematic for larger vehicles. 4. Operational Plan - Check -In Parking Nan Drop Off: There is no overnight parking allowed in the Intercept lot at the present. Parking of large vehicles at the Rodeo lot is problematic at best. The Rodeo lot is heavily used in the winter and may be redeveloped during the Entryway planning so that there is no space for this activity. The most underutilized lots are the Two Creeks lots. I would suggest the developer approach the ASC to gain access to the Two Creeks lots for overnight coach parking. 5. Operational Plan - Check -In Parking Ivan Drop Off: I do not think the 6 spaces contemplated in front of Building 8 will accommodate the check—in parking for Buildings 7 & 8 and the Valet parking service. I also am concerned about the number of access intersections at the entrance to the main garage and the transit facility: Building 8 check-in and valet entrance and the entrance to the hotel check-in and parking. Both of which cross the path of the traffic exiting the Parking garage and the transit facility. 6. Operational Plan — Residential Parking: "Residential unit parking consisting of 117 spaces in the Base Village core." In the Garage Appendix it shows 130 residential spaces in the core as well as the 51 spaces for the hotel? 7. Operational Plan — Residential Parking: "The BVCO will have the option to utilize more of the residential parking for day skier and/or commercial as it sees fit," Given the Residential 0 Page 16 parking is access by keys it is difficult to make available to other activities. This is also allowing the day Skier parking to go in excess of 200 parking spaces which can impact the PM peak traffic volume. 8. Operational Plan — Residential Parking: Designing the parking capacity based on averages can cause parking shortages in the peak periods. An agreement that any overflow parking generated by the project will not impact any Town owned parking lots should be made. Residents, guests and employees of the development should not be allowed to purchase parking permits for the Town owned Numbered lots and employees of the businesses in the development should continue to be directed to park in the Intercept lot. 9. Operational Plan — Limelight Hotel: If the hotel needs additional parking in the summer, then there should be a covenant that the hotel has a right to the SMC parking spaces in the summer. This should also be defined in the SMC parking agreements. 10. Operational Plan - Day Skier Parking: There is no stated management plan to maintain the limit on day skier parking to 200. In fact it is stated earlier that the BVCO can utilize resident parking for day skier and/or commercial parking. Increasing day parking in the structure will negatively impact the PM peak hour traffic. 11. Operational Plan — Commercial Parking: The hotel parking spaces are part of this number. True commercial parking is some 431 spaces of which 78 spaces have restricted access (SMC and Clinic). 353 spaces are the true commercial parking spaces and they include the 200 day skier spaces. There is no mechanism that can distinguish the users. 12. Operational Plan— self Park: Are the shop owners/managers allow one space with their lease or are they part of the paying public? 13. Operational Plan — Mountain Club Parking: If the hotel needs the access to the SMC parking in the summer than the restricted access in the summer should be in the agreements with the SMC members. 14. Parking Management Clarifications - P3: The Valet parking plan is yet to be clarified. It references Building 7 for the check-in function "(or Building 8, as dependent on where such valet parking program is operated.)" 15. Appendix IV: The Appendix shows 128 resident parking spaces and the garage statistics shows 130 spaces. 16. Parking Level P3: at the main entrance to the garage and transit facility you have the turning movement for the access to the hotel and the access to the Building 7 & 8 check-in and valet function, and the access to the short term parking in front of Building 7. This is a very congested situation. It will be necessary for the valet parking to keep the circulation lanes clear. 17. Parking Level P2: The Commercial parking spaces have dead ends to them with no turn- around space. 18. Parking Level P3: A number of the commercial parking spaces have dead ends and no turn- around space. 19. Table 2: As shown earlier the peak day visitor parking demand can be over 400 vehicles, so the cap of 200 day skier parking spaces has to be maintained. The current parking operations do not seem to be able to distinguish between user groups and operates on a first-come/first- Page 17 served basis. With the restricted access to the residential parking and the SMC and Clinic spaces, I see the structure being full in peak periods. 20. The potential demand shown in Table 2 Peak Parking Demand for the core structure puts the total demand at 368 spaces. There is a need for the Shared Parking distribution over time to be taken into account to free up space. This paints to me a picture of a very busy place in the PM peak hours of 3:00-5:00. As much as we want to retain sales tax revenue during apres ski, we will need the day skiers to open up space for retail access. Also, the full allocation of the 127 Commercial -Restaurant demand for spaces are allocated to the Evening time when a portion of them will be occupied in the late afternoon. The 24 spaces for the Community Amenity will likely be in demand during the apres ski period. As noted above in #8 Existing Parking Conditions, the day visitor demand can be significant. The ability to communicate to day visitors that the parking in Base Village is full will be an important function that should be mentioned in the PMP. This may be the area where impacts can overflow into neighboring areas. As stated before, the management of any excess parking demand is the owner's responsibility and no overflow parking should be allowed in the Town owned lots. 21. Figure 10: 1 see the peak hour traffic volumes happening between 3:00 to 5:00 pm. I think the parking demand graphing in Figure 10 should match the existing traffic volumes particularly for the day skier parking. The peaking parking demand in the early afternoon in Table 3 shows a midday commercial and day skier parking demand for 384 spaces and the garage statistics shows a total capacity for 431 spaces. Taking out the SMC and Clinic because the have restricted access shows a demand to capacity ratio of 306 vehicles to 353 spaces. It is necessary for the day skier demand to be capped at 200 and the restaurant demand to be low to provide the surplus. Day skiers are likely a component of the restaurant parking during apres ski. Again, the day skier utilization of the parking spaces will be occupied until later in the afternoon. Volume 3 Village Exhibits — Village Mobility Plan: Again, I would recommend allowing use of the ski back trail for pedestrians to access the gondola and the main commercial node. I would improve the pedestrian access from Anderson Lane to the south west side to the Treehouse. This is to improve pedestrian access from the properties along Lower Carriage Way. The sidewalk form the Fanny Hill cabins and the Crestwood condominiums should show stairs on the major gradients. Garage 03: See comments under Parking Operational Plan Lot 3: 1 do not like the congestion and numerous turning movements that are happening at the entrance to the main parking garage: the Ski Services function in front of Building 7, the check-in function and valet services happening in front of Building 8, the check in function and valet service return for Building 5 and the valet parking in front for the transit lanes and the parking helix. Lot 6: 1 would like to confirm the bus pullouts that would provide access to Buildings 10 AB and the Enclave as well as the pedestrian connection down into Base Village. • Page 18 From: David Peckler - TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT — SUMMARY BENEFITS OF ROUNDABOUT Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 9:39 AM To: Anne Martens; Lee Barger; 'Dean Gordon'; Julie Ann Woods; Jim Wahlstrom Cc: Chip Foster; Dave Harris; Eldon Freeman; Johnny Boyd Subject: FW: roundabout discussion FYI general benefits of a roundabout design. From: Tessa Lemke Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:29 PM To: David Peckler Subject: roundabout discussion Benefits of a Roundabout Operations The continuous flow of traffic at a roundabout reduces the delays and improves traffic operations. Roundabouts often eliminate the need for roadway widening - since roundabouts typically do not stop vehicles as often as traffic signals they do not require as many lanes to store vehicles. Cost Analysis Often roundabouts use less impervious area, leading to stormwater detention and water quality cost savings. Right-of-way acquisition, if needed, occurs at the intersection rather than along the corridor. Maintenance and upkeep at a roundabout consists of landscaping, striping, and power for illumination. Safety • Single -lane roundabouts have approximately one-fourth the conflict points when compared to traffic signal and stop -sign -controlled intersections. • Roundabouts eliminate right-angle, left -turn, and head-on collisions. • Low entry/exit and circulating speeds at roundabouts allow drivers more time to react to potential conflicts. • The low and similar speeds through roundabouts reduce the severity of collisions. • Roundabouts enhance pedestrian activity. Pedestrians cross only one direction of traffic at a time and all pedestrian and vehicle paths are at 90 degrees. Aesthetics & Environmental • A well landscaped roundabout can be a gateway to a community or a city. • The landscaping in the central island and the splitter islands improves the aesthetics of an intersection. • Because roundabouts improve the efficiency of traffic flow, they greatly reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. NOTE: GATHERED FROM STUDY BY KANSAS UNIVERSITY AND A TIGER GRANT APPLICATION FROM LOUISIANA Tessa Lemke Transportation Secretary Town of Snoumiass Village TO Boy, 5010 Snowmass Viffage, Colorado 81615 p. 970-923-2543 f. 970-923-5986 Snowmass I-TOUCE Village 130 Kearns Road . P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 p 970.923.5330 f 970.923.5867 June 24, 2015 Re: Base Village PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan. Review Comments prepared and submitted by: Brian Olson, Chief of Police Overall public safety and emergency access are the primary considerations guiding the following comments. Preliminary Plan Review, Volume 1 Appendix F- Transportation Analysis and Parking Management Strategy 2015 Update Intersection of Carriage Way and Treehouse, page 6, figure 3 & 12. This intersection generally operates during the winter season with traffic management provided by the Town's own traffic control officer (TCO). The TCO provides coverage for two hours in the morning during drop-off activities and again in the afternoon for two hours during pick-up. On days experiencing peak traffic volume additional resources are needed and provided by the Town's Transportation Department in order to manage the Town's transit system through the negative effects of this intersection and into the Base Village Transit Center. Without this assistance the TOSV bus system would struggle to maintain scheduled service. Levels of Service (LOS) in Figures 3 & 12 show this intersection operating at Level "A" for AM/PM. Although it is noted, this intersection struggles to stay above a Level "C" during these peak activities and the LOS in figures 3 & 12 should be adjusted accordingly. The applicant has expressed a commitment to continue this traffic control resource. (see below #4 TCO) 2. Arrival Center, building 7, drop-off/pick-up, page 6 & 27 and Volume 2, exhibit 4 -Check- in and Valet. The Arrival Center parking lot continues to experience growth in regards to its planned uses. Hotel shuttles are being transitioned from the Treehouse to the Arrival Center parking area. The applicant plans to add Valet services to the building 7 parking lot, as well as anticipating random groups arriving in coaches or buses. Most of this winter activity coincides with the ski area operation- morning arrival and afternoon departures. However, the valet service would provide a more consistent coming and going throughout the day. When summer uses are considered, special events as one example, arrival and departure activity in the Arrival Center building will take place at all times throughout the day. Especially considering large volumes of users flowing through the Arrival Center in both directions, at all times of the day, serious consideration should be given to requiring the applicant to install a second escalator to resolve the inefficiency of the "single - direction" escalator currently in use. Managing crowd movement during ingress and egress is essential to event transportation goals and event success. 3. Wood Road and Carriage Way Intersection design options, page 27, figure 12. The applicant's recommendation to improve this intersection from a LOS "F" to a LOS `B" is: 1. Committing to provide resources for the Town to dedicate a traffic control officer (see below #4 TCO) to manage peak traffic activity. 2. Create a two-way stop- "The stop signs would be placed along the Carriage Way approach and along the northbound Wood Road approach ". The police department strongly suggests the applicant consider a design improvement option instead of a long term human resource one. The PD also believes the traffic control officer option to be less than effective. An example: During the 2014 New Year's week (December 29-31), the Snowmass Police Department spent several afternoons conducting traffic control at this intersection. The traffic officer was successful in alleviating the congestion on Carriage Way. And he was able to effectively monitor and prevent a back- up of the Brush Creek —Wood Road intersection. The officer was unable, however, to prevent the back up on Wood Road above the Carriage Way intersection. This systematically shut down the exit from the parking garage and brought the Town's transportation system to a grinding halt. One success created another failure, every time. 4. Town Dedicated Traffic Control Officer (TCO), page 6 & 30. "The applicant is prepared to dedicate resources, allowing the Town to dedicate a traffic control officer to specifically control the Wood Road/Carriage Road [sic] intersection. " The applicant is also committed to continue the TCO assigned to the Treehouse as conditions require. The Town is not capable nor willing to provide a part-time TCO to manage these intersections on a permanent basis. The LOS on these intersections fail during peak traffic volumes. The timing of these peak volumes coincide with peak "calls for service" for the Town's police department. Parting with critical resources during these peak times is unrealistic. The police department suggests the applicant arrange this resource through the Base Village management. An agreement should be included as an exhibit in the application that shows the applicant has secured the qualified TCO resources to manage both intersections when needed into perpetuity. Preliminary Plan Review, Volume 2 Exhibit 4 Parking management Plan— Commercial Parking -CLINIC Parking Clarifications- Underground Parking Level P-3 According to plan the Clinic parking located in the underground parking garage on level P-3 (street level) will be controlled by a "gate" at the entry off Wood Road. However, in a joint meeting between town staff and the applicant, on June 22, 2015, it was revealed that the access to Clinic parking was to be controlled by a "closed garage door" at the Wood Road entrance. The police department is concerned that this presentation to the Clinic parking will be confusing and may be quite stressful to a visitor arriving at the Clinic in a medical crisis. The appearance of a closed garage door may signal "no entry" as these doors are rarely used to control access points to public parking structures. The police department requests the applicant utilize the more common "gate" type control. *VPrA7J1 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority May 19, 2015 Mr. Craig L. Monzio Vice President Related Colorado 16 Kearns Road, suite 300 P.O. Box 6565 Snowrnass Village, CO 81615 Dear Mr. Monzio: As a requirement of the land use approval process associated with the proposed Base Village development project, Related has been directed by the Town of Snowmass Village as follows: 15. Transit ridership. In conjunction with the Ski Resort Operator's Agreement, the Applicant should coordinate with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority to increase the bus capacity to meet ridership demands during peak seasons and time periods and/or adjust routing and schedules to meet peak demands as well as provide a plan to increase those services as the Base Village project is phased in. The Applicant should provide a report in coordination with RFTA with the submission of the Preliminary Pian application in efforts to demonstrate improvement in the service levels. d. Snowmoss Village Is experiencing extraordinary transit riderslrp demand during peak periods during the winterseason. There is increased transit ridership, in particular on RFTA buses, which are neoring or exceeding capacity especially during peak periods and at a time when the Buse Village Is only one third complete and not fully built out. The remaining development will generate more employees and transit ridership demands in thefuture. Accordingly, you have requested RFTA to assess the existing passenger demand on RFTA buses serving the Town of Snowmass Village during the afternoon peak period during the winter season, in order to gauge the need for additional transit capacity in the future. The chart on the following page indicates that, on average, during the course of the 2014/2015 winter season, passenger demand generally exceeded capacity on all scheduled buses departing from Snowmass Village to Aspen every 15 minutes from 3:15 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. (see Column E, the average number of riders in excess of seated capacity per bus trip is highlighted in red). However, RFTA ridership data also indicate that passenger demand on backup buses operated between the scheduled 15 -minute departures, on average, did not exceed seated capacity. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Average Riders per Trip Compared to Bus Capacity for Scheduled and Backup Buses A B C D E F G RFTA is uncertain as to why the scheduled buses (between 3:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.) appear to be consistently overcapacity by 5 —9 passengers, but can hazard a guess. Backup buses may not be arriving at the Snowmass Mall for several minutes after the departure of the scheduled buses. Because there might not be another bus in sight, people might be choosing to stand on the bus that is right in front of them rather than wait for another bus that could be 5-8 minutes away. People understand schedules and know when buses are supposed to depart but, even though backup buses are frequent, people may have less confidence in their reliability. Even when a backup bus is staged directly behind a departing scheduled bus, it can take 5 or more additional minutes to load the backup bus and, again, people sometimes choose to stand rather than wait for the next bus. Another reason that the scheduled buses could be averaging standees on nearly every trip is that the scheduled buses operated on 15 -minute frequencies between Snowmass and Aspen from 8:00 a.m. until 8;15 p.m., seven days per week, over the course of the 137 -day winter season. However, as can be seen from Colum F, above, peak afternoon backup buses were not operated every day during the past 137 -day winter season or consistently across all time periods. Noteworthy, though, according to Column E above, average ridership on the backup buses, when they operated, did not exceed seated capacity on the buses. A variety of factors, such as snowfall, road conditions, bookings, and the health of the regional and national economies, can impact ridership demand in ways that are challenging to predict. RFTA receives a schedule from Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) each year that establishes the number of buses that RFTA should plan to operate on the Snowmass-Aspen service from week -to -week over the winter season. This schedule is based upon 2 Times at Average q to of which Riders Scheduled more Average Average Average More and Backup Backup Scheduled and Backup Peak Passengers Passengers Vehicle Than Buses Over Buses Afternoon Bus trips between after Base after Town Seated Seated 137 -Day might be Snowmass and Aspen Village - J24 33 Park 35 _ V 15 Capacity 38 38 Capacity -3 -13 Season 137 36 Indicated Scheduled 14:45 Backus be Scheduled 15:00 --- 32 _ 33 36 -5 137 25 - 27 38 -11 -`� 78 �f Scheduled 15:15 42• 44 39 i 6 131 Backu sbe :30 29 30 38 -8 96 scheduled 15:30 46 44 38 6 131 Backus he 27 27 38 -11 75 Scheduled 15;45 42 45 38 7 i 17 Backus between ' 'd 15:00 30 30 38 -81 126 Scheduled 16.00 44 47 38 91 137 Backus between 16:00 and 16:15 32 31 38 -7 120 Scheduled 16:151 46 47 38 9 157 between 16:15 and 16:30 33 34 38 -4 93 Scheduled 16:30 43 43 38 5 137 acku s between 16:30 and 16:45 33 34 38 -4 54 Scheduled 16:451-r15 35 -48 -3 ii/ 45 amuldiiiMiiiifMai— RFTA is uncertain as to why the scheduled buses (between 3:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.) appear to be consistently overcapacity by 5 —9 passengers, but can hazard a guess. Backup buses may not be arriving at the Snowmass Mall for several minutes after the departure of the scheduled buses. Because there might not be another bus in sight, people might be choosing to stand on the bus that is right in front of them rather than wait for another bus that could be 5-8 minutes away. People understand schedules and know when buses are supposed to depart but, even though backup buses are frequent, people may have less confidence in their reliability. Even when a backup bus is staged directly behind a departing scheduled bus, it can take 5 or more additional minutes to load the backup bus and, again, people sometimes choose to stand rather than wait for the next bus. Another reason that the scheduled buses could be averaging standees on nearly every trip is that the scheduled buses operated on 15 -minute frequencies between Snowmass and Aspen from 8:00 a.m. until 8;15 p.m., seven days per week, over the course of the 137 -day winter season. However, as can be seen from Colum F, above, peak afternoon backup buses were not operated every day during the past 137 -day winter season or consistently across all time periods. Noteworthy, though, according to Column E above, average ridership on the backup buses, when they operated, did not exceed seated capacity on the buses. A variety of factors, such as snowfall, road conditions, bookings, and the health of the regional and national economies, can impact ridership demand in ways that are challenging to predict. RFTA receives a schedule from Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) each year that establishes the number of buses that RFTA should plan to operate on the Snowmass-Aspen service from week -to -week over the winter season. This schedule is based upon 2 traditional levels of demand that have been established over the years; however, as indicated previously, demand can fluctuate up or down on any given day due to factors that cannot always be predicted. In RFTA's view, the only way to reduce standees on the scheduled buses departing Snowmass Village during the afternoon peak period over the course of the winter season would be to plan for more days when backup buses would be available before and/or after the crunch times for scheduled buses between 3:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. For example, between the 3:45 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. scheduled buses, 126 backup buses were operated last winter season. If this number represents one bus per day for 126 days, effectively providing a bus every 7.5 minutes on those days, it might be possible to reduce standees on the scheduled buses just before or after this backup bus slot, by operating a backup bus every day of the 137 -day ski season. This would have equated to 11 additional bus trips between 3:45 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. during the past winter season. When backup buses don't operate at various times on various days during the ski season, of necessity, more people are required to ride the scheduled buses, and RFTA suspects that is the reason that scheduled bus are averaging standees on every trip, whereas backup buses are not. Most likely, when the backup buses are being operated, the number of standees on scheduled buses is minimized; however, standees are more likely to occur on the scheduled buses on days when ridership demand is higher than anticipated and backup buses are not available or scheduled during certain time slots before or after the scheduled buses. Intuitively, it seems that adding backup buses during the afternoon peak period would help to reduce the number of standees on scheduled buses. ASC has typically demonstrated a willingness to add service when ridership trends indicate that passenger waiting times are unacceptable for guests or demand greatly exceeds capacity. yet, cost is a factor and it could be difficult to justify adding service when ridership on ACS's portion of the Snowmass-Aspen service is flat or declining (for example this past ski season, ASC Snowmass-Aspen service was down approximately 1%). In addition, RFTA doesn't have unlimited resources in terms of personnel or equipment, so it is important for RFTA to deliver its services as efficiently as possible. Due to the implementation of automated passenger counting technology, RFTA has only recently had the capability of efficiently monitoring average ridership by trip. The data provided as part of the above analysis represent a baseline by which future ridership can be compared. Naturally, from RFTA's perspective, the goal should be to minimize standees on its buses to the greatest extent feasible. However, even though RFTA and ASC desire to minimize standees, it may take additional analysis, resources, and time to develop an effective and efficient plan to do so. ASC's estimated annual operating cost increase for adding one bus to the service between Snowmass and Aspen in the afternoon peak period only, each day of a 137 -day season, would be approximately $50,000. It is important, therefore, to target the resources accurately and efficiently. To this end, RFTA recommends that ASC and RFTA continue to monitor ridership demand, particularly during the winter afternoon peak periods, and work together cooperatively to develop a plan prior to each ski season to reduce standees on scheduled buses below the 2014-2015 baseline. In addition, ASC and RFTA should jointly provide an annual report to the Snowmass Village Town Council in May each of year with respect to average number of standees per bus trip on the Snowmass-Aspen bus service pertaining to the prior winter season. Sincerely, Dan Blankenship Chief Executive Officer DUNLOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. r Environmental and Public Health Planning for the Future June 28, 2015 Thomas S. Dunlop President Town of Snowmass Village Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director 130 Kearns Road PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Base Village PUD Preliminary Plan Review Dear Ms Woods: As per your request, Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. (DEC) has reviewed the above-mentioned application and offers the following findings. The Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV) Land Use and Development Code was used as the governing document for this review. Specifically review was made of the application content for: Garage Ventilation; Construction Management Plan; Brush Creek Impacts; Air Quality; Noise; and Lighting. Garage Ventilation (Vol 1 Appendix Q) There are three areas of interest that may have a direct impact on the interior and immediate exterior of the parking garage. They are air quality inside the garage, location of exhaust terminates, and noise from the ventilation fans. As the parking structure is already in place and partially operational DEC findings are to call attention to possible impacts to the area above and near the garage once full operation is achieved. Obviously maintaining air quality inside the garage is of paramount importance. The use of a carbon monoxide exhaust activation system as explained in the application is an acceptable option as long as it is maintained. As designed, once the air handling system in the garage is activated the exhaust terminates direct interior air to the outside. It is possible that the exhaust air will contain noticeable concentrations of vehicle engine emissions, Architecturally paying attention to nearby structures that might require air intake will be valuable to minimize garage exhaust air from being reintroduced into another structure. Ventilation fans and their accompanying mechanical systems generate noise. This stationary source of unwanted sound can be problematic to nearby receptors (public gathering areas, residential units, commercial uses, pedestrian areas, etc.) Post Office Boa 6289 • Snou mass ' 'illage, Colorado 81015 FSA • Office and Fax (9-0) 923--+,04 0 printedon re"rled paper (public gathering areas, residential units, commercial uses, pedestrian areas, etc.) During a conversation DEC had with Erin Pasold from Beaudin Ganze Consulting Engineers no specific decibel level information was available for the fans. It is well documented in noise management studies that constant or intermittent sound from sources such as fans can be very disruptive to people who are exposed to it. Since the fans are already in place in the parking structure it is suggested that architectural attention be given to near by receptors as structures are constructed in the general area of the exhaust terminates. It is possible to build sound reduction techniques during construction. Construction Management Plan (Vol 1 Appendix i3) The Construction Management Plan (CMP) was quite thorough in the application relative to this environmental review. As stated by the applicant a final CMP will be forthcoming at time of building permit issuance on a project by project basis. Each general contractor will be required by the applicant to submit their own CMP. At this time the number of CMPs that may be submitted is not known. From an efficiency perspective it will be helpful for the applicant to coordinate multiple CMPs so referral agencies and departments can comment with minimal delay. More detail is needed in future CMPs in the areas of: 2.1 wetlands, 2.3 hazardous on site conditions, 2.4 cleaning of construction vehicles, 2.5 storm and sediment control, 2.7 noise, 2.9 pile driving, 2.12 air and dust management, 3.1 construction waste recycling, 3.2 material storage, 3.22 unsightly premises, and 4.8 drainage. Brush Creek Impacts (Vol 1 Appendix N) The Brush Creek Impact section touches on major issues important to protection and preservation of the Brush Creek corridor. DEC focused on 4.4 Water Quality/Runoff Concerns to Brush Creek and 7.3 Water Quality. Storm water and site runoff drainage issues were addressed in the 2002-2004 period of Base Village development activities. The current application reminds that sediment vaults, oil/grease separators, stabilized controlled outfalls were constructed as part of the subsurface "storm sewer' management system. The quoted term "storm sewer" implies sewage is part of this system. Clarification is requested to confirm that there is no black or gray water sewage entering the storm water system. In the Preliminary Plan Application there are comparison graphics noted as "Entitled" and "Proposed". In some of the Entitled pages there is confirmation that in the 2002 proposal surface water was used as a landscape amenity as well as a way to move water from above the site to Brush Creek. In the Proposed application the former surface water does not appear. The assumption is that the water is now 2 underground as part of the collection storm water system. It is suggested the applicant describe more fully if this is the case. During a conversation between DEC and David Blauch of Ecological Resources Consultants (ERC) the discussion centered around the existing subsurface storm water management systems ability to effectively handle the additional water that was formally surface drainage. The conclusion was that ERC assumed the storm water system was properly sized to handle the additional now (Sect. 4.4, p.6, last paragraph). A follow up question to Tetra Tech, the company that supplied information to ERC for the Brush Creek Impact report, is can the existing storm water system properly treat additional flow? Calls to Tetra Tech were exchanged, but no resolution was determined as of the date these findings were due. A second question is will runoff from the proposed snow melted roads discharge into the storm water system or randomly to surface receptors (drywells, lawns, etc)? Discharge from this source is added demand to any treatment facilities. Air Quality (Vol 1 Appendix 0) A comparison was made by Tetra Tech, author of Appendix 0, between 2002 and current federal, state and local air quality standards, regulation, and ordinances. The conclusion was that the "...proposed project was found to be in compliance.... In Volume 3 of the application there is evidence in the drawings that there will be multiple fireplaces in buildings with living units. It is unclear if these are electric, gas or solid fuel burning. Regardless, the question is if the air emission calculations included discharge from the fireplaces. In Vol 1 Introduction and Background, section 2.14 Energy Conservation (and additional sections titled Energy Conservation) there is mention of project heating, but fireplaces are not included. Clarification is suggested. Air analysis is presented in Table 1 that includes construction contributions. There will be air quality impacts during construction and post -construction. The more immediate impacts may be realized during the construction phase. The CMP mentioned earlier covers some control and response actions. More detail will be forthcoming at building permit issuance. Evaluation of post -construction emission contributions should be all-inclusive such as: restaurant grills, decorative fireplaces and vehicle idling. During the initial development of Base Village in 2002 the amount of excavation required that an air monitor capable of measuring particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM 10) be installed for the duration of the excavation. Given that soil disturbance for the current proposal involves much less in volume than in 2002, a PM 10 monitor is not necessary. However, a fugitive dust control plan is suggested 3 as part of the CMP approval. This will not have to be renewed once construction is complete. Noise (CMP Appendix Iii) Noise or unwanted sound can have a very significant impact on environmental conditions during construction and post -construction. Section 2.7 of the CMP presents an understanding of the current TOSV noise abatement standards. These standards apply during the construction phase only. The decibel level mentioned (90 dB) is liberal and is significantly higher than typical normal conversation of around 60 dB. As a point of reference sound is measured on a logarithmic scale meaning that every increase or decrease in 10 decibels is a 100/0 perceived increase or decrease in level heard by the human ear. The more difficult response to unwanted sound is post -construction. The TOSV code 10-101 Noise, Unreasonable does not set a measurable decibel level as being unlawful. Rather, the determination is left up to the police department. It is a subjective interpretation. Situations that can influence a complaint are when there are mixed land uses in close proximity to each other. For example, residential or lodging units directly above commercial uses. Specific to this application, the multi -uses proposed for Lot 2 plaza and Building 6 community purpose will be interactive with an ice skating rink, concerts, farmers market, kids play area, outdoor dining and various other uses. It is suggested that architectural considerations be made to all buildings facing the common area to include sound dampening/reduction materials. Lighting While not in the purview of DEC for this project nor found addressed in the application, experience with the environmental impacts of unwanted light can result in public complaints. Large interior lighted spaces with unrestricted view to the outside can result in Flood lit areas objectionable to some. Heavily lighted common areas can also result in public complaints. This concludes findings of this review. Please contact me for further clarity or comment as necessary. Sincerely, Thomas S. Dunlop, MPH, REHS 4 July 8, 2015 Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. 245 Woodruff Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Town of Snowmass Village Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director 130 Kearns Road PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Base Village PUD Preliminary Plan Review - Addendum #1 Dear Ms. Woods: Dunlop Environmental Consulting (DEC) has reviewed Addendum number 1 to the Base Village PUD application. Specifically attention was paid to the Construction Management Plan (Appendix U) replacement narrative and to the Application Introduction and Background (Article 1) replacement narrative. After careful review and comparison with the original submittal, no substantive findings were noted relative to sections pertinent to environmental health review topics. Comments from DEC to the TOSV dated June 28, 2015 remain valid as presented. This concludes findings of this review. Contact me should you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Thomas S. Dunlop, MPH, REHS Memo To: Julie Ann Woods, Jim Wahlstrom Date: June 23, 2015 From: Joe Coffey Re: Base Village Employee Housing Planning Review Please note this memo is very similar to previous housing memos and some of the concerns have been answered during the two meetings I have had with the applicants. General Housing Observations When base Village was originally approved all employee housing units were dedicated to be sales units. I always thought that a mixture of employee housing unit types would better serve the operators of base village and meet the housing market demands better than all sale units. I think the current proposal is providing a sufficient mixture of units to flit the operational demands. Of course I would like to see more units but, that is not within my control. Sales units help build a stronger community and these units will add vitality to the base village area year round and so will long term rental units and this is why I continue to request these types of units. After reviewing the current proposed employee housing for Base Village with the applicants I have only a few issues left that may need further discussion. I have listed the issues below that I would like to have additional information or future discussions. Floor Plans Please send me the floor plans for the employee units. Paper or electronically will be acceptable. Third Amendment to Base Village Restricted Housing Agreement I would like to discuss this agreement more with the applicant to make sure the rents are being correctly established and to make sure Snowmass Village employees are receiving the first priority for all units not just employees of ASC or their affiliates. I would also like to see panty in the rental rates for the new units with Club Commons 11 and the Town's rental units too. Building #5 The seasonal units need more closet space for each bedroom and storage space for the employee's personal items like bicycles skis, and other sporting goods. There is only one parking space for seven units. The applicant states that these will be seasonal employees without vehicles. Providing a share a ride car was suggested but, the applicant thinks the bus system is sufficient. Building #7 These units appear to be larger and the applicant is stating that these units will be used for full time long term rental apartments. These units have one parking space per unit which is suitable for long term employee rentals. Storage space for individual apartments is necessary. Building # 8 No employee units are planned for this building. Building #11 Two 1 bedroom units are shown with no actual floor plans. I am not sure which type of units these will be. Building 10AB This building has a significant number of employee units with 6 units consisting of 2 studios, 2 One bedrooms & 2 two bedrooms units. I am not sure how these units will be used. Will these be seasonal, long term rental, or sales units? Lastly, in general. I think these units will certainly help house some of the employees this development will generate. The Housing Department's goal is to make sure these units have adequate storage space, laundry facilities, parking, and the rents are similar to other employee units in the Village. Sales paces will need to be similar to the Capital Peak unit sales prices. 0 Page 2 Base Village Preliminary Review by Chase Andersen, RLA 6-18-15 Landscape Sheet L2-2 "Phase 1 Planting Plan" • This plan meets the basic criteria of Planting Plan for preliminary submittal. • Given the redesign of Phase 11, what are the plans for the partial section of water feature installed in Phase I? The original design had the water feature flowing through Phase I and Phase II. Does the redesign inhibit the ability for the water feature to operate? Does the section of water feature installed in Phase I need to be redesigned in order to work properly? Should the Phase I water feature be replaced with planting or hardscape? • Populus ongustifolia, Narrow Leaf Cottonwood, proposed in a quantity of 50 ranging from 2.5" caliper to 4" caliper in size, is known for its brittle architecture and weak wood. This species will require more than average maintenance of deadwood removal and will be more susceptible to damage and limb loss during high wind events. Populus ongustifolia is also known for its shallow and invasive root system. The roots have the capability to lift pavers and sections of sidewalk as wells as invade lawns and planting beds and potentially damage drainage systems and building foundations. The trees should not be planted within close proximity of buildings or sidewalks. Additionally, the tree is fast-growing, but short-lived, thus Populus angustifolia may quickly outgrow its surrounding space and begin to die off, ultimately being a poor investment. This tree is better suited for periphery or suburban environment and is not best suited for use in planters or street tree environment. Comparable substitutes would be Maple, Ash, and Birch. • The variety of deciduous tree species proposed is limited to 5 total. Other deciduous species could be added to the plant list for visual interest. Various non -fruit bearing, flowering trees, such as Malus sp. and Prunus sp., could add to the landscape impact. • Shrub list contains a fair amount of native plant material. R. woodsii is aggressive and could become a maintenance hardship if planted with other shrubs or flowers. • Forbs list only contains common names of plants. Common names often change or refer to multiple varieties of species. Latin names of plants should be provided to verify none of the proposed forbs are on the invasive, non-native plant list. • Section 16A-4-320 Landscaping, grading and other design standards. o Wherever possible, native varieties shall be used. o When appropriate, landscaping should... promote water conservation. a When planting on hillside... plant material should duplicate adjacent plant communities both in species composition and spatial distribution patterns. Lighting Sheet L2-7 "Site Lighting Plan" • This plan meets the basic criteria of Lighting Plan for preliminary submittal. • Insufficient lighting is proposed between buildings 2c and 2b. An overhead pass between the buildings increases the need for sufficient lighting in this area. • The lighting plan does not show proposed lighting around buildings 10a and 11. • Symbol "LD" on the drawing is not referenced in the Legend. • The pedestrian light lumens do not cover the steps along the north side of Building 6. The addition of step lights in this area is recommended. Open Space Sheet L1-2 "Open Space Diagram" • This plan meets the basic criteria of Open Space Map for preliminary submittal. Site Furnishing Sheet L1-12 "Site Furnishing Diagram" • The only benches are shown on the south and east side of building 4. It would be beneficial to have benches on the perimeter of the proposed plaza to the north of building 4 and to the south of building 6. • Benches could also be dispersed along the pedestrian/fire lane. 6SGM :vww.sgm-inc.corn June 29, 2015 Via E-mail: JWoods(a)tosv.com Ms. Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Town of Snowmass Village RE: SWSD — Base Village PUD Amendment Dear Ms. Woods: SGM represents the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District as their District Engineer. SGM has reviewed the Base Village PUD Amendment submittal dated May 29, 2015. The following comments and concerns need to be addressed in addition to the conditions set forth in the May 28, 2015 will serve letter provided by the District as well as the 2005 LEA: 1. The existing sewer manholes within Wood Road have several deficiencies that need to be fixed before the new pavement is installed and they can be accepted by the District. The developer needs to work with the District to fix these deficiencies to the District's satisfaction. 2. The future water and sewer lines should be stubbed out to the Fanny Hill Town Home project before the final asphalt surface is installed on Wood Road to prevent future road cuts. 3. The sewer line from the Enclave is outside of the existing easement. The Developer needs to acquire the correct easement or relocate the sewer line to within the easement before Wood Road is paved. 4. All of the missing easements for water and sewer lines within Base Village are still outstanding and need to be completed. If you have any questions, please tali. Sincerely, SGM Chris Lehrman, PE Project Manager Cc e-mail: Kit Hamby, District Manager Mark Hamilton, District Attorney 1:1201312013-321 Snowmass w&SD1001 Miscellaneous Engineering Services132 Base Village PULS Amen d\Correspondance\L 20150629 Julie Ann woods.doc GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 b Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945.1004 May 28, 2015 Town of Snowmass Village Attn: Jim Wahlstrom Community Development Department P.O. Box 5010 SNOWMAss WATER & SANrrAMON 6 1 5 T R f C T Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Re: Provision of Water and Sanitary Sewer Service to the Base Village Project. Dear Jim: This letter is to re -confirm that the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District ("SWSD") has the capacity to serve, and that SWSD has previously agreed to provide water and sanitary sewer service to, the Base Village PUD development within the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, as such was described and approved by the Town of Snowmass Village by Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2004. The developer of the Base Village PUD now proposes to amend the PUD. The revised project at build -out is estimated to include up to approximately 183.83 non-residential equivalent residential units (EQRs), and approximately 570.35 residential EQRs, for a total projected build out demand of 753.73 EQRs. Such demand is lower than anticipated for built -out of the original 2004 PU'D plan. SWSD is willing to provide water and sewer service to the proposed amended Base Village PUD at these projected service levels, upon the terms and conditions set forth below. SWSD's commitment to provide water and sewer service to the proposed amended Base Village PUD remains conditional upon satisfaction of applicable obligations set forth in the Base Village Water and Sewer Facilities Agreement (referred to herein as the "LEA"), between the District and Intrawest Brush Creek Development Company, LLC (the original Developer), dated September 2005 as well as the related Improvements Agreement (Sewer and Water Lines Upgrade) (referred to herein as the "IA") by and between SWSD, the Town and Snowmass Acquisition Company, LLC (the successor/current Developer) dated August 30, 2013 (the "IA") and recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder on May 12, 2015 at Reception No. 619772. In particular, there are a number of outstanding obligations pursuant to these existing agreements that will need to be fulfilled prior to SWSD providing additional water or sewer service, including: 1. Payment of additional system development fees, as applicable to each propert yfbuil ding for which additional service is sought but fees have yet to have been paid (or as to which fees already paid have since been reallocated as performance security pursuant to the lA), 2. SWSD approval of final design specifications for requisite additional water and sewer infrastructure; SNowxASs WATER & SA?,nTA-nON DmFucT • POST OFFICE Dox 5700 • 0177 CLUBHOUSE DRivE • SNOWMASS VILLAGE • COLORADO 81615 TELEPHONE 970.9212056 • FACSUIULE 970.923.6271 • www.swsd.n 3. Installation of requisite infrastructure according to SWSD's rules and regulations; 4. Provision of as -built surveys and acceptance of all presently existing and future additional public infrastructure by SWSD together with requisite warranties and security for the same; 5. Dedication of public utility easements to SWSD for all public infrastructure to be owned by SWSD, in a form and with title assurances as required by SWSD (although certain of easements required by the LEA have recently been delivered to SWSD, SWSD has yet to formally accept said easements or associated infrastructure, in part because additional easements related to completed project phases and infrastructure have not been finalized or delivered to SWSD); 6. Reimbursement of SWSD's costs incurred in administration of the LEA, including periodic replenishment of a $25,000 Project Fund as described in Section 10 of the LEA. We look forward to working with the current Developer and the Town toward completion of this project. Please contact me with any questions. SNOWMASS WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT a C'nlnrarin cnncial rlictrirt cc: file SNOWMASS WATER & SANITAT[oN MsTwc-r • POST OFFICE BOX 5700' 0177 CLUBHOUSE DiuvE - SNOWMASS VII,LAGE - COLORADO 81615 TELEPHONE 970.923.2056 • FACSIMILE 970.923.6271 • www.swsd.org From: John Mele — SNOWMASS WILDCAT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 4:20 PM To: 'jwoods@tosv.com' Subject: Base Village PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan Review June 26, 2015 To: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Snowmass Village, Colorado Re: Base Village PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan Review Thank You for the opportunity to review and comment on the most recent Base Village Preliminary Plan Review. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District is committed to being a helpful participant while remaining clear in our goals and objectives for continued fire and life safety in the Base Village development. We believe that the existing Town of Snowmass Village Ordinances concerning Base Village are a solid foundation for the project as it moves forward. As always, we appreciate the cooperative working relationship that exists to build and maintain a safe resort community. Please see the below comments concerning the Base Village PUD Amendment Preliminary Plan Review dated May 29, 2015: Application Preliminary Plan Review Volume 1 1. Construction Type Variance, Page 15 section 3.13 The Applicant has misconstrued the content and total application of the "Combustible Material On Building Exteriors" ( Ordinance No. 3, 2007 Exhibit "D") in their reasoning to request a construction type variance for Building 6. We also understand that this building's newly proposed size and use has been significantly changed from the entitled structure. That being said, we have reached out to the Snowmass Acquisition Company LLC, by email, and believe we are in agreement as to the exact variance request concerning the construction type for Building 6. It is our understanding from correspondence between us, that should Building 6 be approved for the same size and configuration as proposed, the structure would be built to meet the requirements of a Type V-A (IBC 2015), be installed with full NFPA 13 Standard fire sprinklers and use non-combustible elements to the undersides of the buildings overhangs. In essence, this is a more clear and defined construction variance request for Building 6 that would comply with the intent of Exhibit "D", Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2007, as well as, Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2004. We are supportive of this more defined Construction Type Variance request as it is comparable with the same use, size and nature of existing Buildings 3ABC and 3DE in Base Village. This same Type V-A construction is also being applied to the future 4AB Building. If the Applicant concurs with my above recollection of our communications, we contend that their Construction Type Variance request be specifically "spelled out" to include these construction types and conditions in the finalized record of decision. On a similar note, we did not see a written request for a Construction Type Variance for Building 7 in their Application. Ordinance No. 21, 2004, entitles Building 7 to be constructed as a Type IV Heavy Timber. Again, after reaching out to the Applicant on the matter, they have indicated to us by email that they wish to construct Building 7 as a Type II -A, with heavy Timber elements. If this is their intended request for a proposed change to Building 7, this also should also be included in the final record of decision. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District believes that these more clearly defined variance requests for Building 6 and 7 are in-line with the overall fire safety of the Base Village Development and complement the goals of the "Fire Safety Enhancements" Sections in our already approved TOSV Ordinances. As such, we would support the Town of Snowmass Village decision to accept these revised variances. 2. Appendix E: Response to sketch Plan Review, Fire Department -John Mele The Fire District is appreciative of the answers and solutions to our concerns from the earlier Sketch Plan Review, with the exception of their response for the Lot 6 Development Plan that addresses emergency access for Building 10AB. To be more clear, Fire and emergency medical access for the proposed Building 10AB complex requires much more than just an overview of the newly designed fire lanes and our ability to share a bus stop for the staging of response vehicles. A more detailed review is required so that we can be assured of adequate exterior paths of travel within the 10 AB complex that allow for the capability of emergency personnel to carry 35 foot extension ladders, maneuver ambulance medical gurneys and shuttle other heavy firefighting tools in an emergency situation . The exterior walkways within the 10 AB complex should be free from complicated obstructions such as locked gates, snow covered stairs and non-negotiable grades, etc. We also would like more discussion with the Applicant about ambulance access to the 10 AB buildings before completely signing off on the proposed Lot 6 development change. We believe this can be accomplished in a timely manner to fully understand and preplan our options for better firefighting capability and emergency patient care. In closing, we remain available to the Town of Snowmass Village and to the Snowmass Acquisition Company LLC, to move forward in a positive direction to complete the Base Village review process. Sincerely, John T. Mele Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District jmele@swfpd.com (970) 923-2212 �O'5s w, FIRE SNOW MASS 01 > R , i„ Memo To: Julie Ann Woods From: Rose Abello cc: Clint Kinney Date: July 2, 2015 Re: Base Village Application Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Base Village application. We have reviewed this plan in the context of tourism and special events. Overall, Tourism is in support of moving forward with completing Base Village and it is our hope that we can get to 'yes' during this process expeditiously while ensuring the best result for the community. Many thanks VOLUME 1 Appendix T: Base Village Bathroom and Locker Adequacy —Tourism has heard from the existing base village plaza representatives that current summer activity and events in the existing plaza create a 'burden' on the restroom and trash facilities of the existing plaza. What public restrooms will be available for summer and what are the capacities, in terms of number of people in the venues (new plaza and existing plaza) that these facilities can accommodate? Are the restrooms in the proposed Building 6 to serve the T&B' outlet as well as the plaza as 'public' restrooms? Who will maintain these? Based on Snowmass Discovery's eventual hours, these may or may not be able to the public for events, pre- and post -ski days, etc. Sno"mass Tourism I P.O. Box 5566 1 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 I p: 970-923-2000 * 800-598-2006 1 f: 970-923-5466 �Y S N 0 W M A S S l 41� i�EE \I1�Y Appendix U: Construction Management Plan — Suggest that a fund be created to proactively communicate to consumers during construction that Snowmass is open for business. As I understand it, this became an issue during the prior phase as our competitors, especially, touted that Snowmass was just a big construction site. Providing a boneyard/staging area for summer events is critical to Tourism being able to host summer events. Can Lot C be shared during the initial construction phases until building 10AB starts construction? VOLUME 2 Exhibit 2: Services Agreement — Event coordination. Who will control the calendar for the community purpose plaza? How will this work? Will Tourism have access to the Plaza to plan events? What about sponsorships? Will someone be trying to sell sponsorships on the plaza that conflict with Skico and/or event sponsors? Exhibit 4: Parking Management Plan — Can the parking garage at 10AB be larger and have a 'floor' or 'level' that accommodates semi trucks, a loading dock, etc and provides summer access to the ski back trail? This could be used for skier parking in the winter and a boneyard/staging area for events? This would in effect serve as an 'enclosed' lot C. VOLUME 3 Building 6: Overall the square footage for Snowmass Discovery exhibits seems too small. • With 6 being the source of public restrooms, who will pay/clean/maintain. Does SD have full options in terms of opening/hours of operations given these serve as restrooms for Mb and plaza? • The 'inspirational' images provided (page 92) sparked an inspiration, can plaza level of 6 be designed so that a 3 sided tent seamlessly joins the building like in the photo on page 92. The current design precludes that. • Can the atrium be oriented so that it provides a great visual from transit exit at building 7 and from plaza level • Can 6 be expanded to include area over Mb • Can staircase be added to connect Mb patio to plaza level directly • Does parking egress staircase need to go up to plaza level • Can mechanical, janitor closet and bathrooms be buried in geofoam under plaza • Can these bathrooms have an exterior entrance from plaza? • Can a 'theater-ette' be created in the new space? • Who will be responsible for maintenance of building? Cleaning? Interior? Exterior? • Can we see dimensions of all spaces? P.O. Box 5566 1 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 1 p: 970-923-2000 * 800-598-2006 1 f. 970-923-5466 S N 0 W M A S S • What would the 'atrium' look like from plaza level with a mastodon in it? From village side? • Would windows/garage doors be of a material that can be opaque'd? • Can a 'deck' be added to roof so that functions, etc can take place there overlooking plaza? • Will CAMS for this building be endowed? What would the cash responsibilities be for SD and/or town? • Does this building need an elevator? Lot 2 Plaza We considered this plaza from three perspectives: an amenity in the winter; a venue for private events/functions; a venue for `open to the public special events' The overall design for this plaza looks like it is being built with the thought that it will only host small/fun amenity style events. That assumes that the lodges are always full and that the plaza is a place to "hang out". While this may be the case in the winter, it's far from the truth in summer. Eventually we hope to get to that, but vitality in summer is driven by groups and events. With this in mind: • There should be no restrictions (steps/planters) anything that can or could prevent a large vehicle or trailer stage to gain access to the events plaza (and how would they get there?) • Every single flat space in the plaza should be free of fire lanes • Every single flat space in the plaza needs to be on the same level ... again, no steps or landscaping planters • Fountain block? Make smaller or eliminate. • The temporary pavilions work in winter as long as the tents can be removed easily and that space can flow into the existing plaza completely in summer • Kids play block or small area is a good idea • Power? Need a power panel identical to the one by the Village Express • Are there large enough trash receptacles very close by? • By my count the plaza hold 220 people seated so maybe 4501sh standing? Special Events Set Up This plan does not include a location designed to handle the load-in/out and back -of -house operations needed for events like Tough Mudder/ Zoppe/ Wanderlust/ Ragnar/Mudderella or any new future event that may come to town. These events roll in with multiple full semis and the staff work out of them during their stay. Even if we tried to stage semi's in the existing P.O. Box 5566 1 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 1 p: 970-923-2000 * 800-598-2006 1 f: 970-923-5466 SNOW MASS loading dock, because of its current design, you cannot get a vehicle to the back of the truck to unload and move gear to where it needs to go. As shown below, currently, Lot C makes a great'boneyard'. With the development of Lot C, there is a need to identify a location to stage events as well as a path to get gear and equipment to the existing and new plaza areas in order to program events. See below a couple of images from Lot C staging area for Wanderlust. This provides a peek at Snowmass Tourism I P.O. Box 5566 1 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 1 p: 970-923-2000 * 800-598-2006 1 f: 970-923-5466 SNOW MASS OTHER ITEMS Tech nology/WiFi: WiFi-enable the entire base village and provide complimentary to guests, perhaps in exchange for an email address. Need to also consider the 'what's next' in terms of WiFi and technology. Back of house operations Waste Management & Loading Dock: Currently waste is transported to the loading dock area along the public plaza level in big rolling bins. Is there a more consumer -friendly, less visible solution for trash pick-up at the various buildings rather than lugging the trash across the plaza? For example, as we see it, the Limelight will need to transfer all of its trash across the plaza to the service elevator currently located in Building 2B, use the elevator to go to the loading dock and there throw out the trash. This does not seem practical or consumer friendly. Similarly, the existing loading dock does not work well. Whether it is for event or just day-to- day operations. While it can handle multiple semi -trailers, it has no room for a forklift. It also has no service elevator for a fork lift. Therefore all deliveries must go up the parking elevator and then out on the plaza for delivery by hand/hand truck. Village Mobility: From a consumer point of view, consider adding additional access way across the ski way. Explore other options to connect these two parts of the village. Risk may exist to create yet another 'node' in our multi -node community. Snow•mass Tourism I P.O. Box 5566 � Snowmass Village, CO 81615 1 p: 970-923-2000 * 800-598-2006 1 f: 970-923-5466 SNOW MASS (()["R% Currently the 'skittles' are not an effective transportation method at peak times and during events. With increased density in Base Village, suggest improving/enhancing the connectivity between the mall and base village. SnoHmass Tourism I P.O. Box 5566 1 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 1 p: 970-923-2000 * 800-598-2006 1 f: 970-923-5466 MEMORANDUM TO: JULIE ANN WOODS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: MARIANNE RAKOWSKI, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: BASE VILLAGE FIA PREPARED BY BBC DATE: JUNE 29, 2015 CC: JIM WAHLSTROM, SENIOR PLANNER Below are my comments/observations regarding the Base Village Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by BBC Research & Consulting dated May 27, 2015 and the SBV Property Tax Impacts memorandum dated June 10, 2015. As stated in the comments during sketch plan, the most notable information missing from the BBC Fiscal Impact Analysis are the financial impacts on Town services i.e. police services, transportation, bus purchases etc. The 2004 report by EPS referenced the need for additional public safety employees, transit bus employees as well as capital purchases for public safety and transit bus vehicles. Although Planning and Building revenues are not addressed (due to cost recovery), an evaluation should be completed to ensure that the revenues are adequate to cover any phasing and construction services required by the development. In addition, a cost recovery analysis should also be completed on Solid Waste services. Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts — Page 4 The summary presented by BBC uses the 2013 mill levy for 2014 collections. Using these same mill levies for consistency, BBC is showing the Town General Fund looking at a net increase of $39,323. Based on our analysis, only $24,398 will actually be realized as a net increase in entitled vs. proposed for General Fund property tax because the following mill levies do not generate operational revenue for the General Fund: o Droste Mill Levy — this is a pass-thru revenue to Pitkin County o Debt Service — subject to bond payments not increases in assessed value (cannot collect more than annual bond payments) o Abatement — only a collection of prior year revenues NOT future year revenues o Transportation — expires at end of 2015, so will no longer be applicable Sales Taxes — Pages 6, 7 & 8 Ownership and Occupancy: The occupancy rates in the BBC report should be analyzed to determine the correctness/ accuracy of these percentages as these affect the accuracy of the tax revenues. Per the DestiMetrics reports, the following occupancy rates are reported: Jan to June 2014: 51.9% Jan to June 2013: 46.5% July to Dec 2014: 39.1% July to Dec 2014: 30.7% 12 month avg — April 2014 to March 2015 = 42% Nov — March = 56%/June to September = 45.4% • Hotel Rooms — BBC is using an annual occupancy rate of 55%. o In the EPS memo dated 1/9/14 (page 2), EPS notes that 55% may be high given the smaller number of year round events in Snowmass Village compared to Aspen. o In the EPS presentation to the Town Council on 12/15/14 (page 10), EPS notes that most resorts hotels hover below 50%, but Vail or Aspen can reach 55% • Traditional Condo's — BBC is using an annual occupancy rate of 27%. o In the EPS presentation to the Town Council on 12/15/14 (page 10), EPS notes that condominiums as short term units average 30% to 50%, but with a high performing management company, can reach 85%. • Fractional Condo's — BBC is using an annual occupancy rate of 70%. o In the EPS presentation to the Town Council on 12/15/14 (page 10), EPS notes that fractional condos can range from 60 to 70%, depending on location and program. Retail Restaurants — Page 7: • Marketing/Special Event Sales Tax — Note (5) states the "The 2.5% Marketing Fund is not included"... why? Captured Spending, • Figure 6, Occupancy and Retail and Spending Sales Tax uses a TOSV Captured Spending of 60% (with leakage to Aspen). o In the EPS memo dated 1/9/14 (Page 3), EPS states that 50% should be used based on an analysis by TOSV & EPS in 2002/2003. Persons per Unit (avg) — Page 7: • The number of persons per unit should also be looked at to determine if these averages are realistic. Retail Spending12er Person/Day (avvg) — Page 7: • The amounts shown for per day spending ranges between $100 to $150 per day ... these appear were deemed reasonable based on the EPS memo date 1/9/14 (Page 2), but should be evaluated based on any current information available. Lodging Taxes — Page 9 • Marketing/Special Event Sales Tax — Marketing/Special Event Sales Tax is also not shown for the amount based on short-term lodging sales. • Nightly Rental Rates o Condo's $500/night o Hotel $375/night o Fractional $764/night These nightly rental rates appear to be high for Snowmass Village based on the Average Daily Rate (ADR) reflected in the DestiMetrics reports: Per Night Apr'14 — March'15 Dec'13—Nov'14 Dec '12 — Nov `13 Other — • Revenues per fund: Average Annual Rate $226 $222 $212 High Rate Low Rate $435 $108 $416 $108 $397 $ 62 o This report should break down the sources of revenues by fund to accurately reflect the financial impacts to the variety of Town funds, many of which have restricted uses and cannot be applied towards any public purposes. • BBC Memorandum dated June 10, 2015 o In this memorandum, the mill levies shown for all entities except Snowmass Village is the 2014 mill levy for 2015 collections. The Snowmass Village calculation uses the 2013 mill levy for 2014 collections, which is inconsistent with the other entities. As such, the comments made above regarding the net change in property tax revenues is applicable here as well. FAB Recommendations of Base Village PUC} FIA report: • The Base Village Preliminary Plan Major PUD Amendment is projected to yield incremental revenue for the Town, with safes and lodging tax increases more than offsetting a small reduction in REIT. This is positive for TOSV. • The Applicant's FIA report did not include a projection of expense effects. Related noted these effects should be minimal, with the increase in revenue easily offsetting any possible expense impact. This should have been noted in their submission, and should be confirmed. FAB Recommendations of Base Village's Retail Project Analysis and EPS' Response: • With respect to the supportable retail analyses, Related's Thomas report assumes substantial leakage to other parts of TOSV, and supports the recommended reduction to 51,200 ST that is in the proposal. The Town's consultant (EPS) believes leakage is overstated and believes more retail space could be supported (69,000-73,000 SF). Both analyses are based on many assumptions, and a fact based conclusion is very difficult, especially given the poor performance of Base Village's existing retail. FAB believes if the lower proposed 61,200 SF of retail/restaurant is approved, flexibility should be provided in the later stage building to allow for more restaurant and retail, should the demand be there in the future. At the margin, the Town will benefit from more restaurant and retail, but neither TOSV nor Related benefits from over building, as is currently the case. Flexibility to increase from 61,200 SF is very desirable for the Town's future. RECEIVED .,uL -) `? 2015 Snowmass Village Community Development Ilee• 1:+vnunllr , „f L+irul i +r Economic & Planning Systems, Inc 730 17th Street, Suite 630 Denver, CO 80202-3511 303 623 3557 to; 303 623 9049 fax Den ver Los Angeles Oakland Sacramento www. epsys. corn MEMORANDUM To: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director, Town of Snowmass Village From: Andrew Knudtsen and Tim Morzel, Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Base Village Application Review; EPS #143036 Date: July 9, 2415 This memorandum summarizes Economic & Planning Systems' (EPS) review of the application for the Preliminary Plan for the Base Village Major PUD amendment submitted by Related Companies (Applicant) to the Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV). EPS has reviewed the following sections of the updated application dated May 29, 2015: • Retail/Food & Beverage Impacts - Volume 1, Article I1, Section 19 o Proposed Modifications G Location Considerations • Base Village Retail Project Analysis - Volume 1, Article II, Section 20 o Thomas Consultants Base Village Retail Project Analysis • TCI Analysis Assumptions o TCI Methodology Evaluation o Peer Community Evaluation o Critical Mass and Optimal Concentration • Fiscal Impact - Volume 1, Article II, Section 21 In the sections that follow, EPS will address each of these aspects of the revised application. Some of the key issues that are evaluated in greater detail include: Memorandum Base Village Application Review -7uly 4, 2015 Page 2 1. How much retail floor area (which includes food and beverage) was included in the original entitlement (A), the past proposal (B), and the current application (C)? Based on the past proposal, what did EPS recommend was the optimal amount of supportable retail floor area (D) and what is the revised recommendation (E)? A. Original Entitlement: 67,389 square feet B. Past Proposal (Sketch Plan): 57,626 square feet C. Current Proposal: 61,265 square feet D. Previous EPS Recommendation: 70,000 - 76,000 square feet E. Current EPS Recommendation: 69,000 - 73,000 square feet (this does not reflect any increase that may be supportable attributed to assumptions regarding sales flows between Villages). 2. What was the residential development program that was included in the original entitlement (A), the past proposal (B), and the current application (C)? A. Original Entitlement: 596 units B. Past Proposal (Sketch Plan): 672 units C. Current Proposal: 608 units 3. How have the residential (A) and commercial (B) development programs changed from the previous application (Sketch Plan) and what is the retail expenditure potential attributable to the previous (C) and current proposal (D) in the TOSV? A. The number of residential units has decreased by 64 when compared to the previous application (Sketch Plan). This figure combines hotel and condo units, which has been disaggregated for the detailed expenditure potential analysis that follows. B. Compared to the previous application (Sketch Plan), the applicant has increased retail floor area by 3,639 square feet (57,626 square feet compared to 61,265 square feet). Note that the total of 61,265 square feet in the current proposal includes 6,081 square feet that are located in a new addition in Building 10AB, which is removed from the core area and slated for latter phases. Thus, the core area now has approximately 12,000 less retail floor area than the entitled plan. C. Previous Additional TOSV Spending Potential: $9.4 - $11.5 million D. Current Additional TOSV Spending Potential: $8.1 - $9.8 million, a decrease of 15 percent. 4. What is a reasonable amount of capture and dollar flow between Villages? A. Every community experiences dollar flow between its neighboring towns and within its commercial centers. No community or center is insulated and should expect to see some degree of net capture or leakage. In its previous analysis, EPS calculated the supportable retail floor area for Base Village based on the additional development and generally assumed that the flows between Snowmass Village centers would net each other out. 143036 Memo Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review July 9, 2015 Page 3 B. As part of the current application, Thomas Consultants, Inc. (TCI) has stated that Base Village will lose 35 to 45 percent of its expenditure potential to the West Village and/or Snowmass Center, thus diminishing the amount of new retail floor area in the Base Village. EPS believes that this leakage estimate is high. Given the opportunity, consumers are more likely to visit shops and restaurants that are closer in proximity to their accommodations. Given the distance, elevation gain to West Village, and overall quality and fresh experience of the Base Village, EPS believes that the percent of leakage will be much less than 35 to 45 percent. C. Because no center is fully insulated, there will be some leakage and some capture from the West Village. Accordingly, EPS has modeled the dollar flow and the corresponding supportable floor area. Recognizing that the current expenditure potential that supports the West Village is approximately three times that of the proposed development, the ultimate dollar flows are expected to benefit Base Village merchants. While it is virtually impossible to estimate consumer preferences and identify exact leakage/capture figures, EPS has modeled a 10 percent loss and 5 percent capture to show one example and provide a point of reference for understanding the inter -village flow. (The existing 91 condominium units and 152 hotel units in the Base Village have been segmented out in this analysis.) If the new base village has a loss of 10 percent of its expenditure potential and a corresponding gain of 5 percent of the existing Snowmass Village, what is the net effect? A. These assumptions result in an additional 2,500 to 3,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space that is supportable in the Base Village. Relative to the current proposal to construct 61,265 square feet of retail floor area, what is the optimal retail square footage? A. Because expenditure potential has decreased by 15 percent between this application and the previous application, the Base Village can support a reduced amount of retail and restaurant space. However, the Base Village can support a greater amount of retail and restaurant space than is currently proposed. The suggestion that dollar flow to the West Village will capture 35 to 45 percent of expenditure potential appears to overstate the reduction in sales potential. After accounting for hypothetical sales flows, the change in supportable floor area is slightly positive for the Base Village. B. EPS believes that the Base Village can support a retail base ranging from 69,000 to 73,000 square feet, which does not reflect any increase that may be supportable based on sales flows between commercial areas. 143036_Memo_Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Table 1 Commercial Development Program, Entitled and Current Proposed Lot Building Lot 1 Building 1 Current Entitled Proposal Variance Lot 1 Building 2A 11,926 11,926 Lot 1 Building 2B 3,780 3,780 Lot 1 Building 2C 1,601 1,601 Lot 1 Building 3ABC 9,182 9,182 Lot 1 Building 3DE 7,897 7,897 Lot 2 Building 4AB 4,159 4,695 Lot 2 Building 5 6,433 1,400 Lot 2 Building 9AB 1,478 - Lot 2 Buildini9C 1,034 - Lot 3 Building 6 2,555 1,201 Lot 3 Building 7 _ 785 825 Lot 3 Building 8 _ 3,882 - Lot 4 Aqua Center - - Lot 5 Building 11 - - (5,033) (1,478) (1,034) (1,354) 40 Lot 6 Building 10AB - 6,081 6,081 Lot 7 Building 12 - - Lot 8 Building 13B - - - Lot 9 Building 13A 12,677 12,677 - Total 67,389 61,265 (6,124) Source: Related Companies; Economic & Planning Systems 81443036-Snowmass V illage Fiscal Imp act Analysis\ Models\[ 143036 -BV Critical M ass-7-06-2015.x1sm] C ommercial-Ent. v. Prop July 9, 2015 Page 4 143036—Memo—Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Table 2 Residential Development Program, Entitled and Current Proposed July 9, 2015 Page 5 Lot Building Status Res. Type Entitled (DU) Current Proposal (DU) Variance Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 6 Lot 5 Lot 7 Lot 9 Lot 8 Lot 2 Building 1 Built Building 2A Built Building 2B Built Building 2C Built Building 3ABC Built Building 3DE Built Building 4AB Not Built/On Podium Building 5 Not Built/On Podium Building 5 Not Built/On Podium Building 6 Not Built/On Podium Building 7 Partially Built Next to Podium Building 7 Partiatly Built Next to Podium Building 8 Partially Built Next to Podium Building 8 Partially Built Next to Podium Building 10AB Not Built Building 11 Not Built Building 12 Not Built Build_, ing 13A Built Building 13B Partially, Built/Foundation Aqua Center Not Built/On Podium Tota 1 Condo Condo Condo Condo Condo Condo Condo Condo Hotel Condo Condo Fractional Fractional Condo Condo Condo Condo Hotel Condo _ Condo 14 29 25 23 0 0 4 57 0 9 _ 8 0 27 0 90 50 41 152 67 - 596 14 29 25 23 0 0 3 15 102 0 8 3 8 22 110 25 20 152 49 - 608 - - - 1 42 102 - 3 19 22 20 (25) (21) - 18 - 12 Source: Related Companies; Economic & Ranning Systems Ft\143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact Analysis\Models\[143036-BV Critical Mass-7-06-2015.xlsm]Residential-Ent. v. Prop 143036—Memo—Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Table 3 Commercial Development Program, Sketch Plan and Current Proposed Source: Related Companies; Economic & Planning Systens W143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact AnalysislModelsl[143036-BV Cnlical Mass-7-06-2015.xlsm]Commercial-Sketch v. Prop. July 9, 2015 Page 6 143036_Memo-Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Sketch Current Lot Building Plan Proposal Variance Lot 1 Building 1 - - - Lot 1 Building 2A 11,926 11,926 - Lot 1 Building 2B 3,780 3,780 Lot 1 Building 2C - �m _ 1,601 1,60_1 Lot 1 Building 3ABC 9,182 9,182 - Lot 1 Building 3DE 7,897 7,897 - Lot 2 Building 4AB 4,695 4,695 - Lot 2 Building 5 1,400 1,400 - Lot 2 Building 9AB - - - Lot 2 Building 9C - - - Lot 3 Building 6 1,201 1,201 - Lot 3 Building 7 825 825 - Lot 3 Building 8 - - - Lot 4 Aqua Center - - - Lot 5 Building 11 — - y_-- - - 2,038 Lot 6_ Building 10AB 4,043 6,081 Lot 7 Building 12 - - - Lot 8 Building 13B - - - Lot 9 Building 13A 12,677 12,677 - 3,639 Total 57,626 61,265 Source: Related Companies; Economic & Planning Systens W143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact AnalysislModelsl[143036-BV Cnlical Mass-7-06-2015.xlsm]Commercial-Sketch v. Prop. July 9, 2015 Page 6 143036_Memo-Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Table 4 Residential Development Program, Sketch Plan and Current Proposal July 9, 2015 Page 7 Sketch Current Lot Building Status Res. Type Plan Proposal Variance Lot 1 Building 1 Built Condo 14 14 Lot 1 Building 2A Built Condo 29 29 Lot 1 Building 2B Built Condo 25 25 Lot 1 Building 2C Built Condo 23 23 Lot 1 Building 3ABC Built Condo 0 0 Lot 1 Building 3DE Built Condo 0 0 Lot 2 Building 4AB Not Built/On Podium Condo 3 3 Lot 2 Building 5 Not Built/On Podium Condo 15 15 Lot 2 Building 5 Not Built/On Podium Hotel 102 102 2 Building 6 Not Built/On Podium Condo 5 0 _Lot Lot 3 Building 7 Partially Built Next to Podium Condo 5 8 Lot 3 Building 7 Partially Built Next to Podium Fractional 3 3 Lot 3 Buildin 8 Partially Built Next to Podium -- —_- - - - -I---. Fractional _- 8 8 Lot 3 Building 8 Partially Built Next to Podium Condo 20 22 Lot 6 10AB Not Built Condo _ 110_ 110 Lot 5 _Building Building 11 Not Built Condo 50 25 Lot 7 Building 12 Not Built Condo 41 20 Lot 9 Building 13A Built Hotel 152 152 Lot 8 Building 13B Partially Built/Foundation Condo 67 49 Lot 2 Aqua Center Not Built/On Podium Condo - - Total 672 608 Source: Related Companies: Economic & Planning Systerm H:\ 143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact Analysis\M odds\(W 3036-B V critical M ass-7-06-2015.xlsm( Residential -Sketch v. Prop 3 2 (25 (21) 18 (64) 143036_Memo_Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Revised EPS Analysis July 9, 2015 Page 8 The Applicant has made a number of changes to the commercial and residential development programs that are reflected in the most recent application (May 29, 2015). As a result, EPS has revised the analysis summarizing supportable retail and restaurant space. The revisions to the development program result in approximately $8.1 million to $9.8 million in estimated TOSV visitor spending, shown in Table 5 and Table 6. While this represents a decrease in spending potential when compared to the previous application (608 units vs. 672 units), it represents an increase in spending when compared to the entitled program (608 units vs. 596 units). Table 5 Additional Base Village Visitor Days Future Persons Annual Additional Description Development per Unit Occ. Rate Visitor Days Units 365 Future Phases 29, 2014; Economic & Planning Systems Condo 252 3.5 30.0% 96,579 Fractional 11 2.0 70.0% 5,621 Lodging 102 2.0 55.0% 40.953 Subtotal 365 143,153 Source: Related Companies; DestiWtrics; BBC Research & Consulting, Memo to TOSV, September 29, 2014; Economic & Planning Systems H:\143036-Snowmass ViIlageFiscal Impact Analysis\Models\[143036-BV Critical Mass-7-06-2015.xism]Proposed Residential Table 6 Additional Base Village Spending Potential Additional Avg. Daily Expenditure TOSV Ann. Additional Description Visitor Days Spending Potential Capture Expenditure Low Capt. High Capt. Low Capt. High Capt. Annual Annual Future Phases Condo 96,579 $125 $12,072,375 45% 55% $5,432,569 $6,639,806 Fractional 5,621 $125 $702,625 45% 55% $316,181 $386,444 Lodging 40.953 125 $5.119.125 45% 55% $Z303,606 $2,815.519 Total 143,153 $125 $17,894,125 $8,052,356 $9,841,769 Source: Related Companies; Economic & Ranning Systems H:\ 143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact Analysis\Models\[ 113036-B V Critical M ass-7-06-2015.xism]Additional Spending 143036_ Memo_ Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum July 9, 2015 Base Village Application Review Page 9 The revised analysis results in a total of approximately 69,000 to 73,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space that is supportable in the Base Village. The current proposal, which includes 61,265 square feet of retail and restaurant space, represents a deficit of approximately 7,000 to 12,000 square feet, shown in Table 7. The previous analysis completed by EPS identified a deficit of approximately 13,000 to 19,000 square feet of supportable retail and restaurant space. The estimate of supportable retail and restaurant space in the Base Village solely focuses on future phases of development planned for the Base Village. The analysis assumes that the current level of expenditures in the TOSV is sufficient to support the current amount of retail and restaurant space. Although this analysis is somewhat simplistic, it requires far fewer assumptions regarding visitor spending patterns within the TOSV. If existing retail and restaurant space, which includes space completed in the Base Village, is included in the analysis, additional assumptions regarding leakage and spending inflow between commercial nodes within the TOSV would need to be considered. EPS believes it is appropriate to limit the analysis to future phases of development in order to avoid relying on assumptions that lack sufficient supporting information and quantifiable data. Table 7 Supportable Retail and Restaurant Space Estimate, Previous and Current Description Base Village Spending Potential Condo Fractional Lodging Subtotal Additional Space Supportable Proposed Surplus(Defiicit Total Space Supportable Proposed Surplus/Deficit Previous Estimate Factor Low Capt. High Capt. (45%) (55%/ $6,812,269 $8,326,106 $316,181 $386,444 $2,303,606 $2,815.519 $9,432,056 $11,528,069 $375 [1] 25,152 30,742 12.164 12.164 -12,988 -18,578 70,614 76,204 57,626 57.626 -12,988 -18,578 Current Estimate Low Capt. High Capt. (45%) (55%) $5,432,569 $6,639,806 $316,181 $386,444 $2,303,606 $2,815,519 $8,052,356 $9,841,769 21,473 26,245 14,202 14.202 -7,271 -121043 68,536 73,308 61.265 61.265 -7,271 -12,043 [1] Gross sales of $375 per square foot refects a desired standard for new conrnercial space in the resort industry. Source: Economic & Planning System HA 143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact A nalysislM odes1[143036-6 V Critical M ass-7-06-2015.xism] Existing -Pro posed 143036_Memo Sase Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum July 9, 2015 Base Village Application Review Page 10 Retail / Food & Beverage Impacts Proposed Modifications The applicant is proposing a number of changes to the entitled retail and restaurant offering within Base Village, shown in Table 1 and summarized below: • Relocation of the restaurant from Building 8 to Building 5 (the new Limelight Motel) • Addition of new retail and restaurant space in Building 10AB • Decrease in the size of the food and beverage space in Building 6 • Conversion of retail in Building 5 to food and beverage • Addition of 2,100 square feet of new conference space in Building • Elimination of Buildings 9ABC Aside from the scale of the retail and restaurant space located in the Base Village that is included in the current proposal, which is discussed in the following section of this memorandum, EPS believes that the changes detailed as follows will fall below the economic potentials available to Snowmass Village. The two factors include: • Total floor area activated as retail/food and beverage, and • The location of these retail/food and beverage shops and restaurants. Locational Considerations As shown in Table 1, the new plan calls for a reduction of 12,781 square feet of retail/food and beverage from the core area (compared to the entitled development program). For the purposes of this memo, the core area is considered to be the areas surrounding Buildings 4 through 9. To mitigate this loss of floor area, the Applicant is proposing to increase the retail/food and beverage by a total of 576 in the core area and 6,081 in Building IOAB. The net reduction is 12,205 in the core area and 6,124 square feet for the Base Village as a whole. EPS is concerned that the net reduction of 12,205 square feet from the core area will diminish the long term attraction of the Base Village that could otherwise be achieved with additional critical mass. The location of 10AB is removed from the core area and requires pedestrians to cross a pedestrian bridge over a ski -back. Shoppers typically require an activated streetscape to move incrementally down a corridor. A break in the continuity of this magnitude will be a significant impediment to the future success of retail in Building 10AB, Clustering and Phasing Considerations The potential for the fully developed Base Village to have a critical mass of its own depends on its ability to capture the expenditure potential from its guests. Right sizing the supply in proportion to the demand is the key task at hand. EPS believes that the core area involving Buildings 4 through 9 will benefit from a layout that enables pedestrians to move through the space in a connected way. With the relocation of the pool area, there is now an opportunity to concentrate the retail and restaurant space and improve the vibrancy and cross -shopping potentials. The commercial areas in Buildings 10 through 11 are expected to be constructed in future phases. The isolated retail in Building 10AB is a concern, given the distance from the core. Incorporating this retail floor area within the core will lead to more successful tenants in the future as well as an improved critical mass. 143036 Memo Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum July 9, 2015 Base Village Application Review Page 11 Base Village Retail Project Analysis Base Village Retail Project Analysis (Thomas Consultants) The revised EPS analysis (included in previous sections of this memo) recommends that the Applicant increase the total amount of space dedicated to retail and restaurant uses by approximately 7,000 to 12,000 square feet, for a total of approximately 69,000 to 73,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The amended application includes a net reduction of 12,205 square feet from the core area (recognizing that approximately 6,000 square feet has been added to Building 10AB for future phases). The core area (Buildings 4 through 9) will have 8,121 square feet of retail and restaurant space. Future phases will add a total of 14,202 square feet of retail and restaurant space, bringing total retail and restaurant space in the Base Village to 61,265 square feet. The applicant retained Thomas Consultants, Inc. (TCI) to advise on the retail and restaurant component of this Application (see Volume 1, Appendix G of the Application). The analysis completed by TCI concluded that total supportable retail and restaurant space could range from approximately 58,000 to 63,000 square feet depending on capture rates for the TOSV and the Base Village. There is significant difference between the analysis completed by TCI and the work completed by EPS (EPS Memo: Base Village Commercial and Residential Analysis, January 28, 2015). The major difference between the two reports reflects assumptions concerning TOSV and Base Village Capture rates. Similar to the EPS analysis, the TCI report assumes that the TOSV is able to capture approximately 45 to S5 percent of retail and restaurant spending between Aspen and other down -valley communities. However, unlike the analysis completed by EPS, the TCI analysis includes an additional step that assumes that the completed Base Village is able to capture only 55 to 65 percent of spending by new residents and visitors in the TOSV with the balance of this expenditure potential seeking the West Village and/or Snowmass Center. For example, the "High/Optimistic" TCI and EPS scenarios assume that if a visitor spends on average $100 a day, $45 is spent in Aspen and other down -valley communities and $55 is spent within the TOSV. Unlike the EPS analysis, the TCI analysis assumes that of the $55 spent in the TOSV, approximately $36 (65 ;percent of TOSV spending) is spent in the Base Village and the balance of $19 is spent in the West Village or the Snowmass Center. TCI Analysis Assumptions The key assumptions used in the TCI report and their comparisons to the assumptions used in the EPS memorandum are summarized below and shown in Table 8. Average Occupancy Rate - The TCI report assumes an annual occupancy rate of 30 percent for condominium units, 55 percent for hotel units, and 70 percent for fractional units. These assumptions are the same as those used in the EPS memorandum. Guests per Unit - The TCI report assumes 3.5 guests per unit for condominium units, 2.0 guests per unit for hotel units, and 3.1 guests per unit for fractional units. The only assumption that differs from the EPS memorandum is the estimate of guests per unit for fractional units. The TCI report assumes 3.1 guests per unit for fractional units, while the EPS memorandum assumes 2.0 guests per unit. While 3.1 guests per unit for fractional units may 193036_ memo—Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review July 9, 2015 Page 12 be a somewhat optimistic assumption, it is not unreasonable given the nature and size of the proposed fractional product. Spending per Day - The TCI report assumes that average spending per day ranges from $100 per day for condominium units, $150 per day for hotel units, and $125 per day for fractional units. In the EPS memorandum, a constant daily expenditure assumption of $125 per day was used for all three types of units. The average daily spending assumptions used by TCI are reasonable. TOSV Capture Rates - The TCI report assumes two scenarios for TOSV capture rates. The low scenario assumes a 45 percent capture and the high scenario assumes a 55 percent capture. These assumptions are the same as those used in the EPS memorandum. Capture Rate Split - The major difference between the two sets of analyses involves the capture rates between commercial nodes. The TO report assumes a split between Base Village and West Village/Snowmass Center. However, due to simple geographic considerations—distance and elevation change -EPS believes that fewer Base Village dollars will migrate to the West Village. It is important to note that the expenditure potential of the existing guest inventory in the TOSV (excluding existing Base Village condominium and hotel units) is approximately $77.9 million, whereas the anticipated expenditure potential of the additional Base Village development will be approximately $17.9 million. Thus, any capture of existing guest expenditures will likely offset (or exceed) outflow that may occur to the West Village or the Snowmass Center. • Base Village Capture Rate Potential - When considering the larger issue of dollar flow between commercial nodes, EPS believes that the new Base Village will be poised to do well. The report assumes a range of 35 to 45 percent of remaining expenditure potential flowing from guests (or residents) of the proposed development to other locations in Snowmass Village. Due to the additional assumptions that this methodology requires (described in greater detail in the following section), EPS does not concur with the capture rate assumptions used for the Base Village. However, if this methodology is used to estimate supportable retail and restaurant space, the estimated capture rates should be more closely evaluated. Accounting for the capture rates in both the TOSV and in the Base Village results in a combined Base Village capture rate of 24.8 to 35.81 percent. This seems unreasonably low given the fact that the Base Village will be a newly developed destination located at the base of a major ski area and in the heart of the TOSV. If this methodology is continued to be relied on to estimate supportable retail and restaurant space, EPS recommends that the Applicant revise the expected overall capture rates for the Base Village. 1 Low Capture: 45.00/a x 55.01/6 = 24.8%; High Capture: 55.0% x 65.00/c = 35.8%0 143036_ Memo_ Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Table 8 Supportable Space Assumptions (TCI and EPS) Description Avg. Occupancy Condo Hotel Fractional Guests per Unit Condo Hotel Fractional Spending per Day Condo Hotel Fractional TOSV Capture EPS 30% 55% 70% 3.5 2.0 2.0 $125 $125 $125 TCI Difference 30% - 55% 70% - 3.5 2.0 3.1 $100 $150 $125 Low 45% 45% High 55% 55% Base Village Capture Low NIA 55% High NIA 65% Source: Thomas Consulting, Inc; Economic & Planning Systems H:t 113036-8nowmass Village Fiscal Impact Analysis%M od6si[143036-BV Critical Mass-7-06.2015.x1smj Report Corp TCI Methodology Evaluation 1.1 -$25 $25 55% 65% July 9, 2015 Page 13 While the TCI analysis accounts for the potential in -town "leakage," as described above, it does not account for additional spending from visitors staying in other parts of the TOSV that the newly redeveloped Base Village would benefit from. It is important to consider both these factors when using the methodology employed by TCI to estimate supportable retail and restaurant space. Due to the number of assumptions required to estimate the in -town "leakage" and the new spending in the Base Village that is driven by visitors residing outside the Base Village, EPS maintains that it is appropriate to exclude these competing factors in the estimate of supportable retail and restaurant space in the Base Village. If, however, in -town "leakage" is included in the estimate of supportable retail and restaurant space, there should be an attempt made to estimate spending in the Base Village by visitors residing outside the Base Village. Based on the 2012 Aspen/Snowmass Transient Inventory Study completed by MTrip for the TOSV, there are approximately 1,5792 short term transient units and approximately 623,457 annual visitor days in the TOSV, as shown in Table 9. 2 The total unit count does not include the existing 91 condominium units and 152 hotel rooms that have already been completed in the Base Village. 143035 Memo -Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Table 9 TOSV Short Term Transient Bed Base Description Units/ Persons Rooms per Unit MTriP Annual Occ. Ra to Visitor Days 365 Condo [1] 802 3.5 30.0% 307,362 Fractional 40 3.0 70.0% 30,660 Lodging [2] 655 2.0 55.0% 262,987 Private Home 82 3;_0 25.0% 22.448 Tota 11Avg. 1,579 2.8 41.1% 623,457 [11 Reduced by 91 units to reflect existing Base Village development. [21 Reduced by 152 rooms to reflect existing Base Village development. Source: 2012 Aspen/Snow mss Transient Lodging Inventory Study, lviTriP, Econornic & Hanning Systems HA143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact Aralysi[slModels1[143036-BV Critical Mass-6-30-2015.xIsmJVisitorDays July 9, 2015 Page 14 Applying the estimates of annual visitor days, an average daily expenditure of $125 per visitor, and a range in capture rates of 45 to 55 percent for the TOSV, results in approximately $35.1 to $42.9 million in annual visitor spending in the TOSV, shown in Table 10. Table 10 TOSV Annual Visitor Expenditure Potential Description Visitor Days Annual Avg. Daily Expenditure Spending Potential Daily Annual TOSV Capture Low Capt. High Capt. TOSV Expenditure Low Capt. Figh Capt. Condo 307,362 $125 $38,420,262 45% 55% $17,289,118 $21,131,144 Fractional 30,660 $125 $3,832,500 45% 55% $1,724,625 $2,107,875 Lodging 262,987 $125 $32,873,389 45% 55% $14,793,025 $18,080,364 Private Home 22.448 125 $2.805.938 45% 55% $1.262.672 $1.543.266 Total 623,457 $125 $77,932,089 $35,069,440 $42,862,649 Source: 2012 Aspen/Snow mass Transient Lodging Inventory Study, WriP, Econornic 8 Planning Systems Ftl %30 36-Snowmms V iliage Fiscal Impact A nalysisl M odelsil 1430 36-S V Critical M ass-S-30-2015.xism] Spending 143036_ Memo_ Base Wage Apolkation Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum July 9, 2015 Base Village Application Review Page 15 If the Base Village is successfully redeveloped it is reasonable to assume that an additional 5 percent of total TOSV visitor spending (excluding new beds in the Base Village) could be achieved. In addition, EPS believes that the estimate of Base Village leakage to other commercial nodes in the TOSV of 35 to 45 percent included in the TCI report is too high. For the purpose of this analysis, EPS has assumed that 10 percent of total spending by new Base Village visitors within the TOSV is spent outside the Base Village. Applying an average retail and restaurant sales rate of $375 per square foot, results in a total of 71,000 to 76,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space that is supportable in the Base Village, shown in Table 11. This estimate is approximately 10,000 to 15,000 square feet greater than what is currently proposed by the Applicant and supported by the analysis included in the TCI report and is approximately 2,500 to 3,000 square feet greater than the EPS recommendation of supportable retail and restaurant space presented in previous sections of this memo. Table 11 Additional Supportable Retail and Restaurant Space No Leakage l Inflow 10%Leakage 1 5% Inflow Description Factor Low Capt. High Capt, Low Capt. High Capt. (45%) (55°!x) (45%) f55%) Base Village Spending Potential Condo Fractional Lodging Subtotal Spending Leakage to TOSV (10%) Spending Inflow from TOSV (5%) Subtotal Total Spending Potential Additional Space Supportable Proposed Surplus/Deficit Total Space Supportable Proposed Surplus/Deficit $5,432,569 $6,639,806 $316,181 $386,444 $2,303.606 $2,815.519 $8,052,356 $9,841,769 $8,052,356 $9,841,769 $375 [1] 21,473 26,245 14.202 14,202 -7,271 -12,043 68,536 73,308 61.265 61.265 -7,271 -12, 043 $5,432,569 $316,181 $2,303,60 $8,052,356 -$805,236 $1.753.472 $948,236 $6,639,806 $386,444 S2815,51 $9,841,769 -$984,177 $2.143.132 $1,158,956 $9,000,593 $11,000,724 24,002 29,335 14,202 14.202 -9,800 -15,133 71,065 76,398 61.265 61.265 -9,800 -15,133 [1] Gross sales of $375 per square foot relfects a desired standard for new conmercial space in the resort industry. Source: Economic & Ranning Systems H,l 143036-Snowmass Village Fiscal Impact Analysisl M e delsl [ 11303@ -B V Critical M ass-7-06-2015-Asm] Exist irg-Praposed 143036—Memo—Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015 Memorandum Base Village Application Review Peer Community Evaluation July 9, 2015 Page 16 The TCI report included several references to peer resort communities, with general observations of paired communities that involve primary and secondary nodes. For example, Telluride (with Mountain Village), Park City (with Deer Valley), and Vail (with Copper Mountain) have been evaluated. TCI illuminated various features about each community and the relationship between the primary and secondary centers. Because each region is unique, applying industry standards to an Aspen/Snowmass Village pairing is challenging, at best. Because the Park City/Deer Valley relationship is particularly close and the Vail/Copper Mountain relationship is somewhat distant, there are limitations to drawing lessons from these communities. Regardless, it would appear that the goal should be to enable the Town of Snowmass Village to operate in an increasingly successful manner. Given the strength of the Aspen market, even a single percentage reduction of leakage has substantial implications for most merchants in Snowmass Village. While Aspen can be expected to maintain its competitive position, it nevertheless remains important to seek critical mass and anchor the new Base Village as much as possible. Fiscal Impact Analysis The Applicant has attached a revised Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (see Volume 1, Appendix H of the Application). The FIA and the responses provided by the Applicant in the Sketch Plan Review (see Volume 1, Appendix E of the Application) sufficiently address prior comments and concerns expressed by EPS. However, when compared to the previous application, the 15 percent decrease in expenditure potential cited in this memo has a direct correlation to a decrease in sales tax revenue available to the TOSV. This impact is a direct result of the decrease in residential units that is included in the Applicant's revised application. 143036—Memo—Base Village Application Review 07-09-2015