text:
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-11-01 Town Council Packet
TKT v000� SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA JUNE 11, 2001 1:00 — 2:00 P.M. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SITE TOUR (OPTIONAL). TRANSPORTATION VAN WILL LEAVE FROM COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 1:05 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AT 2:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL DISCUSSION AGENDA Item No. 2: 2:00 — 2:20 P.M. TV PROMOTION FOR ASPEN/SNOWMASS -- Larry Ladin. . . . . . .No Packet Information Item No. 3: 2:20 — 2:50 NATURE CENTER PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION -- Gracie Oliphant. . . .No Packet Information ' Item No. 4: 2:50 — 3:05 TRAIL MONITORING WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS F Larry Green. . . . . . . Pagel (Tab A) Item No. 5: 3:05 — 3:20 ROAD FUND —SUMMER PROJECTS -- Hunt Walker. . . . . . . Page 2 (Tab B) Item No. 6: 3:20 — 3:50 REUDI WATER AND POWER UPDATE -- Mark Fuller. . . . . . . . Page 4 (Tab C) Item No. 7: 3:50 —4:00 BREAK CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 8: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR 05-14-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 (Tab D) REGULAR AGENDA Item No. 9: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) 06-11-01 tc Page 2 Item No. 10: JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION SNOWMASS CENTER REDEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN REVIEW -- Jim Wahlstrom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12 (Tab E) Item No. 11: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 11. SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE 4 ENACTMENT OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, AND THE DECLARATION OF AN EMERGENCY. Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Tab 1) Item No. 12: DISCUSSION DALY TOWNHOME UPDATE -- Joe Coffey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 45 (Tab F) Item No. 13: DISCUSSION • 2001 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES -- Gary Suiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 46 (Tab G) 1 • Item No. 14: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS Item No. 15: CALENDARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 49 (Tab H) Item No. 16: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923-3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 6/11/01 Presented By: Larry Green Subject: Trail Monitoring Workgroup Recommendations Overview: Council directed staff to continue monitoring wildlife as a part of Ordinance 02, Series of 2001 removing fall trail closure dates. Staff has organized a trail monitoring working group (TMWG)made up of Dee Bellina, John Wilkinson and myself. The TMWG's agenda was to, (1) define the problem, (2) determine the type of monitoring needed to address the issue, (3) determine the funding source and (4) present the findings to the Snowmass Village Town Council. The TMWG all agreed that the original purpose of the trail closures was to protect elk migration corridors. The working group evaluated three elk monitoring methodologies. These were radio-collaring elk, deploying an infrared trail monitoring system and observation by a person with binoculars. The TMWG is recommending radio collaring a small group of elk. Even though all monitoring methods have advantages and disadvantages, our group has determined that radio collaring would gain the most pertinent information regarding the migration corridor, as well as information conceming elks use of the landscape in Pitkin County. The estimated cost for two years of monitoring for each method is as follows: Radio Collaring- $10,000 Infrared Monitoring - $2,925 Person w/binoculars - $7,200 Most of this cost would be bom by the Wildlife Mitigation Fund, but the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) is providing some funding. CDOW has agreed to provide elk traps and a person to help trap. Radio collars will be available from CDOW for rebuilding at about half price to a new collar, or they may be provided at no cost, if available. CDOW and Pitkin County will be participating in monitoring mostly during the winter and summer. The major cost to the mitigation fund will be to employ a person to monitor during October and November when elk are moving through TOSV near the open trails. Recommendation: Council support the trail monitoring work group recommendation. TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: Junel 1, 2001 Agenda Item: Road Fund — Summer Projects Presented By: Hunt Walker Core Issues: • Funding Level General Info: Find attached a list of roads staff recommends overlaying this summer. The list is the same one included in last weeks' packet under Road Fund expenditures. Council Options: 1. Approve the attached project list. 2. Modify the project list. 3. Deny the project list. Staff Option 1 with the understanding that staff might revise the list based Recommendation: on new information or changes in the field. �a - Road Fund 01 2001 ROAD FUND -Summer Projects 2001 REVENUES REVISED 2000 Carryover $1,244,632 Real Estate Revenues - Snowmelt Road Reserve $1,003,992 Real Estate Revenues, projects $408,273 Occupancy Assessment $50,000 Interest Income $61,490 Total Revenue $2,768,387 F_YPENSF__C 2001 District Master Location Location Name ,jab REVISED Ridge Run Antler Ridge Lane Faraway Rd. to end Asphalt Overlay $23,059 Ridge Run Ridge Roadl Faraway Rd. to Deer Ln. Asphalt Overlay $42,230 Ridge Run Ridge Road2 Deer Lane to Faraway Rd. Asphalt Overlay $34,872 Wood Run Wood Road6 Forest Ln. to Pine Ln. Asphalt Overlay $45,766 Melton Ranch Lemond Place Sinclair Rd. to end Asphalt Overlay $74,000 Mellon Ranch Meadow Lane Meadow Rd. to end Asphalt Overlay $8,800 Various Roads Patching $21,273 Parcel N New Road $160,000 Collection fee $28,245 Engineering $10,000 Total Expenses $448,245 ENDING BALANCE $2,320,142 -3 Hunt Walker Page 1 6/8/01 epy:way "3AP 04:"0904A Lett P"%30* To:pfWAG 'u�a]o�f trd,wglf.101 v:N.N. 1 1 is Memorandum TO: Town of Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Mark Fuller, Director, Ruedi Water and Power Authority RE: Ruedi Water and Power Authority Update DATE: May 16, 2001 This is to provide you with an update on RWAPA's recent activities and the pending revision of RWAPA's Intergovernmental Agreement and funding structure. As you know, RWAPA contracted for 200 acre-feet of Ruedi water last year, thereby fulfilling our long-held goal of obtaining an ownership interest in Ruedi water. Also over the past two years, many of the issues surrounding Ruedi management have made significant progress towards resolution. A broad agreement was reached between the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Colorado, acrd local and regional water users regarding water commitments to endangered fish species in the "15-Mile Reach" of the Colorado River near Grand Junction. This agreement limits future draws on Ruedi for endangered species and provides some certainty to future flows in the Fryingpan and Ruedi Reservoir levels. At the same time, the City of Aspen's commitment to funding RWAPA operations from revenue generated by the Ruedi Hydro Plant is coming to a close. The original RWAPA funding agreement was premised on revenue being generated above the cost of repaying the Hydro Plant construction bond. When that bond is repaid in 2003, the revenue picture will be fundamentally altered and the City/'s dedication of a portion of hydro revenue to RWAPA will come to an end.'i The RWAI'A Board has been debating the form of a new funding structure for several months in antic ipation of the need to replace the revenue stream that the City of Aspen has provided for the last 15 years. RWAPA will continue to work with the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies on the status of the endangered species release agreement and other aspects of Ruedi management. For instance, the Bureau of Reclamation is undertaking an Environmental Assessment of the release agreement, which RWAPA will need to monitor and review. At the same time, we have undertaken a number of new initiatives and projects. These include the following: 1. Education and Liaison: RWAPA wants to expand its role as an information source onlocal water issues and programs. We are scheduling meetings similar to this tine with the Boards or Councils of all of our member jurisdictions as the first element of this effort. It is important that elected officials know RWAPA's goals and activities so that we can provide assistance and expertise in appropriate ways. We have also produced a graphic poster and accompanying narrative illustrating Ruedi Resenbir's many obligations and management elements. I will be making a brief presentation centered on this graphic during our meeting. 2. Ruedi Futures Stud-y: RWAPA, the Roaring Fork Conservancy and the Colorado River Water Conservation District have joined forces to pursue new studies on the _ y - 1 1 Opap.Maps OuWp 00U+p Ya oa9.anf IyOgpO Oat:090%f Nb W,x 970 On 4M To:Pa-A- fla 9049 06.Uw 19.101 P;MM AY i Fryingpan River aimed at providing solid data on the economic, biological and recreational importance of the river. The Conservancy has undertaken a user survey, which will illustrate recreational use patterns on both the river and the reservoir.�This ye4r, we will supplement this effort with a business survey in Basalt to gauge the economic impact of Ruedi and the Fryingpan. The Conservancy is also in the process of engaging a fisheries consultant to assess the impact of flow variations in the Fryingpan on the local trout fishery. This concern has become more urgent witfl the possibility that Ruedi will be tapped to provide water for the Homestake II project at some time in the future. 3. 208 Plan Update: We have been asked by the Northwest Colorado Council of Govertunents to assist in the revision process for the Regional Section 208 Water Quality Plan in the Roaring Fork Valley. This will involve organizing a number of meetings of local interested parties and agencies and acting in support of NWCCOG in variety of ways. The 208 Plan is an important cornerstone in maintaining local wg�ler quality and involvement in this project marks an important step into regional issues for RWAPA. 4. Leffislative Hotline & Website: We will be working over the next several months to set up a RWAPA website which we expect to become a source of general information on local water issues. As an element of the website, we are researching various sources that we can tap to contribute to a hotline intended to alert local governments, agencies and individuals about proposed legislation or regulation with relevance to local water concerns. This hotline will identify national, state or local policies, bills and regulatory initiatives which might impact local water interests and will pro%Ae some local perspective on those proposals. 5. Funding and IGA Revisions: The original IGA setting up RWAPA dates back to 1981 and is out of date in many respects. The RWAPA Board has been workin5p on revisions to the IGA for several months but has delayed finalizing a revised version until we decided on a new funding formula to replace the City of Aspen's support as noted above. After extended debate, the Board has endorsed an equal-share funding formula which would obligate each member to contribute $3,750 annually to make up the projected $30,000 annual budget. We would like to introduce this matter to our member jurisdictions now and recommend that they include it in their budgets for 2002 as an unfunded line-item with the objective of funding the contribution beginning in 2003 when Aspen's funding will end. We want to get your thoughts on this approach now, incorporate your concerns into a final round of revisions to the IGA and then bring back the IGA, including the revised funding formula, for ratification later this year. I look forward to discussing these issues and others with you. 4 f _s - 2 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 2001 Mayor T. Michael Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, May 14, 2001 at 4:09 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Richard Virtue, Robert Purvis, Douglas ' Mercatoris, Arnold Mordkin COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All Council Members were present STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Rhonda Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Scott Smith, Madeline Osberger, Jim Baker, Jim Hooker, Brent Gardner- Smith, Robin Hartzog and other members of the public interested in the Agenda for this Meeting. DISCUSSION AGENDA Item No. 2: TUBE TOWN YEAR-END REPORT This item was moved to May 21, 2001 NOTE: The following item was not listed on the Agenda for this Meeting. PARCEL 'N' OWNERS DISCUSSION Joe Coffey, Housing Manager, reported to Council that Parcel "N" construction was temporarily halted due to heavy ground-water conditions. Larry Cogins of Cogins & Associates, stated that there are alternatives to shutting the job down but they are not feasible alternatives. Coffey noted that while the work on site drainage has stopped work is able to continue on the bike path and parking lot. rw� 05-14-01 tc Page 2 Council requested that staff determine the financial impact caused by the project delay. Coffey will provide an estimate and ongoing project reports to Council. Item No. 3: SUMMER ACTIVITIES DISCUSSION Jim Baker, Chairman of the Arts Advisory Board, and Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager, reported on staff progress regarding Council direction to investigate enhancement of 2001 summer activities. Baker informed Council that a survey, with questions relating to summer activities, would be advertised in the Snowmass Sun and emailed to all Town contacts. The survey has also been placed on the Town's Website. Summer events under consideration include concerts or a music venue at the new tent located at the Mall and a weekly movie night at Anderson Ranch. Council requested that the Mall location be used for as many of the new events as possible for sales tax generation purposes. REGULAR AGENDA Item No. 4: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no Public Non-Agenda Items. Item No. 5: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 04, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FARAWAY RANCH PARCEL "N" AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT FINAL PUD, INCLUDING FINAL PLAT, REZONING TO MF, MULTI-FAMILY AND PERMITTING CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF THE UNITS Mercatoris made a motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance No. 04, Series of 2001, seconded by Virtue. Council requested that the Ordinance contain the Permanent Moderate Housing Guidelines specified within Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code and a Condition which specifies that the exterior colors and materials be in accordance with the materials sample board on file with the Community Development Department. First Reading of the Ordinance was approved as amended, by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 6: SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 01, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING ON AN ORDINANCE REGARDING A MINOR PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION BY SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EQUIPMENT STORAGE SHED AT THE SILVERTREE HOTEL l aw aw 05-14-01tc Page 3 This item was tabled from the May 7, 2001 Regular Council Meeting. Council previously requested that the concrete retaining wall be faced with wood and painted to match the equipment storage shed and adjacent pool building and that the applicant develop a plan for long-term maintenance of the storage shed. The applicant provided the requested information for Council review. After further discussion, Mordkin made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2001, seconded by Mercatoris. A roll-call vote was taken and the Ordinance was approved as amended, by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 7: RESOLUTION NO. 23, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION BY SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP, TO PERMIT THE MOUNTING OF ROOFTOP ANTENNA RECEPTION OR TRANSMISSION DEVICES AT THE SILVERTREE HOTEL This item was tabled from the May 7, 2001 Regular Council Meeting in order that it may be heard in conjunction with Second Reading of Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2001. There being no discussion, Mordkin made a motion to approve Resolution No. 23, Series of 2001, seconded by Virtue. The motion was approve by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 8: RESOLUTION NO. 28, SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DATES FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE MONTHS OF JUNE AND JULY, 2001 Virtue made a motion to approve Resolution No. 28, Series of 2001, seconded by Mordkin. Resolution No. 28 sets the Regular Council Meeting dates for the months of June and July, 2001. There being no further discussion, the Resolution was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 9: MANAGER'S REPORT Suzuki Conference The Town Manager reported that the Town Council Chambers has been reserved for use by the Suzuki Institute for eight weekdays during the month of June on non-Council Meeting dates. Pitkin County Bean Pole Project Suiter referred to a letter he wrote on Council's behalf, committing the Town to participate jointly with Pitkin County in a process whereby a Request for ampQ • 05-14-01tc Page 4 Proposals (RFP) will be advertised for the purpose of connecting the area to a State-wide communications data service. He informed Council that a RFP has been drafted. Suiter recommended that the Town support the effort. Parking on Horse Ranch Drive The Town Manager stated that the use of the Community Park by larger groups and the Youth Soccer Club has grown in popularity and on-street parking in that area is out of control. He proposed solutions to the problem which included creating another driveway access to the Rodeo Lot from Horse Ranch Drive North of the skateboard park, or begin issuing traffic tickets for the illegal parking. Council requested that staff further investigate construction of the additional driveway access for Summer usage only. Council directed staff to meet with the Horse Ranch Homeowners Association to discuss the issue. Town Clean-Up Dav Mayor Manchester noted he would be unable to attend the 20th Annual Town Clean-Up Day on May 18, 2001. Item No. 10: DISCUSSION and Item No. 11: CALENDARS COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS Reudi Water & Power Administration Meeting Mordkin reported that he attended a Reudi Water & Power Administration Meeting. He stated that Mark Fuller has requested Council Meeting time to provide Council with an update. The next meeting will be scheduled for July or August, 2001. Rock Barrier Mordkin stated that a rock is missing from the rock barrier next to Snowmelt Road and people are parking their vehicles at this spot. Walker noted that the area would be surveyed in the near future, identifying easements and right-of- ways, which will assist staff with solving the problem. Housing Committee Meeting Virtue noted that there is a Public Housing Committee Meeting on June 7, 2001. The Meeting will be held at the Snowmass Conference Center at 5:30 p.m. RFTA and RTA Mayor Manchester noted that overall Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) ridership was down 2.7% for the year. Aspen ridership was up 1.7% overall and the Aspen/Snowmass direct fare route was down 5% for the year. The Snowmass/Brush Creek to Snowmass route was down 6%. The Snowmass IT ' 05-14-01 tc Page 5 Valley ridership was up 4.2%. Overall, Valley Service was down .9%. The Aspen Skiing Company free skier shuttle was down 6.9% for the season. Manchester reported that items discussed at the recent RTA Meeting included the new maintenance facility to be constructed in Glenwood Springs, a memo of understanding to be developed for a land trade where the maintenance facility will be located, and a resolution that was approved for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to include transit pedestrian travel as part of their corridor access plan. Landscaping Design for Entry Way Sign In response to an inquiry made by Mercatoris, Manchester explained that the Community Development Director is developing an application requesting approval for the Entryway Sign design and Landscaping Plan. When completed, the application will be submitted to the Pitkin County Commissioners for approval. Sales Tax Purvis reported that sales tax for the Town was down 1.17% in March and Aspen sales tax for the same month was down 3.47°/x. University of Colorado Board of Repents Community Dinner Purvis inquired if any Council or Staff would be attending the dinner. The Town Manager informed Council that he would be attending. NOTE: The following Item was not included on the Agenda for this Meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS STATE OF NEGOTIATION OF THE RODEO AND OR SVRA ISSUES At 6:13 p.m. Purvis made a motion to convene to Executive Session to discuss negotiation strategy for the Snowmass Village Resort Association and the Rodeo issues. Virtue seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. At 7:08 p.m. Mercatoris made a motion to reconvene the Regular Meeting, seconded by Purvis. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. - Ib . 05-14-01 tc Page 6 Item No. 12: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Virtue made a motion to adjourn the Meeting, seconded by Purvis. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. The Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Submitted By: Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 11, 2001 Agenda Item: Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission: Snowmass Center Redevelopment Sketch Plan Review Presented By: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Core Issues: Beginning on the third page of the attached staff report, is a list of what staff finds are the core issues. The purpose of the list is to alert Town Council and Planning Commission of the core issues at this time. The applicant may address some of these items in their presentation. However, a more thorough discussion and resolution of these issues could be deferred to subsequent meetings. General Info: Please find the separate handout of the applicant's proposal in booklet format for your review. Attached within this booklet is the applicant's response to staff comments provided for your information. Staff prepared the attached report addressing in detail the Code criteria for Sketch Plans as it relates to the Snowmass Center Redevelopment proposal. The report is provided, as required by Code, for information and reference purposes. However, the main focus at the joint meeting should be on the core issues. Council Options: 1) Identify core issues of importance; 2) Identify features of the proposal that are favorable; 3) Identify features of the proposal that are unfavorable; 4) Provide direction to the applicant, staff and Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the joint meeting follow the conduct of meetings per the Code as follows: 1) Summary presentation by staff of the application, the Comprehensively Planned Area elements, and the core issues; 2) Applicant's detailed presentation of the proposal; 3) Staff comments, or questions to staff or applicant by Town Council and Planning Commission members; 4) Accept comments or question from the public; and 5) Schedule item for review before the Planning Commission beginning June 20. \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\userNw\Snowmass Center\PC&TC Rpt.0611-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.docl Planning Division Staff Report Project Name: Snowmass Center Expansion and Redevelopment Sketch Plan Part 1 : Summary of Application and Major Issues Applicant Information: Applicant: 1) Snowmass Center Limited Partnership, C/o Nick Coates, Coates, Reid & Waldron; and 2) Snowmass Land and Cattle Company, C/o Dale Eubank Owner: 1) Snowmass Center Parcel: Snowmass Center Limited Partnership 2) Parcels A. B. F. G. H & H-1, and I, Faraway Ranch North: Snowmass Land and Cattle Company. Contact: Suzanne Richman, Design Workshop Project Summary: • Increase size of the grocery store and post office by 10,600 square feet to 42,680 square feet • Reduce the amount of office area by 2,851 square feet to 18,119 square feet • Add 59 residential units within, around and behind the center as follows: • 8 single-family lots to the northeast of the center on Parcels H & H-1, northwest of Woodbridge Condominiums; • 20 units added to top floors of the center (conversion of portion of 2 n and 3rd levels along with the creation of a new 3n' level above the existing 2n° level and creating a new 4'" level above the existing 3' level); • 18 units above a planned 87-space underground parking area behind the center; • 13 townhouses, each with a double-car garage, located behind the underground parking area and within the draw area on Parcels B's expanded boundary into Parcel F. • Redevelop the character of the existing center to create an image of the new center consistent with the mountain character of the Town • Provide 3,200 square feet in west building for people mover link to new Base Village. • Reconfigure and construct new parking lots above and below the center • Complete 202 office and retail parking spaces and 104 underground and surface parking spaces for the residential units • Reconfigure and landscape the access road to the new multiple-family units. • Reconfigure and landscape the entry road to the Snowmass Center • Improve and expand the parking facilities and circulation around the center Reconfigure service and loading area for four delivery trucks • Widen road and rearrange parking in front of the Snowmass Center • Construct new access road, maintained at 8% grade, to the proposed 8 single-family lots (road impacts 30% slope area) Please see attached Exhibits A, B and C for an explanation of the proposal in table format. \\NT TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useNw\Snowmass Center\PC&TC Rpt.06-11-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doQ I'3 _ Applicant's Request: Approval of the PUD Sketch Plan (applicable Code Sections 16A-5-300(b)(2)(a), 16A-5- 300(c), and 16A-5-310), including a rezoning to Mixed-Use 2, a height variance, and encroachment into 30% slope areas. The application also involves rezoning from SPA-1 to Mixed-Use 2 and SF-30. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: Snowmass Center and the redevelopment and expansion proposal are part of the Faraway North Comprehensively Planned Area (CPA). The CPA, which is also codified, identifies elements that shall be provided and the elements that could be considered, which are listed below. In addition, there is a vision statement from the BTA plan concerning the center and a list of maximum unit number allocations per the Buildout Analysis Chart of the Comprehensive Plan. Elements that shall be provided per the CPA: • Improved vehicular/pedestrian connectivity and mobility to Base Village and the Mall as well as surrounding properties • Employee housing • Preservation of open space in the upper and middle part of the draws behind the Snowmass Center • Preservation of trails and other recreation areas Elements that could be considered per the CPA: • Enhanced access to surrounding properties • Continued mixed use — including community commercial, office, public uses (post office, grocery, Town Hall) and residential • Redevelopment of the Snowmass Center • Creation of an informal meeting place for the community • Clustered residential dwellings at the base of the draw Following the BTA Plan of September 1992's Dream Vision Statement for the Future: • "The shopping center has been remodeled, some of it replaced by smaller buildings with apartments on the upper floors. A stone bridge with a covered pedestrian walkway has replaced the culverted earthen causeway." Per the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart (attached Exhibit D), there are the following maximum unit number allocations within the Faraway Ranch North area: • B21 "Faraway North (Center)" for 30 DU, thought to be applied to the draw area _ north of the center or Parcels B & F; • B34 "Snowmass Center" for 15 DU, thought to be applied to the actual center site, also known as the amended Parcel A replat area; and • B56 "Faraway North (Woodbridge)" for 30 DU, thought to be the area proposed for 8 SFD units or Parcels H & H-1; ICI \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useNw\Snowmass Center\PC&TC Rpt.06-11.01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doc2 History or Background: The applicant previously submitted a Sketch Plan application on May 7, 2000 for expansion of the commercial and office spaces. Subsequent review occurred by a joint Town Council/Planning Commission meeting on July 26, 2000 and by the Planning Commission on August 16, 2000. Discussion items included: • Vitality of the community center • The character of the center compatible with mountain setting • Functionality of interior spaces • Pedestrian circulation improvements • Revisions to the development standards • Defining the development planned in the draw areas • Identifying traffic and transportation impacts overall • Shuttle bus circulation needs • Sufficiency of parking for the existing and proposed center expansion • Connectivity to the Mall and the Base Village area, including a people mover link • Adequacy of service and truck loading capabilities • Clarifying whether or not employee housing mitigation requirements have been met The application was later withdrawn by the applicant. Core Issues following Staff Review of Current Proposal: • Future Maximum Bulldout and Unit Equivalency. Per the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart (Exhibit D), a maximum allocation of 15 residential units are noted for Parcel A, 30 for Parcel B, and a total of 30 for Parcels H and H-1 combined. After applying the unit equivalency ratios against the unit sizes proposed in the development, the application requests 100% buildout of the future maximum allocation of units. Please see the attached charts for an explanation of the unit equivalency requirements applied to the existing proposal (Exhibit E). Since the number of units proposed is above the 65% rule, the Community Purpose criteria are triggered. • Combining Future Buildout between Parcels. The Land Use and Development Code prohibits buildout above 100%, except that under unique and exceptional circumstances it can be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the resulting development will, for good cause shown, exceed the PUD review standards subject to % majority approval of the Town Council. Per the unit sizes proposed and the unit equivalency ratios, 16.4 units are allocated to Parcel B, exceeding the 15 units allocated, and 28.6 units are allocated to Parcel A, below the 30 units allocated. The unit equivalent totals the maximum allocation of 45 units when combining the two Parcels. Therefore, a determination should be made whether or not the 15 units allocated for Parcel A, and the 30 units for Parcel B can be combined. • Parcel Boundary Change. The application proposes the expansion of the Parcel B into Parcel F. Parcel B allows parking and multi-family dwellings per the SPA-1 zone and an allocation of 30 units per the Buildout Analysis Chart. Parcel F doesn't outline a list of permitted uses per the SPA-1 zone, but the SPA land use plan permits rezoning of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a boundary line change and rezoning to Mixed-Use 2 to accommodate the proposed multiple-family development. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designates multiple-family uses for Parcel F on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map. Therefore, a determination should be made whether or not the allocation of 30 units behind the center can be applied to both Parcels B and F. \\NT TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useryw\Snowmass CenteAPC&TC Rpt.0611-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.&& , f • Height Variance. The height variance from 38 feet, per the proposed Mixed-Use 2 zone, to 50 feet also triggers the Community Purpose criteria. The height variance requires 3/, approval by the Town Council. The applicant submitted a color-coded drawing in an attempt to demonstrate that 50% of the building will meet the 38-foot height restriction. • FAR Limits. The existing center site sits on 4.269 acres (185,958 square feet) resulting in a FAR of 0.285. The application proposes 117,350 square feet of building square footage in the center and 48,700 square feet of floor area for the residential area above in the draw area, which totals 166,050 square feet. Using the new site area of 10 acres (435,600 square feet including the center, Parcel A, and expanded Parcel B), the FAR equals 0.381. This is lower than the 1:1 FAR allowed per the proposed Mixed-Use 2 zone district for these areas. • Employee Housing. Despite the 115% redevelopment credit, which currently indicates that employee housing is not required, employee housing could still be an issue since the plan proposes 100% buildoul and a height variance. • Office Space Reduction. There is a proposed reduction of office space as a result of the conversion of some of the existing office space to residential units. As a matter of information, the Town's lease with the center expires June 1, 2003, and if the Town desires to renegotiate a lease for office space in the center, there would be less office space to utilize. There may also be an advantage to having more office or non-residential space in the center if other nearby sites develop, such as Base Village. • Parking Allocation and Distribution. Parking calculations show that the expansion will just meet the requirement of 306 spaces (202 spaces for the center and 104 spaces for the residential uses behind the center). An 87-space underground parking area is proposed behind the center to serve the condominium units without garage spaces. Included with the residential development are 13 townhouse units served by double-car garages (26 parking spaces). A total of 191 parking spaces are proposed south and southeast of the center to meet the demands of the center. In addition, 9 parking spaces in the 87-space underground parking area are planned to be reserved for use by commercial/office users. Staff's concern is that the commercial parking currently in the rear of the center is proposed to be relocated to another parking level farther to the southeast of the center. This would further limit the amount of convenient parking near the center. Staff recommended that since an underground parking facility was proposed behind the center, the applicant consider cantilevering the parking, in front of and level with the center, over the lower level parking areas. This would improve the equitable distribution and convenience of parking • next to the center, especially with the proposed expansion of the post office and grocery store (Exhibit J). The Fire District also expressed that they don't support a possible reduction in required parking for the center (Exhibit G) as it could create possible parking congestion problems in the fire lanes. • Town Shuttle Route. Access for Town shuttle buses is a concern with the shuttle route and bus stop proposed on the upper level next to the post office and grocery store. With the expanded retail area and the limited amount of convenient parking, this will cause potential delays for buses on the upper level driveway and parking area. The Town's Transportation Division, as a result, requested that a combined uphill and downhill transit stop be provided centrally on the site to better serve existing and adjacent and future uses on adjacent properties. See the attached memorandum dated April 16, 2001 from the Transportation Division (Exhibit 1). • Off-Site Impacts. The expanded retail space and the redevelopment will likely impact the intersection with Brush Creek Road and Wood Road as well as the regional bus stops at this intersection. This will also likely create the need for improved off-site pedestrian connections from Brush Creek Road to the center. A traffic study will be required with the Preliminary Plan application to verify the level of impact. \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\user\jw\Snowmass Center\PCBTC Rpt.06-11-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doo4 r' �! • Pedestrian Circulation. Overall pedestrian circulation in, through, and around the site should be looked at carefully. The recreational PAR course trail in the draw areas, where the residential uses are proposed, should be replaced with the development proposal and as required by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2, Series of 1979. Also see the attached comments from the Trails Committee for details (Exhibit H). • Drainage Concerns. There is a concern regarding the reduction of the size of the detention pond or the debris flow outfall area within the single-family area due to the locations of the building footprint areas, the proposed increase of the impervious surface in the area, the problematic erosion sedimentation in the area, and the maintenance concerns of such a pond. The applicant agrees that there is a debris flow outfall area on Parcel H-1 and that the flow sometimes exceeds the capacity of the outflow culvert. Apparently, this is unsatisfactory to the Woodbridge Condominium owners according to the applicant's response letter. The applicant stated that they would work with the homeowners to resolve the drainage concerns. Staff's view, however, is that detention ponding should be located in a common tract area, owned and maintained by a separate entity such as a homeowners association, rather than being located on a privately owned lot. In a separate matter, the previously proposed detention pond on Parcel I was thought to be infeasible due to the steep slopes in the area. Instead, the applicant is considering the possibility of installing concrete vaults under the new lower-level parking area on the east side of Parcel A. • 30% Slope Impacts. The proposal impacts 30% slopes in three areas: 1)The road accessing the single-family area, 2) the building expansion toward the northeast, and 3) the access road on the west side to the multi-family area. A professional geotechnical engineer will need to demonstrate compliance with Code criteria relating to improvements within a 30% slope area. It is anticipated that retaining walls for the roadways in these areas could be up to 20 feet high, unless terraced. Development within 30% slope areas requires 4 out of 5 approval votes by the Town Council documented by an ordinance. In addition, the Fire District has requested that the roadways for widened to 24 feet for adequate emergency access (Exhibit G). • Utility and Sewer Issues. There are utility line connections and existing sewer problems within the building that should be addressed. The applicant plans to address these issues and the recommendations of the Water and Sanitation District (Exhibit K), including how the sewage lines within the building may be improved with the redevelopment of the center at the time of the Preliminary Plan review. • Phasing. The construction of the single-family area and the redevelopment of the center should be done concurrently with a series of triggers, which could enforce completion of center's construction phases in lieu of having the single-family area constructed first. Please see the applicant's response to the staff issues in the letter dated May 21, 2001, which is attached within the application booklet handout. Summary of Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the core issues be addressed before the Sketch Plan application can proceed to Preliminary Plan review. Staff has also supplied a list of ideas related to addressing the Community Purpose criteria. \\NT TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useryw\Snowmass Center\PC&TC Rpt.06-11.01 S'mass Ctr Sketch PlanA006 � ' Part 2: Detailed Case Analysis (for reference and informational purposes only) Public Notification: Legal notice appeared in the Snowmass Sun on May 30, 2001 for the joint Planning Commission and Town Council meeting on June 11, 2001. Verification of certified public hearing notices to property owners within 300 feet of the site and the posting of public hearing signs were not required at this time. Community Referrals: Referral packages were mailed to the following groups and agencies for review and comment: Public Works, Transportation, Building, Police, Town Attorney, Town Manager, Engineering, Snowmass Water and Sanitation, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, Housing, Landscaping/ Parks/ Trails, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, KN Energy, Holy Cross Electric, US West, and AT&T Cable. The Fire District, Trails Committee, the Transportation Division, and the Water & Sanitation District responded with written comments (Exhibits G, H, I, and K) Conformance with Code Criteria: [for reference and informational purposes only] Amendment to Official Zone District Map According to Section 16A-5-220(e), Article V, Division 2, of the Land Use and Development Code, an amendment to the Official Zone District Map shall comply with the following standards: (1) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan; (2) Consistency with purpose of zone district; (3) Compatibility with surrounding zone district; and (4) The applicant shall demonstrate that the following circumstances exist: Error, changed conditions, and community need. Analysis: The application proposes Mixed-Use 2 zoning for the center site, Parcel A and expanded Parcel B. SF-30 zoning, requiring a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet for a single-family house, is proposed for the eight lots planned on Parcels H and H-1. The criteria for compliance of a proposed zone change is outlined above. The applicant's justification addresses the proposed zone changes to some extent. Further evaluation will be required at the time of the Preliminary Plan review following the direction given for the Sketch Plan application. PUD Sketch Plan Process and Review by Decision-Makers: According to Section 16A-5-300(b), Article V, Division 3, of the Land Use and Development Code, a summary of the items the Planning Commission and Town Council should consider in a conceptual manner during review of the sketch plan (depending on the size and complexity of the proposal) include the following: (1) Use. The appropriateness of the use at the location; (2) Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, including the 65% development rule and the appropriateness of the community purposes the applicant proposes to achieve; \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useNw\Snowmass Center\PC&TC Rpt.06-11-01 S'mass Clr Sketch Plan.doc6 � is aw (3) Architecture and landscaping. Appropriate locations of buildings, compatibility of the mass, scale and density of the building with the character of the community and surrounding buildings, and the adequacy and appropriate locations of common or dedicated open space; (4) Natural resource and hazard areas. Identification of natural resources and hazard areas on the property along with appropriate mitigation; (5) Access and circulation. Acceptability of access and circulation including possible transportation options; (6) Parking. Compliance with off-street parking requirements and provisions; (7) Timetable. The appropriateness of the time table or phasing of the development, and (8) Community welfare. Promotes the public health, safety and welfare. Sketch Plan Code Criteria and Analysis: Below is an outline of the review criteria (in Italics) applicable to Sketch Plan application per the Land Use and Development Code followed by the staff analysis (in regular font) of each criterion. General Restrictions Criteria: General Restrictions: The following restrictions per Code Section 16A-5-300(c), generally outlined, shall apply to all PUD's: (1) Compliance with minimum land area requirements; Analysis: There is no minimum land area qualification for this type of PUD due to the uses proposed. (2) Compliance with PUD locational criteria; Analysis: A PUD may develop on any land within the Town. (3) Land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those uses that are allowed, or are allowed by special review, in the underlying zone district; Analysis: The proposed zoning of Mixed-Use 2 and SF-30 allows the uses proposed in the PUD. (4) Compliance with maximum buildout limitations and criteria, including the 65% development rule; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Future Maximum Bulldout and Unit Equivalency. (5) Compliance with the variation criteria concerning dimensional limitations; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Height Variance. (6) Compliance with the Community purposes criteria for PUD s, if applicable, utilizing the following purposes: a) Provision for restricted housing; b) Encouragement of sustainable development; c) Provision of open space and/or avoiding wildlife habitat; d) Encouragement of better design; and e) Development of necessary public facilities. \\NT_TOSV\BLD PLAN\useNw\Snowmass Center\PCBTC Rpt.0611.01 S'mass Ctr Sketch PlanAW dob ��� Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Future Maximum Building and Unit Equivalency, and Height Variance. Also reference a suggested list of ideas concerning Community Purposes (Exhibit F). (7) Variations of Development Standards Criteria. Any PUD that requests any of the dimension limitation variations authorized in Code Subsection (c)(5) of 16A-5- 300(c), shall also comply with the following standards: a) Height. 50% of the building or structure within the PUD shall conform to the height limits of the underlying zone district; b) Open space and minimum lot area. Variation shall not be detrimental to the character of the proposed development or to surrounding properties, shall include open space for the mutual benefit of the entire development, and the open space that is provided is accessible and available to at least all dwelling units and lots for which the open space is intended; c) Minimum building setbacks. Adequacy of distance between buildings for necessary fire access and protection, to ensure proper ventilation, light, air, and snowmelt between buildings, and to minimize the effects of transmission of noise between units and buildings. Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Height Variance. There is no proposed variation of open space, minimum lot area and minimum building setbacks in the Sketch Plan application. (8) Parking. Compliance with the underlying zoning's parking requirements, unless a reduction in that requirement is granted, pursuant to Code Section 16A-4-310(c). Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Parking Allocation and Distribution. (9) Road standards. A PUD may be permitted to deviate from the Town's road standards to generally achieve greater efficiency of infrastructure design or to achieve greater sensitivity to environmental features, when the following minimum design principles are followed. a) Safe, efficient access to all areas of the proposed development; b) Provision for internal pathways to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site; c) Design of roadways to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units, including provision of access easements; d) Acceptable design of principal access points to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic, and to avoid direct access onto highway, arterial, or collector streets from individual lots, units or buildings when other reasonable access options are available. Analysis: Much of the roadway circulation patterns on the center site remain the same. The plans were revised to provide a few more pedestrian links within the parking areas. The Fire District also requested roadways wide enough for the access of emergency vehicles (Exhibit G). \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\user\jw\Snowmass Center\PCBTC Rpt.06-11-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doc6 2�01 40 Review Standards: In addition to demonstrating its compliance with the provisions of Section 16A-5-300(c), General Restrictions, and with all other applicable provisions of this Code, a proposed PUD shall also comply with the following review standards according to the Land Use and Development Code Section 16A-5-310: (1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Future Maximum Buildout and Unit Equivalency, Combining Future Buildout between Parcels, and Parcel Boundary Change for related issues. Also see the list of elements desired per the Comprehensively Planned Area for Faraway Ranch North as well as a reference from the BTA plan in the introductory part of this report. (2) Preservation of community character, including consistency with the standards of Code Section 16A-4-340, Building Design Guidelines, in order to be compatible with or enhance the character of existing land uses in the area and not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area; Analysis: The application provides a sample color rendering of a portion of the architectural redesign of the center. The design and new exterior finishes appear to be an upgrade from the existing center design, although the rendering does not show the visual affects of the additional floor levels above the center. (3) Creative Approach. The PUD represents a creative approach to the development and use of the land and related physical facilities to produce better developments and to provide amenities for residents of the PUD and the general public; Analysis: Some general observations in favor of the development is that it provides a better mix of uses, it allocates space for a people mover connection to Base Village, it provides underground parking, it improves the architectural appearance and design of the building, and it provides a pedestrian plaza area in front of the center. Unfavorably comments relate to, but are not limited to, the lack of convenient parking for the commercial area, a lack of an equitable distribution of parking around the center for the commercial/office uses, and a lack of pedestrian connections to Brush Creek Road and the bus stop locations. Staff believes there is an opportunity at this site to create a large underground parking facility, with a dense mixed-use development and plaza areas above the parking facility. (4) Landscaping. Sufficiency of proposed landscape buffering both within and between the PUD and surrounding lands to minimize noise, glare, and other adverse impacts, create attractive streetscapes and parking areas, and be consistent with the character of the Town; Analysis: The landscape area and open space area shown appear to meet the 25% open space requirement per the proposed Mixed-Use 2 zoning, although a majority of the open space area is located on the perimeter of the site and on undevelopable areas behind the center and in Parcel I along Brush Creek. A detailed landscape plan will be required with the Preliminary Plan review describing the applicant's improvements more in detail, such as the entryway drives, the landscaping in the parking lot areas, and the landscaping for the pedestrian plaza areas. \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\user\jw\Snowmass Center\PCBTC Rpt.06-11.01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.docg c�I dw (5) Compliance with development evaluation criteria of Article IV of the Town's Development Code, including: a) Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; Analysis: The properties involved are not part of sensitive wildlife habitat area. b) Brush Creek Impact Area; Analysis: The BTA plan recommends three upgrades concerning Brush Creek and in the area located on Parcel I. Please see the list of suggested ideas for Community Purposes for details (Exhibit L). A Brush Creek Impact Report will be required with the Preliminary Plan review. c) Flood plain and wetland areas; Analysis: The area that requires conformance with these criteria is Parcel I, which is not planned for development. d) Geologic hazard areas, steep slopes and ridgeline protection areas; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under 30% Slope Impacts. e) Streets and related improvements; Analysis: Much of the roadway circulation patterns on the Snowmass Center site remain the same. The plans were revised to provide a few more pedestrian links within the parking areas. Please see the comments from the Fire District as well (Exhibit G). fJ Public trails; Analysis: Please see the attached comments from the Trails Committee (Exhibit H). g) Water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal and utilities; Analysis: Please see the attached comments from the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District concerning the adequate servicing of the center (Exhibit K). h) Fire protection; Analysis: Please see the comments from the Fire District (Exhibit G). I) Storm drainage; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Drainage Concerns. j) Easement characteristics; Analysis: This will be addressed more in detail during the Preliminary Plan application and the review of the subdivision plats for the area. k) Survey monuments; Analysis: This will be addressed more in detail during the Preliminary Plan application and the review of the subdivision plats for the area. \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\user\jw\Snowmass Center\PC&TC Rpt.0611-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.docl0 I) Off-street parking standards; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Parking Allocation and Distribution. m) Landscaping, grading and other design standards; Analysis: Please see the previous staff comments under subsection (4) of the Review Standards. n) Energy conservation; Analysis: An Energy Conservation Plan will be required with the Preliminary Plan application. o) Building design guidelines to preserve community character; Analysis: Please see the previous staff comments under subsection (2) of the Review Standards, Preservation of Community Character. p) Restricted housing requirements; Analysis: Due to the redevelopment proposed, the calculations reveal that the applicant received a credit for employee housing. However, please see the Community Purpose criteria as it relates to proposals requesting 100% buildout. q) Sign standards. Analysis: Signs can be addressed more in detail during the Preliminary or Final PUD reviews or may be reviewed separately via a Comprehensive Sign Plan. (6) Suitability of the development, considering its topography, environmental features and any natural or man-made hazards that affect its development potential, Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under 30% Slope Impacts. (7) Adequacy of facilities for utility services, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, roads and pedestrian circulation; location of site is reasonably convenient to police and fire protection, emergency medical services and schools; and the accommodates the efficient provision of transit facilities and services; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Utility and Sewer Issues and the attached comments from the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District concerning the adequate servicing of the center (Exhibit K). Also see the comments from the Fire District (Exhibit G). (8) Avoidance of creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services or that require duplication of premature extension of public facilities to achieve roadway continuity and alignment with existing platted streets to create connectivity, and to ensure that water and sewer lines are consistent with the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District's service plan; Analysis: Please see the attached comments from the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District concerning the adequate servicing of the center (Exhibit K). Also see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Utility and Sewer Issues. \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\user\w\Snowmass Cenler\PC&TC Rpt.06-11-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.docl l M 7 J ism (9) Provision that each phase of development shall contain the required streets, utilities, landscaping and other improvements that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, including trail connections, which are for the benefit of the Town, are constructed with the initial phase of the development or as early in the project as is reasonable. Analysis: Please see the comments from the Trails Committee (Exhibit H) and the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Phasing. Attached Exhibits: [for reference and information purposes only] Exhibit A Table showing impacts of Faraway North Parcels by the proposal Exhibit B Table showing existing and proposed figures by affected Parcels Exhibit C Table showing the breakout of square footage figures by floor level Exhibit D Buildout Analysis Chart identifying the affected parcels Exhibit E Future Maximum Buildout and Unit Equivalency Chart per proposal, broken out by affected parcels Exhibit F Community Purpose ideas suggested by staff Exhibit G Memorandum dated April 17, 2001 from the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Exhibit H Comments from the Trails Committee Exhibit I Comment from the Transportation Division dated April 16, 2001 and August 3, 2000. Exhibit J Staff drawings of suggested cantilevered parking area Exhibit K Memorandum dated April 24, 2001 from the Snowmass Water & Sanitation District Exhibit L Excerpt from the BTA Plan dated September 1992 \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useNvAsnowmass Center\PC&TC Rpt.06-1 i-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doc12 Exhibit A Impacts on Faraway North Parcels per Proposal (Affected Areas are the Snowmass Center, Parcels A, B, F, H & H-1; Parcels C, D, E, I & G Include no changes and will remain unimproved) Parcel Existing Conditions Proposed Parcel A replat area (for the Existing Center (not included Redevelopment and existing Snowmass Center) as part of Final land use plan) Expansion of retail and addition of 21 residential units; Zoning to PUD, Mixed-Use 2 Parcel A (located east and Existing Parking; Expansion and improvement northeast of the Parcel A Zoning is SPA-1; of parking and circulation replat for the center) Allowed uses: parking driveways; Zoning to PUD, Mixed-Use 2 Parcel B Parking and Circulation Expand boundary area into Limited to parking and open Parcel F to allow for 31 space by the SPA residential units with underground parking; Proposal to change zoning to PUD, Mixed-Use 2 allow retail, office and residential uses Parcel C (off-site and located Vacant; No change west of the Snowmass Center) Town owned via previous employee housing credit; Uses allowed: employee housing, parking, open space &community facilities Parcel D (off-site and located Vacant; No change west of Parcel C) Uses allowed: employee housing Parcel E (off-site and located Vacant; No change northwest of Parcels C & D) Uses allowed: open space & community facilities Parcel F (located north of Vacant; Proposed rezone to PUD, Parcel B) Zoning is SPA-1 Mixed-Use 2 to allow for expansion of Parcel B into Parcel F and to allow residential uses; Remaining portion of Parcel F to stay zoned SPA-1 Parcel G (located north of Vacant; No change Parcel F) Uses allowed: open space Parcels H & H-1 (located Vacant; Zoning to PUD, Single-Family northeast of Parcel A and the Zoning is SPA-1 30 to allow 8 single family lots center) Allowed uses: 4 tennis courts and an access road Parcel I Vacant; Addition of a proposed Zoning is SPA-1; detention pond Allowed uses: Open space, existing trails and bridge Exhibit Summary of Snowmass Center Redevelopm nt Proposal SNOWMASS CENTER LOT, PARCEL A, PARCEL B, AND PORTION OF PARCEL F Category Existing Proposed Difference Acreage at the 4.269 acres 10.0 acres + 5.731 acres Snowmass Center Building Coverage 33,092 s.f. 43,990 s.f. + 10,898 s.f. Floor Square Footage 53,084 s.f. 117,338 s.f. + 64,254 s.f. • Retail 32,114 s.f. 42,680 s.f. + 10,566 s.f. • Office 20,970 s.f. 18,119 s.f. 2,851 s.f. • People Mover space 0 s.f. 3,165 s.f. + 3,165 s.f. Residential (MF)at 0 units 51 units (20 at center, + 51 MF units Snowmass Center and 31 behind center) behind 30,420 s.f. on the center; 1,521 s.f. average unit size; 48,660 s.f, total behind center; 1,570 s.f. average unit size Floor Area Ratio(FAR) 0.285 existing; 0.381 + 0.096 for the Snowmass Center 1:1 allowed Building Height 38 feet per Height variance proposed to + 12 feet proposed PUD, maximum 50 feet for the center Mixed-Use 2 Zone and 40 feet for the MF units behind the center Open Space 25%required 39% N.A. Parking Required: 177 Required: 306 spaces (202 + 115 spaces spaces spaces for the retail center, and 104 spaces for the residential Provided: 191 units)—does not include the spaces existing people mover space. Provided with gr000sal: 306 spaces, including 87 underground spaces, 26 garage spaces for the townhomes, 185 regular spaces south of the center, and 8 handicap/short- term spaces—but doesn't include the loading spaces. PARCELS H & H-1 Category Existing Proposed Difference Residential (SF)In 0 units 8 units (off-site) + 8 SF units Parcels H & H-1 30,000 s.f. minimum lot sizes; 4,500—5,100 s.f. unit sizes Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) For lots 30.000— 4,500 for 6 lots; N.A. 45.000 s.f.: 5,100 for 2 lots Maximum 0.13 FAR or 4,500 s.f.; For lots >45.000 &f.: Maximum 0.10 FAR or 5,500 s.f. Open Space None required N.A. N.A. Building Height 28 feet per Same N.A. proposed PUD, Single-Family 30 � alp Zone Exhibit C Existing Snowmass Center (breakout by floor level) Category First Level Second Level Third Level Fourth Level Total Commercial 32,114 s.f. 0 0 Non existent 32,114 s.f. Residential 0 0 0 Non existent 0 Office 0 16,170 s.f. 4,800 s.f. Non existent 20,970 s.f. People Mover 0 0 0 Non existent 0 Total 32,114 s.f. 16,170 s.f. 4,800 s.f. Non existent 53,084 s.f. Proposed Redevelopment of Snowmass Center (breakout by floor I vel) Category First Level Second Level Third Level Fourth Level Total Commercial 42,680 s.f. 0 0 0 42,680 s.f. Residential 0 5,244 s.f. 26,900 s.f. 21,230 s.f. 53,374 s.f. Office 0 18,119 s.f. 0 0 18,119 s.f. People Mover 720 s.f. 2,445 s.f. 0 0 3,165 s.f. Total 43,400 s.f. 25,808 s.f. 26,900 s.f. 21,230 s.f. 117,338 s.f. Difference +11,286 s.f. + 9,638 s.f. +22,100 s.f. +21,230 s.f. +64,254 s.f. S14OWMASS VILLAGE Bul UT LAND USE ZONING #OF DWELLING UNITS COMMERCIAUOTHER --- EXISTING AS OF EXISTING AND EEXISTING, FUTURE EXISTING FUTURE 4.6.98 APPROVED FUTURE EXISTING FUTURE x X Uj PARCELS WEST WOODBRIDGE B21 Faraway North(Center) ww VACANT MFR SPA-1 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 622 Hoa9lurd Rands ww COM CAM SPA-1 0 1 0 1 1 11175 823 Interlude ww MFR MFR SPA-1 26 1 26 1 30 0 0 824 Krabloonik ww MU MU MU-PUD 0 2 0 2 2 15000 15000 B25 Laurekvood ww MFR MFR SPA-1 52 1 52 1 59 0 0 B26 Uchenhearth ww MFR MFR SPA-1 40 0 40 0 44 0 0 827 Mountain Chalet ww MFR MFR SPA-1 64 6 64 6 77 628 Mountain View ww MFR MFR MF�UO 0 129 0 156 156 0 0 629 Orthopedic Assoc-Med.Clinic ww COM MU 0 2 0 2 2 3000 B30 Palisades ww MFR MFR PUD 0 26 0 26 26 D 0 831 Pokolodi Lodge ww MFR MFR SPA-1 47 3 47 3 55 0 0 832 Shadowbrook ww MFR MFR SPA-1 26 0 26 0 29 0 0 833 Sit artree Hotel ww MFR MFR PUD 262 7 262 7 296 mmV634 Snowmass Center ww MU MU 0 0 0 0 15 53997 53997 835 Snowmass Conference Center ww PUB PUB 0 0 0 0 0 30000 836 Snowmass Inn ww MFR MFR SPA-1 37 2 37 2 43 11117198 Page 1 buildout oomplete revised EAST WOODBRIDGE 854 Anderson Ranch ew PUB PUB PUD . 0 16 0 26 26 48654 55110 655 Deerbrook ew MFR MFR SPA-1 15 0 15 0 15 0 0 B56 Faraway North(Woodbridge) ew VACANT MFR SPA-1 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 857 Faraway South Parcel K ew VACANT MFR SPA-1 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 858 Faraway South Parcel K&N ew VACANT MFR SPA-1 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 659 Fbmestead ew MFR MFR PUD 14 0 14 0 14 0 0 660 Mellon Extension ' ew I OS OS OS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 861 Offices at 5nowmass ew OFFICE OFFICE 0 0 0 0 0 13500 B62 Ridge ew MFR MFR PUD 36 0 36 0 36 0 0 B63 Ridge East ' ew OS OS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B64 Ridge Run I ew, MFR MFR DU 30 0 30 0 30 B65 Seasons Four ew MFR MFR SPA-1 96 1 96 1 97 0 0 666 Snowrnass Chapel 8 CC ew PUB PUB 0 1 0 1 1 20000 20000 967 Snowmass Mountain ew MFR MFR SPA-1 59 1 59 1 60 0 0 B68 Snowmass Villas(Blue Roofs) ew MFR MFR SPA-2 28 0 28 0 28 0 0 B64 Snowmass/Wildcal Firehouse ew PUB PUB 0 10 0 16 16 13692 17000 C Wildcat BLL4 0 0 Exhibit E Maximum Buildout for Partially Developed Parcels (Code Section 16A-5-300©(4)b) Parcels A, and B (expanded into Parcel F) Category Units Allowed Proposed Unit Size Unit 100% 65% per Number of Proposed Equivalency equivalent Rule Buildout Multiple- Ratio units Analysis Chart Family proposed Units Parcel A 15 10 1,350 s.f. 0.5 + 0.05 7.0 4.5 per each 100 s.f. above 1,000 s.f. 6 1,660 s.f. 0.75 + 0.10 5.4 3.5 per each 100 s.f. above 1,500 s.f. 4 1,740 s.f. 0.75 +0.10 4.0 2.6 per each 100 s.f. above 1,500 s.f. Total Parcel A: 20 16.4 10.6 Parcel B 30 8 865 s.f. 0.5 4.0 2.6 (area 19 1,740 s.f. 0.75+ 0.10 19.0 12.3 expanded per each 100 into s.f. above portion of 1,500 s.f. Parcel F) 4 2,170 s.f. 0.75 + 0.10 5.6 3.6 per each 100 s.f. above 1,500 s.f. Total Parcel B: 31 28.6 18.6 Parcels A and B Grand Total: 51 45.0 29.2 Exhibit E Maximum Buildout for Undeveloped. Parcels (Code Section 16A-5-300©(4)a) Parcels H & H-1 Category Units Proposed Unit Size Unit 400% 65% Allowed per Number of Proposed Equivalency equivalent Rule Buildout Single- Ratio units Analysis Family proposed Chart Units Parcels 30 6 4,500 s.f. 1.0 +0.10 per 18.0 11.7 H & H-1 each 100 s.f. above 2,500 s.f. 2 5,100 s.f. 3.0 + 0.5 per 12.0 7.8 each 100 s.f. above 4,500 s.f. Total: a 30.0 19.5 Exhibit F Some Community Purposes ideas, suggested by staff, which could be considered for the proposed Snowmass Center Redevelopment Project: Concerning Transportation Issues: 1. Work with adjacent owners, including the Base Village owners, to participate in the improvement of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Wood Road, including a possible new covered bridge over Brush Creek. Please reference the BTA Plan recommendations dated September 1992 for one idea concerning the alignment design. 2. Explaining how the gondola or people mover connection will be implemented from the Snowmass Center concerning cost sharing, lease arrangements, and construction. 3. Participation in the design and installation of a regional bus stop and shelters near Brush Creek Road and Wood Road, perhaps by working with adjacent owners again. 4. Consolidating the number of bus stops into two places at the center, despite the reduction of four parking spaces. Concerning Pedestrian Circulation: 5. Improve the internal pedestrian circulation on the site. 6. Improve the pedestrian connectivity, even off-site, along the two access roads from the center to Brush Creek Road and to neighboring land uses and trails. Walkway connections along a street could also be detached incorporating street trees in the parkway area. 7. Retain and/or relocate the PAR course recreation trail through the site, which is actually required by Resolution No. 2, Series of 1979. Concerning the Multiple-Family Units: 8. Remove a few of the units in Parcel B, so that the number of units don't extend beyond the 100% allowed and/or remove a few of the units planned within the center for the purpose of retain the same amount of floor area for office space; and/or 9. Consider converting some of the residential units to restricted employee housing units, since the project is requesting 100% buildout. 10. As far as the timetable is concerned, develop the single-family area concurrent with the redevelopment of the center. Concerninq Open Space Improvements: 11. Participate with the Town to improve Parcel I, located between Brush Creek Road and the existing trail, following the BTA Plan recommendations of September 1992, as follows: • Use the mature trees and stream to create a picnic and park area just off Exhibit F Woodbridge Road. Provide such public amenities as picnic tables, shade, trash cans and parking places, to welcome the visitor to Snowmass Village. (Note: This was implemented with the Mayfly Trail improvements, but it could be extended west of Woodbridge Road). Reclaim the stream course by removing unwanted growth and re-establish riparian plant communities. • Landscape slopes near Brush Creek Road with Aspen trees to fill unsightly gaps and remove dead trees. (Note: The timing of such improvements would probably need to wait until after construction of the center redevelopment, single-family houses, and the Base Village site to avoid any sort of erosion damage to the improvements as a result of nearby construction). Concerning Parking Issues: 12. Make further adjustments in the parking on the site as follows: • Add more convenient parking beyond the 306 parking spaces required by cantilevering the upper parking area over a portion of the lower parking area by taking advantage of the existing grade changes. This may address the concern that the upper level area will be more in demand as well as supply more convenient parking to the center; and/or • Create a shared parking arrangement with the 87 space underground parking area; and/or • That applicant submit cash-in-lieu of$25,000 per space per Code Section 16A-4- 3100(2)c for each space that is below the parking requirement (if applicable). 4W Exhibit G Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District P.O. Box 6436 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 970-923-2212 Date: April 17, 2001 To: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner From: John T. Mele, Fire Marshal 0 Subject: Snowmass Center Redevelopment Plan There are several fire and life safety issues that the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District would like to address concerning the proposed Snowmass Center Redevelopment. Fire Apparatus access roads to the 8 residential homesites and the proposed townhomes, as drawn, do not meet the access requirements of the Uniform Fire Code (Sec. 10.203 UFC 1991) as adopted by the Town of Snowmass Village. Additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.501 UFC 1991 will be required. The indicated width of the access roads in some areas, as indicated on the Snowmass Center Redevelopment Plans, do not meet the 24 foot unobstructed requirement. Several turning radiuses and dead end access road measurements will need to be verified and/or adjusted so that they will accommodate approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District does not support the possible reduction of parking spaces required for this project. (Referred to as a possibility, on page 12 of the sketch plan submission). It will be critical for this project to maintain adequate fire lanes due to limited fire access. It is our experience that any shortage in parking spaces relates to parking encroachment of fire access and fire lanes. 40 Exhibit H Trails Committee and Landscaping Issues: 1. Submit a well thought out pedestrian circulation plan. It should address flow and access around the building in a logical manner. 2. A Brush Creek Impact Report is required per Land Use Ordinances. This will need to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. 3. Keep development out of the green belt zone. 4. It would be nice for the Town to receive a public stream easement, for continuation of the improvements at Season 4 and Woodbridge. We request participation by the applicant, but the implementation of the improvements should be done by the Town after redevelopment of the center and Base Village. We've had problems recently making stream improvements with subsequent erosion sedimentation filtering into the stream with nearby construction activity. 5. The Trails Committee would like to see a new trail system installed, where the old one is removed (e.g., the recreational PAR course) that works with the new proposals. One possibility would be to build above the new subdivision to connect to the Mellon Ranch Subdivision. 6. Pond must be brought up to current EPA standards/ NPDS discharge permit would be required from Colorado Board of Health. Make sure more bathrooms are added within the center for the general public, employees, and patrons. 7. According to your information, when does lease agreement expire with the Town? 8. Per the Town's Code, development shall be set back twenty five feet from measured horizontally from edge of the riparian area that is determined by a wetland mitigation specialist. 9. Submit a Slope Analysis Plan, due to development prohibited on thirty percent slopes or greater. This should be submitted with the Sketch Plan. Exhibit TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO: Jim Whalstrom, Senior Planner THROUGH: Hunt Walker FROM: David Peckler RE: Comments on Snowmass Center Redevelopment DATE: April 16, 2001 Thank you for the chance to review and comment on the Snowmass Center (Center) redevelopment project. My comments will be made in sequence with the Sketch Plan Submission (Submission). 1. Opening Letter to Chris Conrad and Jim Whalstrom from Richard Shaw, 2 n1 page, #3. "Improved circulation, service and parking will be provided on the Snowmass Center and adjacent Parcels" Reconfiguration of the roadway, parking areas, and the addition of space for a "gondola type connection" are mentioned, however, the transportation needs of the Submission are broader than that in my view. An improved intersection with Brush Creek Road (BCR) and Wood Road (WR) should be discussed with owners of adjacent property (Base Village included.) A regional bus stop to serve the Submission should be identified. Local bus service to the development is significant and needs relief from the congestion today, mentioned later in the Submission. A pedestrian walkway should be provided from the BCR/WR intersection and the regional bus stop to the development. Pedestrian movements should be discussed on a grander scale, encompassing getting to/from the Submission to other residential and commercial developments. The parking location and amount on the site is mentioned, but a reasonable management plan for the new long-term spaces needs to be defined to evaluate the effectiveness of the spaces. Traffic volume in the proposed complex, particularly on the lane in front of the Post Office, will be an issue for the Village Shuttle. Even with the road width being increased and parking being relocated, a reasonable enforcement plan would give the improvements more credibility. 2. Page 2, 4. Proposed Plan Summary, "Circulation and parking will be greatly improved." • Circulation: In looking at the Proposed Site Plan (Plan) I worry that the demand for prime parking may make it more difficult than it is today for local transit service. The buses have a longer road section to navigate on the upper road that has parking spaces on both sides. Today, there are 6 spaces in front of the Post Office and 10 spaces across the way, which causes significant delays to the buses trying to reach the drop off at the main entrance. The Submission proposes creating 10 spaces in front of the building and 15 spaces across the way, with an additional 3 or 4 spaces before the bus stop. This situation causes us to lose a lot of time because cars wait for a prime space to become open. Though the road is supposedly wider, this will not preclude a car from stopping in the middle of the road to wait for another car to leave a space. The design may encourage curbside delivery or short-term parking along the right side of the roadway, much as it exists today, which could constrict the travel lane. The bus stop design is probably too small to get parallel to the curb. It may be better to just leave the curb as a continuous straight curb. We would also require a 5'x8' pad for wheelchair lift rSTA� Exhibit I deployment, as per ADA legislation. I am very concerned that the developer has provided only one bus stop for uphill and downhill traffic. This would effectively double the number of bus trips that exist today on the upper road section. A single bus stop serving multiple destinations would cause further delays and confusion for the driver and the customers. We have thought of running our bus service solely on the lower lane to avoid the upper lane, but find it too constricted to get two way traffic through there. A bus stop on each side of the lower road at grade with the commercial level would be our preferred configuration (if the lane width can be maintained.) Please, refer to my memo to Chris Conrad dated 8/3/2000 on the bus stop issue. A number of intersections have been added to the roadway. Delivery trucks still have an awkward approach to the loading docks that requires the stopping of traffic to back into the docks. The gas station still shows separate entrances onto BCR, which I had hoped might be addressed in the submission. • Parking: Most of the parking has moved farther away from the building. The loss of the upper parking lot leaves no convenient parking for quick trips or deliveries to the upper level businesses except in the cul-de-sac. This may create more demand for the spaces closest to the buildings, and create more congestion on the lane in front of the Post Office. The overall width between the bank building and the retaining wall, forming the South/West lower parking area is too narrow for the parking there today. 3. Page 3, "c. Parking and circulation at the Center need to be enhanced." I agree with the general statements in the bullet points. I do not think that the Submission addresses these issues as well as it could. For example, the pedestrian issue is not fully addressed in the design as far as I can tell. It basically shows the parking lot walkways and fails to get some pathway to the BCR/WR intersection. I do not believe that the shuttle bus circulation is improved. I will discuss my concerns for the shuttle bus circulation later in this document. 4. Page 4, Table I: 1 have counted the parking spaces a number of times and I come up with 182 parking spaces, not the 191 in the table. The Parking Space/Square Foot ratio is .0036 for 191 spaces, and .0034 for 182 spaces. This is higher than what is in the Submission for the new commercial and office figures. 5. Page 6, "c. Improved circulation and parking on the Snowmass Center and Adjacent Parcels" • The new parking spaces above and below the Center appear to be private spaces above it and public parking below. I don't think that this provides improved access to the upper level offices. I am skeptical that some shared use could lead to a reduction in the overall parking demand. • Adding length to the northern half of the parking lot may have added more parking, but it may also have added more delays to the flow of traffic on the lane. People looking for a prime parking space will wait for vehicles that appear to be departing. The reconfiguration of the public parking to the lower levels may increase this behavior. • 1 could not find 202 parking spaces for the office and retail. I did find 193 spaces. A Parking Space/Square Foot ratio would be .0032 for 193 spaces, and .0033 for 202 parking spaces. This is lower then the ratio that exists today. Without a significant improvement to prime parking, it is hard to understand how a lower parking ratio would be an improvement. • What measures are proposed to enforce the long-term parking lot? • NA Exhibit I • The existing loading dock area is where the trash container for the building is. Does the space for the four loading docks include the trash compactor? Has the increased need for trash management (with the increase in the commercial, office and residential space) been taken into account? The access road to the residential units needs to accommodate fire suppression and emergency equipment. Is the lane width and cul-de-sac radius adequate? I am concerned that the congestion on the roadway in front of the Center may not be as improved as the report suggests. As stated before, there may be greater delays to the bus service due to the demand for prime parking. Curbside parking could develop into the norm along the walkway for both short-term parking and commercial delivery which would constrict the roadway. Our experience with the bus stop at the Two Creeks portal has not been encouraging regarding this design. The bus stop is constantly used as a passenger drop off area. Our customers are constantly asking drivers which way the bus is going (to the Mall or to the Club) or they just get on the wrong bus. This problem would be compounded at the Center, given that there are six routes connecting the center to multiple locations. The single bus stop could be overwhelming to everyone. Again, I would ask that consideration be given to our suggestion of moving the bus stops to a location near the entrance to the Alpine Bank, see my memo to Chris Conrad on 8/3/2000. This would provide clear uphill (to mall) or downhill (to lodging) loading areas in a consolidated location for the customer. It provides the path of least resistance through the Center for the bus system, reducing conflicts with private cars and delivery trucks. The stops would be: on grade with the commercial portion of the building, closer to other businesses, closer to the residential units, closer to the proposed people mover, and closer to any development in the Draw parcel. What is critical for the bus stops to move here is for the parking spaces and lane widths of the 35 parking spaces there to be wide enough so that the lanes are not constricted to one- . way traffic. Page 8, 5. Population, Snowmass Center and Townhouse Parcels: Unless all the housing for any new employees is on site, there would logically be some impact to the transportation network by the Submission. I do not believe that, at this time, if it would be necessary to add any more bus service to the Center. I wonder if the statement "The intent is to provide employment and community services for people presently residing in the Town of Snowmass Village, thus minimizing transit needs" can realistically be that altruistic. In this tight labor market additional demand for employees will affect the transportation network in some way. Exhibit I Page 12, 12. Parking, Circulation, and Transit: Parking: Again, I would question the number of parking spaces mentioned in the submission. I can only locate 182 existing spaces and 193 proposed spaces for commercial and office parking. I think the community' feeling is that the current facility has inadequate parking at 182 to 191 spaces. This perception exists because the parking that remains on a busy day is in the lower level parking lot that is separated from the Center by a considerable grade and a length of walkway. Applying the 300 SF factor to the existing square footage generates a theoretical demand for 177 parking spaces, a number less then the 191 referred to as the existing condition. My perception is that there is little convenient parking in the Submission, given that the greatest amount of parking is in a lower level. For this reason I would be hesitant to consider reducing the parking requirement because of some overlap with the residential parking. Circulation: While the longer length of the lower access road should reduce the grade, there are more intersections along the road in the Submission. The intersection with BCR and WR is not improved or aligned with WR. The gas station still has separate access off BCR. The two loading bays across from the Southern end of the building are a good thought, but they put the rear door of a delivery truck in the traffic lane. This would not allow the use of ramps off the back of the truck. Transit: I am concerned about the parking because the behavior of private cars searching for parking affects the circulation, which affects the bus system's ability to get through the property in a timely manner. Today, there are 6 spaces in front of the Post Office and 10 spaces across the way, Significant delays to the bus system are caused by people wait for cars to leave these prime parking spaces. The Submission proposes creating 10 spaces in front of the building and 15 spaces across the way, with an additional 3 or 4 spaces before the bus stop. I have assumed that every bus, regardless of where it is going, would have to pull through this bus stop. This would be a doubling of the bus traffic on the upper roadway getting stuck in the wait for a parking space. Fundamentally, we want to reduce the potential interface between the buses and cars by moving the bus stop to operate on the lower road. If the circulation time through the Center bec/mwany worse, the service routes for 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would go from 20-minute headways to 30-minute headways. This would be a serious decline in service to the core properties, or would require a great increase in operating costs to double service to 15-minute headways. This is potentially a big impact on the bus system as we know it today. Exhibit I TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO: Chris Conrad, Planning Director THROUGH: Hunt Walker FROM: David Peckler RE: Proposed Location of Village Shuttle Bus Stop at Snowmass Center DATE: August 3, 2000 Attached is a drawing of where the Transportation Division would like to move the Village Shuttle bus stops at the Snowmass Center ("Center.") We have not come to this recommendation easily, but through a detailed review by my senior staff. We have considered what would be in the best interests of our customers and the customers of the Snowmass Center. We are also trying to accommodate the possible future development of the Draw parcel. Our major reason for relocating the bus stops is to remove the buses from the chronic congestion on the roadway in front of Building B. We see no solution to the parking/traffic problem here and cannot afford to loose any more travel time on the routes today. The submission we have reviewed only lengthens the gauntlet we navigate today. Our proposed bus stops try to consolidate the number of potential stops into two places. The bus stops are greatly improved because they are consolidated in one spot and both are now on grade with major activity centers. The bus stops are farther from the grocery store for those who can catch the bus there, but they are roughly the same distance and on rg ade for those that must use the lower level stop. My staff and I believe that we need to make this change soon to preserve our operations. The impact would be the loss of four parking spaces, but the number of customers that we deliver to the Snowmass Center and the fact that we would be ADA compliant should more then compensate. Thank you for reviewing this memo. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. �WIWI. AF •ii404% �,•` Y •�, ,j.'.�• � �'w r•:a4 i � �. 7►=w���*IAA r"� _ - / . .ten • �,�� - Imo, 1 . ,�_ • � � � � , � a`P I Exhibit J . . 11 V � 11s 3��'�D'•rtDaAt. uA19C-��t�-S � '� l I I I II w • � ' 1 11 11 Illl II1 fill lilllllll I H I ' VA CO)SLO Z , III � � I LIL1111 so ��-� s� 111111 ( 1 l I III . � • '' . Exhibit K April 24, 2001 SNOWMASS TO : Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner WATER & SANITATION Town of Snowmass Village " ' ' R ' C ' FROM : Robert Garcia, District Manager Snowmass Water& Sanitation District RE: Snowmass Center Redevelopment Project • Jim, I appreciate your participation in the beginning of this project and hope we can continue with effective communication on future projects. I asked Dean Derosier to respond with his concerns, which are the same concerns the District would have. The District System does have the capacity and the ability to serve this project for both Water and Wastewater. Existing infrastructure around the existing Snowmass Center was originally designed, installed and located to provide service for these future projects. Lone line extensions to provide water or to collect wastewater will not be needed. The following are our comments regarding conceptual layout of the project. WATER : Existing pressure at the Center are around 100 PSI .Fire flows from nearby fire hydrants provide 1750 to 1800 gallons per minute. Water lines will not need to be looped to provide adequate fire flow to both the multi-family units around the center and the single-family lots. In order to provide a loop system for the multi-family units, a water line will need to be installed from the existing (proposed access)to the Townhomes along the road and into the Townhomes area looped to a connection on the west side of the existing building. We require that water lines not be installed in the parking garage, under the Townhomes or under foundations. If existing roadway grades will be changing, water lines may need to be re-located to accommodate the new grades and alignments. Service lines may need to be re-sized or located to provide adequate domestic water service and fire protection. Water connections to the existing system may need to be upgraded to accommodate increased usage and fire demands. The water line to service the single-family lots will connect to an existing line just west of the Center and be installed in the access road to the lots. This line will need to be looped to provide fire flows, reliability, and insure adequate service to the area. The line will need to be looped into the existing line in front of the Woodbridge Condominiums. However, since this line is in a different pressure zone, a Pressure Reducing Valve will need to be installed between the 2 zones. A main line will need to be installed to the end of the proposed cul de sac to provide fire protection. Our main concern on this line will be the construction of the road. We will need to accommodate the water line by installing the line into native soils. At least 10 feet from any structural component of the remaining walls needed to construct the road, and 5 feet from other utilities. Road Engineers will need to take the water line location and other utilities into consideration during the design of the road. aa. SNOWNASS WATER&SAMTATm DISTRICT• POST OFFICE BOX 5700 • 660 FAIRWAY DRIVE • SNOWMASS VILLAGE •CanxAno 81615 TRLRFNONB 970.923.2056 •TBLEFAX 970.923.6271 Exhibit K Pressures in the redeveloped Center should remain the same as they are now and the Townhomes should have 80 to 90 PSI. The single-family lot pressures will vary from 60 to 130 PSI. The Snowmass Center Developers should contact the Fire Department to obtain the exact hydrant locations needed to service the project. All main water line extensions will be 8" minimum CI 52 Ductile Iron Pipelines. SEWER : The sewer system inside the existing building has been a problem area for many years. The existing building does not separate the grease and food items from the grocery or restaurants, from the solids from the toilets. This has caused major backups in the past and requires that the Center now pump and clean the lines on a monthly basis. Increased usage and development will make this situation worse. We highly recommend that the re-development address this issue and provide a change in the sewer service line sizes, grades, or alignments. The Townhomes will require a sewer extension to collect flows from either the west side of the existing building or extend the sewer line from the east side near the gas station. These options look to be the best, depending on the building layouts and elevations. This line would also be installed in the access road for the Townhomes, creating conflicts with the required water line to also be installed in this road, existing and proposed narrow road, retaining wall, existing building, and other utilities. The sewer service for the single-family lots will connect to the existing sewer line near the Woodbridge Condos. No major conflicts appear to be connected to the sewer line for this area. All main sewer lines will be 8" SDR 35 PVC with standard manholes. EASEMENTS : Water and sewer lines in alignment with lines that are installed 10 feet apart and side-by-side, will require a 30 foot easement. Lines laid separately will require a 20 foot wide easement. The developer is required to enter into a Line Extension Agreement, prior to any work being performed for the conceptual, preliminary, or final design associated with this project. The Developer shall contact the District immediately for details regarding this agreement. The District's Engineer will provide all Preliminary and Final designs for all line extensions. Robert Garcia District Manager Snowmass Water& Sanitation District _y3 SNOWMASS WATER&SANITATIOS DISTRICT • POST OFFICE BON 5700 • 660 EMMA) DRI\T. • SSO\\]Li 5 VILLAGE • COLORADO 81615 TELEPHONE 303.923.2056 • TELEEi\303.923.6271 Remedies Exhibit L Traffic problems here are caused by teas s confusing road pattern that faces the driver. An expanse of asphalt slows the uaHb z because turning lanes are not clearly marked. •_ _ - _ _ The current road alignment that favgs Brushcreek'Road should be redesigned to make the split onto Wood Road the main turn. This would shift the natural movement of the mad uphill toward the upper Village,and develop a connection between the upper l•• sa..,.c.,,,.. Village and Snowiness Center. Such realign. ment will direct and slow traffic. But stops ID =r 1 should be placed al points along the straight sections of road.not at curves. II the Conoco _ - s a&,Path station is to be relocated as part of the future redevelopment of the Rodeo area,new bus stop buildings would be appropriate along this " `•`� pan of Brushcreek Road. atone adds, _>_ '' •_ Remove the existing large when and build i - a now stone bridge to realign Brushaeek P — with owl Creak Road. This becomes a inapt landmark of arrival for the Town '4 Center. l t y= :: [dinos,tt, Recapture the stream course and reestab• fish riparian communities and approprials cr -- - stream course landscaping. Remove excess signage. Place a land- mark sign at the new turn In Brushuesk Road directing cars to the upper - .r Village. — - — Proposed Plan A second landmark sign should be placed in front of the slope of the skier parking lot, at the entry point of Wood Road,to direct traffic to the upper Village. • Replant trees on adjacent slopes and r � remove all unsightly dead trees. �. f � � • • stn ``09 �n.I• " ,�� A landscape husbandry program should be started-this location would benefit / Immediately. - tap° % ' da di UO won ' I . '�. •.. .'. �1•• 'Wi'� F` ter' 1 � � JJ.,�jr ,. •;p� _ is ' ' ... IT'A'�' wu.�or TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 8, 2001 Agenda Item: Phase lI of Daly Townhomes Construction - Chan a Order No. 1 Presented By: Joe Coffey Core Issues: Phase II Construction of Daly Townhomes General Info: The contract for the construction of the Daly Townhomes was approved with the Phase I construction work. Weitz-Noris has submitted Change Order No. 1 to continue construction on these townhomes as per the construction contract and it is for the remainder of the entire project. The guaranteed maximum price on Change Order No. 1 is $4,921,026, which is $40,000.00 less than our Design Development Budget. Scott Smith and myself have met with Weitz-Norris numerous times to review the Change Order and Construction Budget. However, all the bids are not in for all the categories and we believe there may be potential future construction savings. The value engineering will continue and the construction costs will be monitored until the project is finished. Weitz-Norris has agreed in Change Order No. 1 to reduce their fee and the G.M.P. number if the final bids come in lower with a deductive Change Order. The project is moving along on schedule and the site dewatering has been our largest expense to date. The dewatering costs are currently in the $35,000 to $40,000 range and the site is continuing to dry out as the groundwater goes deeper. The soils have been compactable and this has saved large amounts of contingency money. Council Options: No action necessary. Staff Recommendation: Request Council feedback. ys- TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 11, 2001 Agenda Item: 2001 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Presented By: Gary Sutter Core Issues: Establishing organizational performance standards for continuous improvement. General Info: Attached are the 2001 Specific Objectives for your review. These objectives take our organizational performance standards to a higher level of specificity. This is a draft document is open for discussion. Council Options: Review and comment. Staff Recommendation: Review and comment. 2001 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES KEY AREA OF MEASURING CRITERIA 2001 SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY OBJECTIVE Law Enforcement . Total Crime Reports • Maintain zero growth in total crime • Accident rates reports • Maintain zero growth in accident rates Community Development- • Customer • Conduct quantitative Planning, Zoning, Building Satisfaction survey of customers Functions with goals of accessing customer satisfaction and identifying areas in need of improvement Wildlife and Environment . Number of reported • Reduce number of bear incidents bear incidents by 5 percent Finance . Budget and Project • Expenditures, as Management determined by the budget, shall not exceed available revenues and reserves Major project expenditures shall not exceed 10% of approved project costs. Public Works • Shop Division Effectiveness of • Less than 5% vehicle repair deviation from manufacturer's recommend service intervals • Go-backs less than 10% Solid Waste Division • Recyclables as . Recyclables percent of total solid maintained at 8% of waste stream total waste stream • Timely completion . 90% completion rate of scheduled routes Transportation Division • Transit Productivity • Cost of$2.50 per passenger trip • 1.5 passengers per mile • 18.5 passengers per hour • Number of • 15,000 miles per accidents accident Housing Occupancy rate • Meet the 2001 Budgeted vacancy factors • Completion of 2001 • Complete 90% of all Projects 2001 Capital replacement and • maintenance projects Snowmelt Road a Timeliness of • Determine funding completion of tasks and phasing by July 316'. 2001 • Determine Ballot Language if necessary by August 1, 2001 Woodrun Five Trash Issue • Location • Resolve site issue by December 31, 2001 Brush Creek Highline • Completion of • Engineers estimates Intersection milestones by September 30'" • Plan and specifications ready to bid by December 31a' Entry Way Sign • Construction • Constructed by completion December 2001 Updating Employee a Implementation date • Implement as of Evaluation System January 10, 2002 Daly Townhomes a Construction • Less that 10% Employee Housing Milestones deviation from construction schedule Community Pool a Completion of • Resolve aquatic milestones center/community pool issue by August 31, 2001 • Form Citizens Pool Planning Committee by December 31st P:abared/derk/manager.xWprofeclelkeyareaofmponelblllty Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2:00 P.M. 5:30 P.M. T.C.Mtg. Housing Mtg. Conf.Center Kearns Room 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4:00 P.M. Planning No T.C. Mtg. Commission 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2:00 P.M. CML CONFERENCE T.C.Mtg. Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VLF in A.M. (Tentative) Holiday 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 29 30 31 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 11 SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ENACTMENT OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, AND THE DECLARATION OF AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Uniform Building Code as adopted in Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code makes reference to the Uniform Code of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings as a procedure for the repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal of unsafe buildings or structures; and WHEREAS,to facilitate the use of the procedures contained in the Uniform Code of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings the Uniform Building Code requires Its adoption specifically; and WHEREAS, when the Uniform Building Code was adopted by the Town by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1992, a specific adoption of the Uniform Code of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings did not occur; and WHEREAS,the Town Council is authorized to adopt uniform codes by reference in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.11 of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS,the Town Council is authorized to enact emergency ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, welfare, peace and safety, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.10 of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, the failure to adopt the Uniform Code of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is detrimental to the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare and constitutes an emergency within the meaning of Section 4.10 of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, the declaration of emergency is necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.10 of the Home Rule Charter,a least three (3) members of the Town Council must vote to approve this Ordinance WHEREAS,the Town Council finds thatthe adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: Ordinance No. Ordinance No.11, Series of 2001 Page 2 1. Adoption of the Uniform Code of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5390 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601 is hereby adopted by the Town by reference, subject to amendments and exclusions contained herein. At least one (1)copy of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings will be filed in the office of the Town Clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours. 2. Declaration of Emergency. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.10 of the Home Rule Charter, an emergency exists and this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. 3. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the Invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village as an Emergency Ordinance on June 11, 2001 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER Jeff Dickinson, Architect, Energy 6 Sustainable Design G Scott Ely, Owner, Sunsense/Earthsense, June 11, 2001 "SELF CONTAINED PROTOTYPE BUILDING" • ENERGY EFFICIENT • RESOURCE EFFICIENT • EDUCATIONAL • EXEMPLARY DESIGN MENU CREATES ITS OWN ENERGY • PHOTOVOLTAICS • WIND POWER GENERATION • PASSIVE SOLAR ENERGY • ACTIVE SOLAR THERMAL ENERGY • DAYLIGHTING • PASSIVE COOLING • SUPER INSULATION STRATEGIES • ADVANCED GLAZING TECHNIQUES SUSTAINABLE BUILDING MATERIALS • STRA-BALES • EATHSHIP TECHNOLOGY • RECYCLED/REUSED MATERIALS • LOW INPACT MATERIALS • LOCAL MATERIALS • NATURAL FINISHES SITE PLANNING • MINIMIZE SITE IMPACTS • BLEND IN WITH NATURE • EATH BERMING • SOLAR ORIENTATION • ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE EFFICIENCY • RAIN WATER HARVESTING • GREY WATER SEPARATION AND TREATMENT • COMPOSTING TOILETS • ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING/APPLIANCES • XERISCAPING/PERMACULTURE • RECYCLING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES • DISPLAYS • EMONSTRATION • WORKSHOPS • CONSTRUCTION INTERACTION • NETWORKING • HANDS ON • SCHOOL GROUPS VISITORS/RESIDENTS RUEDI RESERVOIR OWNERSHIP, OPERATION AND USE GRAPHIC NARRATIVE ADDENDUM 1. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION OWNERSHIP The Bureau of Reclamation built Ruedi in 1964-68 as an element of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project which diverts water from the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork drainages to the Southeast Water Conservancy District in Pueblo.These diversions amount to an average of 61,550 af/year.The primary purpose of Ruedi is to replace out-of-priority diversions on the western slope.Additional uses are for recreation,fishery enhancement,hydropower,and flood control. 2. CONTRACT USERS The Bureau of Reclamation has offered Ruedi water for sale under contract under two programs. The Round 1 sale took place in the early 80's and involved around 6500 acre-feet of water to several parties. The Round II sales took place in 1999-2000 and involved the sale of approximately 10,000 of to local governments and water districts.The Round 11 contracts have a term of 25 years and allow contractors to augment existing water supplies with releases from Ruedi as needed. 3. SOURCES OF WATER FOR ENDANGERED FISH In the mid-80's the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service declared four species of native Colorado River fish endangered.These fish are the Colorado Pikeminnow(formerly squawfish),the Razorback Sucker,the Bonytail Chub and the Humpback Chub.As part of the recovery plan for the endangered species,the Fish and Wildlife Service established target flow levels in the 15-mile reach of the Colorado between Debeque Canyon and the confluence of the Gunnison River.Water to provide these flows has been allocated from a number of different sources,including Ruedi.Interim supplies from Williams Fork Reservoir and Wolford Mountain Reservoir are subject to future replacement from other sources according to flow augmentation agreements between west slope and front range water interests.The total allocation from Ruedi Reservoir will be 20,825 acre feet when those agreements are fulfilled. 4. POOL ALLOCATIONS The Permanent Pool refers to water which cannot be released from the water due to physical limitations.The Replacement Pool refers to water which is available to be released to the western slope if and when Fry-Ark diversions encroach on senior water rights on the western slope.The West Slope pool refers to the excess capacity of the Reservoir over and above the permanent and replacement pools.The West Slope pool is further subdivided into the endangered fish allocation of 20,825 of and the sales pool of 35,200 af.Of the sales pool, 16,600 of has been contracted for future delivery and 18,600 of is still available. 5. OTHER USERS The Southeast Water Conservancy District manages the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and manages diversions according to their needs and reservoir capacities on the front range.Fry-Ark diversions go towards both agricultural and municipal/domestic needs in the Pueblo area.The City of Aspen and Pitkin County are joint license-holders for the Ruedi Hydropower Project.The City of Aspen is the manager of the project,which provides around 2.2 million KWH to the City's electrical utility customers annually.Ruedi releases of 250 cfs or less are directed through the hydropower plant. Recreation is an important use of the reservoir and the Fryingpan River valley. Recreational use of the reservoir is enjoyed by 25-30,000 people every year,figures which do not include anglers on the river, sightseers and casual users who do not use Forest Service facilities.A major study and survey of reservoir and river use and fishery habitat is currently underway under the auspices of the Colorado River District,the Ruedi Water and Power Authority and the Roaring Fork Conservancy.The Ruedi Water and Power Authority is a quasi-governmental agency made up of the 5 town and 3 county jurisdictions of the Roaring Fork Valley with the mission of representing local interests in the management of Ruedi Reservoir.The Roaring Fork Conservancy is a non-profit organization with the mission of monitoring,preserving and enhancing the waterways of the Roaring Fork Drainage. Ruedi Reservoir Ownership, Operation, and Use Owner/Operator: USBR Contract Users wr.m..r pgl.mper.a Other Users RwcaRn,a..aa kr Olf Town of Basalt Southeast Water Town of Carbondale Conservancy District City of Glenwood Springs West Slope Pool _'66K (Fry-Ark Project) City of Aspen Contracted=16.6K East Slope Diversions Colorado River District -------------------------- West Divide Conservancy uncontracted=18.6K Hydropower Plant Basalt Conservancy �••R•W Exton/Union Oil City of Aspen Ruedl Water and Power #CO- -- 8-------------- PitkinCounty USFWS-Fish Pool ol ■ 20.8K Capackr..250 cta,5 Mw 5K Firm+5K r....10.825K Firm Soucaa of wasr lbr ent Pool = 28K Endongwed Fish at elope DNvrW m auedi R..erwn Recreation and Interest Group1987 BO 19% Roaring Fork Conservancy rd Pool.1SK raErMtonnwaal and rao values 16% M MON.fork Camping Rafting R...,.r,womim Motorized Boating Kayaking 8% Total Storage = 102 K AF sailing Fishing M°a,a rd,..rd wwrora ro�nrR Ra.r.Ro- R..erMr MMm n Fryingpan River Drainage .caRvOn�BeB"Oa�`D11OB1 a o.mfw.: Tonal wabr-AN 6ourtw 67.6 K AF n canq s ntlrbov trout kna.mi wvs k b a nyl.ud fiwn mw.ai.me by Al2 °d Rasp. bast Trout ', te76urlu AOa esdlra TmN Town of on I 4 d 9r � t W { ✓1u.W v " � A�.iI.M.K.bn a1J9911FlrR We •,-vim..,... � F —Wm1Y CnN i .N.nf.u'l.Y Gly of Aspen 1�I �_f •' ,,,,,,,rr, g Ruedi Reservoir Ownership, Operation, and Use Owner/Operator: USBR Contract Users Other Users =fa.�Y.samW10 Town of Basalt Southeast water Town of Carbondale Conservancy District 4W City of Glenwood springs West Slope Pool = 56K (Fry-Ark Project) City of Aspen Contracted=16.6K - East Slope Diverslons Colorado River District ------------------------- West Divide Conservancy Uncontracted=18.6K Hydropower Plant Basalt Conservancy �° Hw . ExxonfUnlon Oil C'Ity of Aspen Ruedl Water and Power ------------------------ Pitkin County USFWS•Fish Pool Fish Pool =20.8K c"�� M�•5 raw Round I=5K Firm+5K h..nu..bl Round II=10.825K Firm �. saaR..mw.e.rra Replacement Pool = 28K n Endangsnd Fish "°"°°°'Egg s"°iDNw~°"' Recreation and Interest Groups 4 R..nl R.s.rwlr 19876 0 isx Roaring Fork .r.w a.u..n Conservancy p•uY Ir R... r Perinansint Pool m 1BK 6uaQi EnAronmentel and 1.R.Reo Habitat Values Tex WIN.R..v.r. Camping Parting Rte.eah..a n Total Storage = 102 K AF Soiling�Boating FKHning WN11.1a xu..an Wgbaa.v.un a...rwlr R..arwlr aesam SIN H Fryingpan River Drainage ,°n ReBB1YDf`ReBOtirces TOWI walar-M 6aurcee s 67.6 K AF a1 6 ua.r TI Cwpean R.. T TroIA bl.r.n vela h b W r.peW M1am ob>.ym.py 2012 3 9or Rare. growl Troia 1� en BUrlq AVe, McOY..r Trout k' II �J' 1 Town of Basalt f +>yl• 7 J 1 py� tfL �1- r ry T. .b.o1..w.eT.s7o.Rrca _ I�I T�urw. CD,of Aspen �t�ljiy2ll7CG�`� G//o�tiJ Me orandum To: Executive Committee CC: Mayor,Gary Suiter From: Jim France Date: 06/11/01 Re: Financing Options Please find attached the option comparison for the eight options that were discussed with Stan Komasiewiez on Monday May 28. You will note that the format has been changed from the usual presentation wherein operating and capital transactions are segregated. This format combines operating and capital transactions into a single category to make reading simple and easy. Common assessments are thereby summed into a single line. Likewise the principal and interest portion of long term debt are aggregated on a single line. The first column is the projection as we see it if nothing were to change at all from our current structure. The first option is the base option. It assumes that all services currently provided will continue. In order to remain at the common assessment level of$400,it was necessary to make several changes from the prior year.In reservations the commission structure was extended to 12%for any reservation through Central Reservations(CenRes). Additionally a 13.8%commission is charged conference lodging for reservations not booked through CenRes. The$6.25 per guest night for the conference center was therefore eliminated.The civic assessment was raised from 3.25 to 4 per cent for the retail segment. Labor costs were reduced by reducing the number of conference salesmen to 3 and the number of full time reservation agents to 5. All other operating expenses rose 3%. The base option leads directly to option one,wherein the conference center operation is transferred to a different entity. All percentages are as in the base option. This leaves two conference salesmen in this configuration. The second option is the TOSV sales tax option. Common Assessments are at$400.The civic assessments are comprised of 4%bed assessment, 1.5%retail civic assessment,and an additional 1% sales tax dedicated to SRA. The third option is the commercial refinance. The rates available to us in this option range from about 5%for commercial paper to 7%for a secured loan. The principal would be comprised of $1,273,000 for the refurbishment of the conference center this fall,$1,019,000 to replace outstanding loan balances,and$2,334,000 for the defeasance of the sales tax bonds.The common assessments are$400,civic assessment at 4%for everyone, CenRes commissions remain as for the base option. The fourth option is the TOSV sales tax option increased to 1.5%dedicated to SRA.Common Assessments are$400,and the bed assessment at 4%. The retail assessment is zero. 1 June 11, 2001 The fifth option is the Tow 1.5%sales tax option with the conference center transferred to a different entity. The sixth option is the base option with the transfer of the central reservation to a different entity. The last option is the base option with the transfer of both the conference center and the central reservation to a different entity. 2 &11101 2002 Budget(Proposed June 4,2000) 822 AM Option Comparison Projected Base Conference TOSV Coarnerdal Sales Tax 1.5% NO CVB ' OPERATING BUDGET Sale Sales Tax Refinance 1.5% No Conf. Reservation REVENUE 1 11 III IV V VI VII CortRnonAstessnwN s 1,121,095 1,132,182 1,132,182 1,132,182 1,132,182 1,132,182 . 1,132,182 1,132,182 1,132,182 CivicAssessnreMS 2,851,380 2,995,134 2,995,134 2,150,867 2,995,134 1,624,045 1,624,045 2,995,134 2,995,134 Snowrtess Vifisp Sales Tax 0 0 0 1,140,000 0 1,710,000 1,710,000 0 . . 0 OdwRevenues 366.808 396,170 249,701 . 396,170 396,170 396,170 249,701 249,701 352,603 Conference Activities 1,915,308 2,371,776 0 2,371,776 2,371,776 2,371,776 0 2,371,776 0 Reservation Activity 1,130,814 1,946,421 1,348,015 1,946,421 1,946,421 1,946,421 1,348,015 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES 7,385,005 8,841,683 5,725,032 9,1371416 8,841,683 9,180,594 6,063,943 6,748,793 4,479,919 Conference Expenses 2,149,670 1,930,177 0 1,930,177 1,930,177 1,930,177 0 1,930,177 0 Conference Profits (234,362) 441,599 0 441,599 441,599 441,599 0 441,599 0 Reservation Expenses 1,366,679 1,762,287 1,126,253 1,762287 1,762,287 1,762,287 1,126,253 - 0 0 Reservation Profits (235,865) 184,134 221,762 184,134 184,134 184,134 221,762 0 0 Profits AflxOperations 3,889,056 5,149,219 4,598,779 5,444,952 5,149,219 5,488,129 4,937,690 018,616 4,479,919 AdrNrisb Son 643,000 662,613 506,220 662,613 662,613 662,613 506.220 506,720 506,220 Guest Services 337,094 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 Sales and Marketing 2,343,366 2,410,067 3,262,934 2,705,800 3,021,868 2,748,977 3,599,345 2,370,865 3,244,462 Deps.b. rrlalProfit(Loss) 545,596 1,694,902 447,988 1,694,902 1,083,101 1,694,902 450,488 1,559,894 347,600 Debt Payment(Principal&Interest) 933,075 1,045,402 63,388 1,045,402 433,601 1,045,402 63,388 979294 0 insurance 77.640 82.500 80,000 82,500 82,500 82,500 82,500 82,500 82,500 -Corporatee Expenses 105,958 129,000 93,600 129,000 129,000 129,000 93,600 93,600 87,600 Depredation 264,085 288,000 61,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 61,000 254,500 27,500 Reserve Funds 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 .150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Net Profit(Loss) (835.162) (0) (0) (0) (0) 0 (1) (0) (0) 02bdgtCornpHiram2Opdons 1 of 8 6/11101 2002 Budget(Proposed June 4,2000) 822 AM Option Comparison Base Base Conference TOSV Commercial Sales Tax 1.5% NO CVB - Sale Sales Tax Refinance 1.5% No Cord. Reservation Winter Lodging Sales 37,600,000 33,767,854 33,767,854 33,767,854 33,767,854 33,767,854 33,767,854 33,767,854 33,767,854 Summer Lodging Sales 8,210,974 8,457,303 8,457,303 8,457,303 8,457,303 8,457,303 8,457,303 8,457,303 8,457,303 Total lodging Sales 45,810,974 42,225,157 42,225,157 42,225,157 42,225,157 42,225,157 42,225,157 42,225,157 42,225,157 Net Lodging Sates 44,049,013 40,601,113 40,601,113 40,601,113 40,601,113 40,601,113 40,601,113 40,601,113 40,601,113 Winter Retail Sales 25,924,088 26,701,811 26,701,811 26,701,811 26,701,811 26,701,811 26,701,811 26,701,811 26,701,811 Summer Retail Sales 8,685,932 8,946,510 8,946,510 8,946,510 8,946,510 8,946,510 8,946,510 8,946,510 8,946,510 Total Retail Sales 34,610,020 35,648,321 35,648,321 35,648,321 35,648,321 35,648,321 35,648,321 35,648,321 35,648,321 Net Retag Sales 33.520.600 34,277.232 34,277232 35,121,499 34277232 35.648,321 35,648,321 34277,232 34,277,232 Lodging Rate 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Retail Rate 325% 4.00% 4.00% 1.50% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 4.00% Civic Assesernent 2,851,380 2,995,134 2,995,134 2,150,867 2,995,134 1,624,045 1,624,045 2,995,134_ 2,995,134 Pool Assessments 23,700 23,700 23,700 23,700 23,700 23,700 23,700 23,700 Arts and Craft 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 Balloon Festival 12,545 12,545 12,545 12,545 12,545 12,545 12,545 12,545 Brewers Festival 12,240 12,240 12,240 12240 12,240 12,240 12,240 12,240 Chili Shoot out 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 Music on the Mall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conhobutions 17,371 17,371 17,371 17,371 17,371 17,371 17,371 17,371 Special Events 0 75,556 75,556 75,556 75,556 75,556 75,556 75,556 75,556 Jazz Beverage Commissions 63,000 63.000 63.000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63.000 63,000 Associate Member 24,902 25,000 24,902 24,902 24,902 25,000 25,000 24,902 AMEX 103,000 0 103,000 103,000 103,000 0 103,000 ConMbWons 0 190,902 88,000 190,902 190,902 190,902 88,000 88,000 190,902 Lease Furl 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 Receivables 6,117 10,000 6,117 6,117 6,117 10,000 10,000 10,000 Investments 23,779 22,329 23,779 23,779 23,779 22,329 22,329 22,329 Inbrest 0 59,896 32,329 59,896 59,896 59,896 32,329 32,3211 32,329 CoOp Advertising 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telephone Line Charges 5,116 5,116 5,116 5,116 5,116 5,116 5,116 5,116 Miscellaneous Income 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Famed Air Tickets 16,000 0 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 0 Total Miscellaneous 0 46,116 30,116 46,116 46,116 46,116 30,116 30,116 30,116 OTHER REVENUE 0 396,170 249,701 396,170 396,170 396,170 249,701 249,701 352,603 021dglCompHiram20ptions 2 of 8 6111101 2002 Budge!(Proposed June 4.2000) 8:72 AM . Option Comparison Base Base Conference TOSV Commercial Sales Tax 1.5% NO CVB - CONFERENCE CENTER Sale Sales Tax Refinance 1.5% No Conf. Reservation Food - '1,008,813 1,008,813 1,008,813 1,008,813 1,008,813 Beverage 129.504 129.504 129.504 129,504 129.504 Services Charges 273,717 273,717 273,717 273,717 273,717 Sales Discounts (118,574) (118.574) (118,574) (118,574) (118.574) Exhihtt Fees - 0 0 0 0 0 Room Rental 47,433 47,433 47,433 47,433 47,433 Audlo Visual 203.698 203,698 203,698 203,698 203,698 Conf Cntr.Service Fee 787,007 787,007 787,007 787,007 787,007 Miscellaneous - 40,178 40,178 40,178 40,178 40,178 Gross Sales 0 2,371,776 0 2,371,776 2,371,776 2,371,776 0 2,371,776 0 Cost of Goods Sold Direct Labor 251,482 251,482 251,482 251,482 251,482 Other Food Cost 186,385 186,385 186,385 186,385 186,385 Cost of Liquor 28,699 28,699 28,699 28,699 28,699 Audio Visual 183,328 183,328 183,328 183,328 183,328 Misc.Sales Cost 0 0 0 0 0 Roan Rental 56,121 56,121 56,121 56,121 - 56,121 Cod Ctr Service Fee Allovrance 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cast 0 706,015 0 706,015 706,015 706,015 0 706,015 0 Expenses Wages 552,308 552,308 552,308 552,308 552,308 Bonus 53,750 53,750 53,750 53,750 53,750 Pyrt Taxes 55,652 55,652 55,652 55,652 55,652 Health hsurance 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 32.400 Employee Benefits 28,415 28,415 28,415 28,415 28,415 Repair&Matntm rice 56.000 56.000 56,000 56.000 56.000 Conference Space Rent 249,537 249,537 249,537 249,537 249,537 Miles 132,950 132,950 132,950 132,950 132,950 Supplies 61,050 61,050 61,050 61,050 61,050 Other 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 Total Expenses 0 1224,162 0 1,224,162 1,224,162 1,224,162 0 1,224,162 Conference Expenses 0 1,930,177 0 1,930,177 1,930,177 1,930;177 0 1,930,177 0 Conference Prull 0 441,599 0 441,599 441,599 441,599 0 441,599 0 02bdglCompHtram2Options 3 of 8 6/11101 2002 Budget(Proposed June 4,2000) 8:22 AM - Option Comparison Base Base Conference TOSV Commercial Sales Tax 1.5% NO CVB - RessrvaBoe Aalhilly Sale Sales Tax Refinance 1.5% No Conf. Reservation Social Lodging Commission 330,371 330,371 330,371 330,371 330,371 330,371 Conference Lodging Commission 372,884 372,884 372,884 372,884 372,884 372,884 Reservation Fee 55.399 28,500 55.399 55.399 55,399 28,500 Bulk Air 263,074 104,100 263,074 263,074 263,074 104,100 Social Air 86,185 36,840 86,185 86,185 86.185 36,840 OtherCommisslors 43,508 20.340 43.508 43.508 43,508 20,340 Lift Tickets 795.000 454.980 795,000 795.000 795,000 454,980 Telephone Line Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earned Air Tickets 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total hxxmw 0 1,946,421 1,348,015 1,946,421 1,846,421 1,446,421 1,348,015 0 0 Employee Air Commission 14,990 5,766 14,990 14,990 14,990 5,766 Empl Lodging Commissions 70,326 38,038 70,326 70,326 70,326 38,038 Bulk Air Cost 113,171 83,280 113,171. 113,171 113,171 83,280 F_mpl Other Commission 4,351 2,034 4,351 4,351 4,351 2,034 Cost of Lift Tickets 755,250 445.880 755.250 755,250 755,250 445,880 Empl Lift Commissiors 754 0 754 754 754 0 - OutplarrtConmdssiors 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apollo Equip Rent 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12A00 Travel Agent Fees 51,107 70,873 51,107 51,107 51,107 70,873 Credit Card Charges 138,307 102,713 138,307 138,307 138,307 102,713 Total Cost 0 1,160,256 760,584 1,160256 1,160,256 1,160,256 760,584 0 0 Expenses Wages 332,247 158,670 332247 332,247 332,247 158,670 Boras 19,000 14,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 14,000 Pyd Taxes 35,307 17,029 35,307 35,307 35,307 17,029 Heafih Insurance 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 Employee Benefits 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Repair 8 Mahnte, noe 30,670 30,670 30,670 30,670 30,670 30,670 Office Rent 48,973 48,973 48.973 48,973 48,973 48,973 Telephone 79,014 39,507 79,014 79,014 79,014 39,507 u1111ties 970 970 970 970 970 970 Supplies 38,450 38,450 38,450 38,450 38,450 38,450 Other 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 Total Expenses 0 602,031 365,669 602,031 602,031 602,031 365,669 0 0 Reservation rem 0 1,762,287 1,126,253 1,762,287 1,782,287 1,762,287 1,126,253 0 0 02bdgtCompHlrsm2Opbors 4 of 8 6+11/01 2002 Budget(Proposed June 4,2000) 922 AM Option Comparison Net Profit(Loss) 0 164,134 221,762 184,134 184,134 184,134 221,762 0 0 ' Base Base Conference TOSV Commercial Sales Tax 1.5% NO CVB Adminlsbatlon Sale Sales Tax Refinance 1.5% No Conf. Reservation Wages 474,813 346,908 474,813 474,813 474,813 346,908 346,908 346,908 Bonus 48,000 48,000 48.000 48.000 48.000 49,000 48,000 48,000 Pyrl Taxes 33,166 21,563 33,166 33,166 33,166 21,563 21,563 21,563 Health Insurance 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 Employee Benefit 21,885 5,000 21,885 21,885 21,885 5,000 5,000 5,000 Repair&Winteriance 9,785 9,785 9,785 9,785 9,785 9,785 9,785 9,785 Rent 17,304 17,304 17,304 17,304 17,304 17,304 17,304 17,304 1M61tles 3,090 3,090 3,090 3,090 3.090 3,090 3,090 3,090 Supplies 36,050 36,050 36.050 36,050 36.050 - 36,050 36,050 36.050 Odw 4,120 4,120 4,120 4,120 4,120 4,120 4,120 4,120 Total Expenses 0 662,613 5060 662,613 662,613 662,613 506,220 506,220 506,220 02bdglCompHham2Opti0ns 5 of 8 6111101 2002 Budget(Proposed June 4.2000) 8:22 AM . Option Comparison Special Events Arts 8 Crafts 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,713 Balloon Festival 20,842 20,842 20,842 20,842 20,842 20,842 20.842 20,842 Banana Season 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 Brewers Festival 9,900 9,900 9,900 9,900 9,900 9,900 9,900 9,900 Children's Festival 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 Chili Shoot Out 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 Chrsbries 3,579 3,579 3,579 3,579 3,579 3,579 3,579 3,579 Dally Activities 0 . 0 0 0 Fall Festival 6,967 6,967 6,967 6,967 6,967 6,967 6,967 6,967 f4ardl Gras 9,486 9,486 9,486 9,486 9,486 9,486 9,486 9,486 Summer Concert Series 30,000 30.000 30,000 30.000 30,000 30.000 30,000 30,000 Summer Events 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Winter Physup 5,554 5,554 5,554 5,554 5,554 5,554 5,554 5,554 Total Event Activities 0 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 Expenses Wages 99,519 99,519 99,519 99,519 99,519 99,519 99,519 99,519 Bonus 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Pyrl Taxes 11,746 11,746 11,746 11,746 11,746 11,746 11,746 11,746 Health Insurance 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 Employee Benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 Repair BMaintenance 64.530 64.530 64,530 64,530 64,530 64,530 64,530 64,530 Office Relit 4,552 4,552 4,552 4,552 4,552 4,552 4,552 4,552 Telephone 515 515 515 515 515 515 515 515 I161ities 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Supplies 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 Other 2,163 2,163 2,163 2,163 2,163 2,163 2,163 2,163 Total Expenses 0 189,637 189,637 189,637 189,637 189,637 189,637 189,637 189,637 TOTAL SPECIAL EVENTS 0 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 381,637 0ad9tCOmpHiram2Op80ns 6 of 8 6111101 2002 Budget(Proposed June 4,2000) 822 AM . Option Comparison Base Base Conference TOSV Commercial Sales Tax 1.5% NO CVB Advertising Sale Sates Tax Refinance 1.5% No Conf. Reservation Conference Media Conference Support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Site Visit 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Travel&Entei irmrem - 93,000 130,000 93,000 93,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 CONFERENCE TOTAL 0 213,000 250,000 213,000 213,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250.000 Airport Host Program 16,175 16,175 16,175 16,175 16,175 16,175 16,175 16,175 Challenge Aspen 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Jazz Aspen 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 Lift Operations 40,000 40,000 40.000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Rodeo 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 Summer ConoertSenes 30,000 30,000 30.000 30.000 30,000 30,000 30.000 30,000 Suzuki Institute 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 Sponsorships 0 385,175 385,175 385,175 385,175 385,175 385,175 385.175 385,175 Winter Marketing Campaign - 540,575 1,482,304 836.308 1,152,376 694,563 1,818,715 590,235 1,463,832 WINTER TOTAL 0 540,575 1,482,304 836,308 1,152,376 694,563 1,818,715 590,235 1,463,832 Marketing Campaign 168,000 168,000 168.000 168.000 168,000 168.000 168,000 168.000 OBrerPubliicatios 50,000 50,000 50.000 50.000 50,000 50,000 50.000 50.000 SUMMER TOTAL 0 218,000 218,000 218,000 218,000 218,000 218,000 218,000 218,000 ADVERTISING 0 1,356,750 2,335,479 1,652,483 1,968,551 1,547,738 2,671,890 1,443,410 2,317,007 Expenses Wages 515,028 414,840 515,028 515,028 634,508 414,840 414,840 414,840 Boras 79,575 72,575 79,575 79,575 93,575 72,575 72,575 72,575 Pyrl Taxes 54.862 45.434 54,862 54,862 66,317 45,434 45.434 45.434 Health Insurance 25200 25200 252W 25200 25,200 252W 25,200 25,200 Employee Benefits 23,246 14,000 23,246 23,246 26,233 14.000 14,000 14,000 Cost of Comps 69,500 69,500 69.500 69,500 69.500 69,500 69,500 69,500 Repair&Maintenance - 59,327 59,327 59,327 59,327 59,327 59,327 59,327 59,327 Office Rem 91,339 91,339 91,339 91,339 91.339 91,339 91,339 91,339 Teleptxme 35,023 35,023 35,023 35,023 35.023 35,023 35,023 35.023 Utilities 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Supplies 81,683 81,683 81,583 81,683 81,683 81,683 81,683 81,683 Other 18,334 18,334 18,334 18,334 18,334 18,334 18,334 18,334 Total Expenses 0 1,053,317 927,455 1,053,317 1,053,317 1201239 927,455 927,455 927,455 Sales and Marketing 0 2p10,067 3,262,934 2,705,800 3,021,868 23748,977 3,599,345 ],370,865 3,244,462 -02bdglCompHiram2Options 7 o 8 6/11/01 2002 Budget(Proposed June 4,2000) 8:22 AM Opp Comparison Base Base Conference TOSV Commercial Sales Tax 1.5% NO CVB ' Sale Sales Tax Refinance 1.5% No Conf. Reservation Bank Service Fees 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Line of Credit 0 0 0 0 0 Conf.Center Lease 199,873 0 199,873 0 199,873 0 199,873 Equipment 11,636 11,636 11,636 0 11,636 11,636 11,636 Day lane Note 43,020 0 43.020 0 43,020 0 43.020 00 Consolidation Loan 0 0 0 317,939 0 0 0 01 Equipment 15,273 15,273 1573 0 15,273 15,273 0 01 Leashdd 16,167 16,167 16,167 0 16,167 16,167 16,167 01 Asset Purchases 11,476 0 11,476 0 11,476 0 11,476 INTEREST 0 297,895 43,526 297,895 318,389 297,895 43,526 282,622 0 Cont.Center Lease 575,000 0 575,000 0 575,000 0 575,000 Roof Tent Sidewalk 6,461 0 6,461 0 6,461 0 6,461 Truck Note 3,491 0 3,491 0 3,491 0 3,491 Day Lane Note 14,402 0 14,402 0 14,402 0 14,402 Telephone Note 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Note 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trash Compactor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 Equipment Note 19,862 19,862 19,862 0 19,862 19,862 19,862 00 Consolidation Loan 0 0 0 115,212 0 0 0 01 Equipment 501835 50,835 0 50,835 01 Leeshokl 49,941 49,941 0 49,941 49,941 01 Asset Purrs 27,515 27,515 0 27,515 27,515 PRINCIPAL REDUCTION 0 747,507 19,862 747,507 115,212 747,507 19,862 696,672 0 DEBT PAYMENTS 0 1,045,402 63,388 1,045602 433,601 1,045,402 63,388 979,294 0 AudWM 18,000 9,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 9,000 9,000 3,000 Board Expenses 44,600 44,600 44,600 44,600 44,600 44,600 44,600 44,600 Charitable DoreOons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal 10,800 10,600 10.800 10.800 10,800 10,600 . 10.600 10,800 Membership Relations 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Other 48,400 25,000 48,400 48,400 48,400 25,000 25,000 25,000 POMDMVPropertyTax - 4,700 1,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corporate Expenses 0 129,ODO 93,600 129,000 129,000 129,000 93,600 93,600 876600 02bdgtCompHiram2Opbors 8 of 8