P&z - Regular Meeting

Good. We ready? Let's uh call to order Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Tuesday, January 20th, 2026. All right. Uh Bill Marin, yo. Kyle Oberetter. Eric Voszic. Rob Levit here. Cindy Hersshfield here. Mike Horvath here. Bob Kaplan here. And Ben Firestein. All right. You have a quorum.

Great. All right. First order of business. Um um public hearing [clears throat] 72 Sunset Drive PUB amendment. Um, we need to continue public hearing to February 3rd, 2026. Do we have a motion? So, moved. We have first. Do we have a second? Second. We have first. We have a second. All in favor? I. Motion passes. [clears throat]

Okay. Um, uh, public hearing 555 Basaltt Avenue, Special Review. And this is James. Is it hasn't uh we do have the applicants here this evening on this application we've got Justin and we also have logic from Steel. Um, this is a public hearing on an application submitted by MH LLC. Uh, it's a special review application with PUB amendments, uh, Southside Flood Plan Review and associated land use actions. uh to construct 54 commercial spaces, storage spaces, and 48 multifamily residential units at 555 Walt Avenue, uh which is the Myer Steel property. Um the process includes uh land use request requiring review by the basalt affordable community housing commission uh also known as block uh planning and zoning commission and town council uh with public hearings at the planning and zoning commission and town council levels. Um also require subsequent subdivision review by town council uh to kind of minimize the commercial storage spaces. Um staff has also identified that the requested development uh would require approval of a master plan amendment uh

to amend the future land use map as well as the typology designations for the property in the master plan. And as such, uh, master plan amendment is being evaluated concurrently, uh, with the land use actions and the master plan amendment will require review by the planning and zoning commission and town council as well. Uh so staff recommends treating this initial meeting as an introduction meeting to the application as well as an introduction meeting to the discussion items related to the project. Uh and for the PNZ to provide initial comments and identify additional information that might be needed at future meetings uh in evaluating the application. Um the site subject of the application as you can see on the screen uh is a 4.84 acre parcel uh that currently houses Myers & Company. Uh it's located in the Basalt Business Center South PUB and it's located in the uh town's urban growth boundary. Uh it's currently zoned industrial PUD and it's partially in the southside flood plains. uh proposal is to remove the existing buildings from the site uh and construct 54 commercial uh storage spaces on the south edge or south half of the property as you can see in these buildings here. Uh and then also to construct 48 multifamily residential uh units in three buildings uh on the north portion of the site as you can see here. Uh access is proposed to the uh commercial storage units uh from FU Lane on the south side of the site. Uh and then [clears throat] access

is proposed to the residential buildings uh from the existing driveway that goes to Cody Lane. Uh property is located between uh the park and ride which is located right here and the Southside 4 subdivision which is located on the other side of the lane. Uh, of the 48 residential units, 12 are proposed to be derestricted as category rental units, uh, averaging a category 2. Uh, and the applicants can go into more detail on the proposal as part of their comments. Uh in reviewing the application, staff has identified a series of discussion items uh that are in your staff memo. Uh they include consistency with the master plan uh the level and mix of affordable housing mitigation proposed. Uh the exterior storage uh requirement waiver uh for the affordable housing uh compatibility of the proposed use uh building height uh the pedestrian connectivity aspects of the project uh FU lane uh access uh to East Cody Lane and then traffic and the southside flood plane and green building and wildfire mitigation requirements. Uh so staff has introduced those in your staff memo that you have in your packet and go through them briefly here uh to give you an introduction to the discussion items. Uh the first being consistency with the master plan. Uh the site is in close proximity to the basalt bus rapid transit stop or BRT stop and has an opportunity to provide affordable housing in close proximity to transit uh

to satisfy a series of master plan goals and objectives. However, the property was identified as existing land use on the master future land use map. Uh you can see it in this location. Uh so essentially it was not envisioned for redevelopment during the life of the master plan when the master plan was adopted in 2020. Um so a master plan amendment is required to change that designation. Also the typologies in the master plan identify the property as work mixed use. Uh and the work mixed use typology vision is residential intermixed with commercial. Um and as noted in the site plan, the applicants have proposed that the uh residential and commercial uses be uh fully uh separated in the project. Uh so there would be a need for an amendment to the typologies as well to accommodate the proposed development. And so as I noted the master plan amendments are being evaluated concurrently with the land use actions. Uh going back to the discussion items uh the level of community housing affordable housing being required uh is a discussion item. Uh the applicants have proposed for 12. Could you speak louder?

Could you speak louder because I really can't hear anything. Yeah. Uh would you guys like to maybe help?

Um the level of affordable housing being proposed uh is 12 units of deed restricted housing uh that are averaging category 2. Uh they're proposed to be all rental units and all of the deer restricted units are proposed to be one-bedroom units. Uh you have four plans in your uh packet materials and we've got them here. Uh the project proposes for 25% of the units uh and 25% of the residential floor area to be de restricted and [clears throat] code requires that 20% of the units and 25% of the square footage uh be restricted. So, the Balta Affordable Community Housing Commission Bach is in the process of reviewing the application and staff will provide an update at the next PNZ meeting uh regarding the box recommendation on the level of affordable housing as well as the units proposed. Uh with regards to the exterior storage uh requirement, the applicants have proposed for the e-restricted units to meet the livability requirements uh in the community housing guidelines uh except for the requirement for exterior storage. Uh the applicants have indicated that they can't provide exterior storage uh because the first floor of the residential buildings uh must remain open due to the flood plane considerations. Uh so proposed [clears throat] them to be open for the tuck under parking uh to allow for flood waters to go through the site in a flooding event. Uh the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission, Bach, uh is also in the process of reviewing the request for the waiver.

Staff [clears throat] will report back on this uh to the PNZ at the next meeting uh with regards to the Bach recommendation. Other topics included the compatibility of use. Uh both the commercial storage use and the accessory residential use are allowed in the industrial zone district. The residential being a special review use in the IM zone district. And so as noted uh the master plan typology on the site uh would need to be amended because the current typology of work mixed use encourages the intermixing of the residential and the commercial uses on the site. Uh and the applicants have separated it uh with the residential use uh being on the north side of the site and the commercial use being on the south side of the site. Um in looking at the storage use, staff believes that it is important that the storage remain uh bonafideed storage uh because the parking and traffic uh generation and the traffic report are based on bonafide storage use uh which would be lower than if the spaces were used as business spaces. Uh so staff will that's important consideration. Uh other topics included the building height that is proposed. Uh the Basalt Business Center South PD requires a maximum height of 35 ft. Uh the applicants [clears throat] have proposed for 38 ft uh to the top of the parapit as you can see in the elevation drawings that we have in your packet. uh as well as they proposed for the elevators uh to go higher than that 38 ft. Uh this is requested through a PUD amendment and so

the PUB allows for flexibility in terms of height uh being considered uh in exchange for justification of the level of public benefit being provided. So, as noted, the Basa Affordable Community Housing Commission block uh will pro provide recommendation on the level of affordable housing mitigation uh as it relates to the community benefits project and staff can provide that recommendation to PNZ for your next meeting. Uh other discussion topics included pedestrian connectivity. Uh, as I noted, the site is near the Balt parking ride and the BRT. Uh, this is the Balt parking ride and across Cody Lane is the BRT station. Um, it is within a quarter of a mile of the BRT station. [cough] A trans transit oriented development. However, it requires a strong pedestrian connection uh to the BRT. Uh so staff has requested that the applicant establish such a pedestrian connection. Uh the applicants did explore uh the potential to provide a pedestrian connection across uh the basalt park and ride uh but raft was not uh supportive of providing an across the park and ride. Uh so the applicant amended their application to provide a sidewalk adjacent to the access road to Cody Lane uh so that it would connect to the crosswalk across Cody Lane for pedestrians to [clears throat] get to the BRT station. Uh in addition uh other discussion items relate to FU Lane uh which is on the south side of the project. Uh Fu Lane is

currently a two-way street. Uh but it narrows down with a couple of pinch points on uh FU Lane. Uh the uh police department provided comments that are in your packet about considerations being given to widening FU Lane as part of this project uh to better accommodate the two-way traffic uh in conjunction with the development. Um the applicants have indicated in their application that they propose to maintain the current width and circumstance of uh FU Lane. Um and so staff has identified it as a discussion item for PNZ and ultimately council. Um ultimately the discussion kind of comes down to competing goals uh that the council will have to decide uh which are uh widening of the road versus uh eliminating some mature landscaping that is established on the south side of the project. Um but staff would welcome teams discussion on that topic as well. Uh other discussion items include the access road uh from East Cody Lane to the residential portion of the project. Uh it is a sliver of land that is owned by SE DOT. Uh and currently the C dot approvals only allow for five uh vehicle trips per day on this piece of property. Uh the applicant has made a request of CD dot uh to amend the uh approvals to permit 48 uh units of residential and CDOT's response is expected in January, late January. And so staff can give an update to PZ the continued public hearing in February. Uh but this is a

necessary action to be able to take access to the project uh from East Cody land. Uh that brings us to the topic of traffic. Uh the applicant has provided a traffic report that is in your packet materials. Uh it indicates that the development will not generate more traffic than the current Meyers uh steel operation and as such uh would not have a negative impact on the traffic at the Balt Avenue and Highway 82 intersection. Uh staff has had Charlier and Associates uh do a third-party review of the traffic study and his comments are in the backup materials. Uh Charlier identified a concern that the current site traffic generation uh is only based on one day of traffic count in May of 2025. Uh and that a broader review of the existing traffic generation is typically necessary uh to understand the current traffic counts. uh the applicant's traffic engineer is going to be on Zoom this evening and he can provide clarification uh and will address uh his traffic counts and how his methodology is. Um and we can have Charlier and associates attend a future meeting if P&Z desires it uh to provide discussion on their comments as well. Um staff anticipates uh conditions will be needed uh for consideration at a future meeting uh related to requiring contribution to the Basalt Avenue Cody Lane mini roundabout and lanage changes uh that are identified as a short-term solution uh to build capacity at the intersection uh on other developments have contributed uh to this requirement. Additionally, uh as noted, uh it's

important that the storage use uh remain storage and not morph into some other business use. Uh because the traffic projections in the traffic report were based on the storage use uh which has relatively low uh traffic generation rates. And so that's an important consideration uh in potential conditions of approval. Other topics include the southside flood plane. Uh as I noted, the site is uh partially in the southside flood plane uh which goes from south to north uh back towards the river. Uh the applicant has worked with the town's uh contract hydraologist who is Robert Crarael of Matrix Design [clears throat] uh to come up with a site plan that could be developed uh without increasing the base flood elevation on the site. Uh and they have done so by having techn [clears throat] um and that allows for the flood flows to uh go through the property in a flooding event. Uh so Matrix design believes that the site plan that has been proposed uh would not increase the base flood elevation and would meet the town's requirements for development. Uh other topics included green building and wildfire mitigation uh discussed in your packet. Uh the applicant would be required to meet the sustainable building regulations that are uh in place at the time of the building permit. as well as the wildfire mitigation ordinance. Um the wildfire mitigation ordinance will need to be updated here shortly

[clears throat]

uh because the state has passed a new wildfire code and it requires that the local jurisdictions adopt the provisions of that state code. Uh so it is anticipated that any conditions that would be reviewed uh would require that they meet the wildfire mitigation standards of the time of building that's being updated. Uh so this evening as I noted staff recommends treating this meeting as an introduction meeting to the proposal uh as well as the discussion items and then also considering uh applicant comments uh taking public comments and providing initial PNZ comments on the application uh as well as identifying what additional information the PNZ might need at an additional meeting in the future. Uh, also of note, staff will produce draft conditions of approval for consideration at a future review. So, with that, let me stop sharing my screen and let me bring up the applicants slides here. And as I mentioned, we do have the applicants here this evening. We've got Justin Fries and we've got Mora Blajett who is the property owner and we also have Anthony from work for engineering going inside there. So staff would suggest at this time taking applicant comments.

All righty. Yeah.

All right. Good evening everybody. Um, so we've got up on the screen a conceptual rendering of the uh the fully built out project. Um, James, I'll have you just jump to the the next page. Uh, so I've included two aerials. One uh really uh including the top right has, you know, proximity to downtown. Uh we didn't really catch the high school in that one, but uh the storage to the west and just kind of showing where we are on the site. And the one on the left, a little bit more zoomed in. Um, so we've been working with Michelle and James probably for about 18 months now. We've had a lot of back and forth on this site and um the the two really tricky parts of this site uh when we first started were the flood plane and the traffic. Uh we had a southside traffic study and I think as we looked at this development, anything we looked at was about keeping traffic to what it was currently or reducing it further. Um, that's kind of what resulted in the uses uh that we looked at that could be available on the site uh within the given uh business center south zoning uh and uh and and what could be placed in that area. Um as James mentioned, it's currently being used as Myer Steel, so more of a heavy industrial use that has um between 60 and 100 employees as this [clears throat] process has gone on. um they have daily trips from both deliveries uh for their steel materials but also their finished product going out to construction sites. Um this development would remove that use uh and have a little bit less intensity um as far as construction trucks and traffic uh during uh the days. Um just kind of outlining the site, we've got the residential uses to the south and to the southeast. We've got light commercial

uses to the northeast and to the west and then the raft uh basalt parking ride uh to the north. Um I'll have you jump to the next slide please. So this is a little bit more of a stripped down plan. Uh the blue hashed area is the current flood plane. Uh and so it takes up I'd say probably about 60% of the site right now. Um that is the 100red-year flood plane event line currently. Um, so in working with this site plan, we went through about five or six different iterations of how we could uh lay out the buildings uh to not affect both upstream and downstream neighbors uh with the flood plane. Um, ultimately we kind of settled on this layout because currently you've got the three-story mixeduse building uh just to the west I believe. Um, uh, it's a architecture firm with residential above it. Um, and we felt that the height uh allowances and the size of that building kind of fit in nicely with the size of that building. And also having the residential units closest to the park and ride to promote public transportation um gave us the best layout for that. The storage use to the south, we felt one would be a little bit uh shorter in height and it's also less intense in use. So being right up against single family housing, uh some of the residential uses to the south gave us kind of a stepping and scale um to the south uh in that direction. Um and then tried to create a little bit of a north south arrangement for for snow melting and snow plowing um which is um how we got to the plan uh we got to um we also based the number of residential units on the uh overall traffic counts. Um we are exceeding the amount of residential units that would need to be created by a

commercial development of the storage in nature. Um which we think is a benefit to the town. Um and it it could be further reduced but we didn't feel that more storage or more commercial uses would help uh in the proposed development. Uh it would just lead to more traffic intensity. Uh and and so this is kind of what we settled into um from a um both um you know developer proform look but also from the traffic use look of things. I'll have you jump to the next page. Um so I'll touch on a couple of things James mentioned in here and and I'm sure we'll probably get into this discussion more. Um so fuel lane was a big topic of discussion. Um both the current owner of the [laughter] Meyers uh steel site and I believe a few uh neighbors have all expressed concern about the the narrowing of the street here. Uh we're dealing with a lot of mature trees in that area. We're also dealing with I believe it's a daycare to the adjacent property. Um we've got industrial trucks coming and going. Uh and so um what we did is we pushed the access to this site as far up the road as we could there. um to allow for that. And [clears throat] we looked at probably three or four different layouts of what would be required to meet the minimum street width requirements for basalt. Uh what would be required, you know, it would result in essentially losing all of those trees and then it would push into uh the applicant's property probably 12 ft in some areas because it it narrows down. Um, we understand the concern for safety there, but I think both the applicant and the neighbors uh would rather push for a one-way in that area versus a two-way street. Um, they feel the two-way street

would just add to traffic. Maybe the high schoolers would divert that way more often knowing that it was a wider street. Um, and then also some of the concerns raised in uh the packet and the letters about the drop off, pickup and drop off for uh the daycare as well. Um so we think by the removal of the fence, the expansion of that lawn, it's going to increase visibility in that area and the reduction of the real true traffic uh the construction traffic uh will increase safety uh in this you know proposed layout currently. Um going to the bottom right or the northeast corner that is the C dot access. Um, we have been working back and forth with CE DOT on that. Um, our preferred access was to cut across the raft to parking lot because, you know, as you've seen, there's always pathways going across parks of users that cut through. Uh, we and we tried to kind of make it a little bit more user friendly. Uh, but there was, I think, some concern there of a pedestrian walking through while cars were driving through the parking lot. So, Rafta, uh, pushed back. Um, and so we've been talking to, uh, COT. We believe that our traffic study does will warrant the increase uh in trips. Um we just had some email exchanges today, so we're getting closer to uh their response, but uh haven't seen a lot of push back on that increase there. And we also think pushing the residential traffic which is a little bit more heavy use uh over to Cody Lane where you have the raft to park and ride and some commercial uses and keeping it away from few lane um is the better directive uh for that traffic. Um I do have a couple pictures on the the last slides that we can look at um on those. Uh so this is uh the few lane slides that James showed uh and we can discuss those

but that is the uh the current fence along the um the Myers property uh that would get taken down and pushed back. Essentially we'd be using the buildings as the perimeter. Uh so no fence would be required there. And there was a um can we jump back real quick? Two slides. um at the request of the fire department, but also um I think both the neighbors and the applicant have seen it. Uh there is a 5-ft soft path that goes behind the backside of those buildings. So, it could be used by pedestrians, but it also used by emergency services if there was a fire. It also creates wildfire separation between the building and vegetation. Um so, that uh really serves a lot of purposes to that to that side. Um we can jump to the few next one. Um and then you can see in there some of the trees we'd be looking at. They are some of the the tallest, most mature trees in um in the business center south district. We did have an arborist visit the site. Uh he did a tree inventory. Um and and so we have tried to preserve with our landscape architect uh the ones that we've identified that have at least 50% or more life uh as a part of this application. Uh and that was included in our submittal documents. Uh and then I'll jump to the last one. So we included this uh just as discussion for that C do connection. Uh this is again a tricky little uh corner. Uh we've got a drainage ditch, we've got a mailbox, we've got some site utilities. Um and so connecting that sidewalk. Um we are working with with C dot, with rafta, with the drainage company to figure out the best way we can to to connect uh since we can't go through the raft a lot. Um, and I included just in that top

right, I don't know if you can see it or if um that is we we even looked at going down the I'll call [clears throat] it the south side of the the raft a lot and we've got another transformer there and a lot of vegetation. So, we looked at wrapping people back around of Assault Avenue and then down Cody Lane. Um, but it's just really tight in that area. Um, and so I feel we've um made a lot of effort to find the best way to lay this out to provide that connection and we're going to continue to work with COT to provide that. Um, but we are that uh C dot access is about 28 ft wide. So a two-lane uh street and a sidewalk is getting pretty tight in that area. Um I will I think I have touched on most of the major elements uh because we got a lot to discuss. So I'm going to leave it at that and we've got the representatives for the owner and the engineer as well and we can go from there. I think the last page just has um three more views just kind of from each direction uh to get a better understanding of the landscape and the building height. I will touch real quick on the building height. Um the the allowable height is 35 ft. My understanding is with the zoning code that is to the top of the roof. Uh we have a 3-ft parapit wall that's extending up past that. Um so I believe it does meet zoning code height. It's just that the parapit wall extends up one to screen any mechanical equipment up on the roof. Um and then also for uh banking of of snow up on that so it's not falling off the roof. Uh and the uh stair tower and elevator towers. I also believe uh have the exception to be allowed to exceed height uh because of the overruns and the fire department uh requirements to access the roof. So, we'll leave it there and we're open to any of your questions.

All righty. [clears throat] I think since we have a lot of people here who I think are expecting to um add their comments, we should be really clear about how this is going to go. [clears throat] First, um the uh commissioners are going to ask questions of staff and the applicant. We'll go through and do that. Then we'll open up the public comment section so people could uh make their comments and then after that we will um we will go back to the commissioners for com commissioner comments. I want to be really clear that um no decisions are going to be made tonight. This is just anformational meeting and um everybody's comments are welcome. So uh with that uh who wants to start with questions? Do you want to mention a time limit for public comment?

Well, when we start it, I will. No. Rob, do you have any questions? Uh, James, can you um verify that the parapit height for mechanical is given the additional 3 ft? Mechanical can have additional under the regular zoning code. However, the PUD is specific to the building height. Um, so if it were not in a PUD, it would be covered under the regular zoning code, but they need a PUD amendment to [clears throat] allow for the additional 3,

and that's also on our list of things to go through. Okay. Um, it's not a comment as much. Um the fire lane you showed with that has the five foot wide grassy area. Is that where the mature trees are? Um partially. Yes. We have worked with the landscape architect to maintain some um but some would be removed. Um do we know why the police department suggested a two-lane road?

Yeah, it is currently a two-lane road, but it narrows down. Um the uh emergency services and police department have had quite a few discussions about FU Lane over time. Um they have desired to maintain it as a two-way road. Um but not widen it.

Well, they've actually recommended widening it as in conjunction with this application. Um but they they've requested it [clears throat] remain two-way. Um, you know, given that we've received quite a few comments about the potential to adjust it one way, uh, staff could have some discussion with the emergency services between now and a future P&Z meeting to see see if there's any thought to that recommendation that would be helpful. Um, we received some letters from individuals in the packet. I didn't see anything from uh HOAs.

We we haven't received anything from the adjacent HOAs. Um the design review board for the basalt center south um uh has approved of the design uh which is the requirement in their PUD covenants. Okay. I mean I know we're early in the process but we look at things I'd like to see in in future meetings. It would be how uh Stats Mills and Southside weighs in on it. I think that's really important. Yeah, that's all for now.

All right. Thanks Bob. Yes. Um, is there other for sale uh storage commercial storage in this town? Do we know this? This is a for sale product that you're building as opposed to a for rent self storage. Correct. And do we is there other in this? Yeah. No, there's there's

it. It was good to hear that staff has concerns about the traffic counts because it's it seems to me that many of the um forale self storage turns into um homes for jobbers and contractors and such and that is definitely more than one person in and out a day for 24 units or whatever. And so I do have some concerns about the potential for that. I don't know if this can be deed restricted or there's other things that could be done, but basically you're wanting to sell these as as toy holders for people as opposed to a place for a job or a contractor to have his business and go in there every morning or two or three times a day,

which is not realistic with these traffic counts.

Concern. One of the uh discussion items we've had in the back and forth with the town um was kind of what we've seen and there's not a lot of um industry data, but I'm working on about six of these throughout the Mountain West. Um and we've seen 60 to 70% are usually personal users that are toys. Um 30% are usually business unit users that are looking for extra space that they don't want to pay downtown or or prime rent. Um there are some we we've have seen some contractors utilize these in other uh local. Um the applicant did add a note that they would have HOA language stating that it cannot be the primary place of business. Uh therefore not hosting clients um and using it as you know invite uh 50 people over. Um but there would be there there could be the possibility currently with that definition of a uh an electrician or a plumber you know having some pipes there and coming and going in that in that essence.

If that's the case then the traffic study showing one trip a day is not realistic for I'm not advocating for or against more traffic on the street. you're saying that drop count is not realistic if you have jobbers in there, you know, eight of your 24 units. Mhm. So, that's a that's a concern. It's good that staff has understood that that's a potentiality. And we we do have Curtis Row who represents the applicants traffic engineering firm on and he can provide additional comments. That's a question and a concern. Uh Bach has not seen this yet. Correct. We're this Thursday.

Thursday. Okay. So, I won't ask um about the um I mean, how did it come about that you're all onebedroom and studio units? Is that just what the space could or was there some research as to the need in the in the valley?

Currently, it was a balancing of what we could provide unit-wise and what we could provide parking wise. Uh in that realm, uh there was discussion about the ability to make these two and three-bedroom units. Um we did look at that briefly. Um there is probably some flexibility to be able to convert some of these into two-bedroom units um just based [clears throat] on the current layout. Um really it was due to initial studies um u by the applicant and getting some feedback from uh developers. Okay. It'll be further discussed with Bach. It's I think the location right next to the you know the raft station is

is fabulous. I think that's walk to is it can't get much better than how close it is. So in that regard it's it's very positive that it's there. Um yeah I do have great concerns about the lane and unless it turns into a one lane that seems to be where it might be going. Those are my comments. All right Cindy question. [snorts] Um yeah I have a few questions. So, uh, I saw the deed restricted units will be rentals, but it wasn't clear to me whether the remaining ones will be rentals or for sale.

Currently, my understanding is they would be rental. Um, there was discussion of condo. Um, it's kind of been a back and forth right now that has not been settled. So it could be it could be a combination of for sale and rental or Okay. Correct.

Um then I wondered if the housing units can't have storage because they have to be elevated because of the flood plane. Um how do the storage units proposed storage units comply with the flood plane? I think it was the uh differentiation in insurance requirements for rental versus um ownership. I would have to dig into that. I do not have an answer on on that one. Um there was concern in the developers we talked to that if they were renting those units and had storage down there um that that would be a liability. Um, so I can I can dig into that one further and get good.

Yeah, I'm just curious because it doesn't really make sense that you can't store, but yet we're building all these storage units on the same level. And and I believe what we've done is with the grading plan and with the way the storage lays out, uh, three of the four buildings are actually out of the flood plane. Uh, because the grading changes how that flood plane works. Okay. And so we can take further mitigation to uh that by either doing concrete foundations um or extra waterproofing um in order to help protect that on the storage on the storage unit side.

The difficulty is meeting the parking requirements for onebedroom and even two-bedroom. [clears throat] You know, if we went up to two-bedroom and bigger units, we've got to then I start losing on that lowest level parking spaces throughout the site. So it's the balancing act of more units, more parking, more storage. And um so I think we settled into how do we maximize units um versus providing you know 5x5 storage closets in the lower level. Um when in May was the traffic count done? Was school in session? My understanding was that it was okay.

So it I'm sorry early you said early May. Okay. And um what about construction traffic projections? Is that included at all in because that will be quite the the construction or the once this this you know if this development were to undergo construction do these traffic prod projections include how many vehicles would be going in and out of there all day trying to build it? I don't believe they do include that at that time. Okay. I mean, I think that's requires a construction management plan time. So, that will be discussed later, but not until after approval. So, there's no way to have any input on it.

Um, we could ask them to provide the construction management plan. Okay. I mean, I I guess my I'm not so concerned about numbers per se, but I just want I think we should all be aware that that's something to [clears throat] take into consideration in this very tight area. Um I I that that that was it basically except I'm still I'm not clear. You were talking about using Cody Lane instead of FU Lane as eventual access for residents and I wasn't really clear because you were saying that one like potential egress has a transformer box and vegetation. So where where exactly would they would people go off of Cody Lane? That was for the pedestrian path.

Oh, for the pedestrian. Okay. So, where would where would um So, currently we have it on the um we have it on the west side or the plan north. Yeah. [clears throat] So, we're showing the street on the bottom of the page and then the sidewalk would wrap around on the um Yep. Right there where James is highlighting it cuz we wanted to keep it on the closest side to the residential, but that's also where the drainage ditch is. Oh, okay. Guess it was just the pedestrian traffic you're talking about diverting not vehicle traffic. Okay, got it. Yep. Okay. Um, those are my questions for now. All right, Mike, do you have any questions?

Essentially, you're having two very different access points for the two different entities. We wanted to split the uses so that we had residential and storage, you know, the more storage, commercial use, the pedestrian. James, could you pull up like Map Quest or And I have it here, Sunny. It helps for me. It helped put together Yeah, access

and and there will be a gate between the two. Uh so storage users would come and go from the few lane access. Residential users would come and go through the Cody lane access. Uh the the gate would have a box for the fire department to access through. Um we talked with uh Brook Scott at um Roy Fork Fire and and so that discussion has been brought up about how they circulate and navigate through and we've done fire turning analysis of a fire truck working its way through that on the access from Cody Lane a and from Yep. So they can they can drive in one and come out the other.

So just so everybody's clear, this is Cody Lane right here. This is the access point off of Cody Lane and it goes down the driveway access to get to the three residential buildings that are proposed. And then there would be a gate in this area separating the commercial storage from the residential. And then this is Basalt Avenue as it's going towards the high school and then FU Lane comes off of that. This is the gas station uh that's located there. And then so the applicant is proposing the access to the commercial storage uh coming off of FU Lane. The site plan's rotated 90 degrees. So it's confusing.

This this is South Page three. And that would be north south. And so FO Lane narrows after the ingress and egress point to the development. does not before after it. Yeah. All right, Mike, do you have any questions? Um, [cough] [clears throat] so what's the width of view lane between the gas station and their egress?

Go back to the site here. It varies. Uh there's there's a lot of overlap. If you notice, there's a little uh triangular that's part of the current property of the Myers property that that jogs up there. So, there's currently kind of a I don't know if it's a remnant access easement there. Um and we might have more property lines on the next page and we might not catch it. Just looking at this survey, it looks like the pinch point is before it to me, but

the the main pinch point is actually down here. Um there's a tree on the property across FU Lane uh that was preserved during the development of Southside 4. And there's some photos here that can give you a better idea of what we're looking at. Um, I guess ultimately my question is could few lane accommodate two-way traffic to the west of Somerset egress without being a two-lane all the way through.

Uh, let's go back to the site plan and you can ask that question again here. So, you're asking can it be two-way here and then transition to one way here for the rest of the Yeah, you have Somerset Lane directly across from their egress point. Can that section a few lane accommodate two-way traffic per the request of the fire department?

Yes, generally to the access point the the fire district and police are okay with with two-way as it sits now. It's really as you move further along uh view lane that you do have kind of issues. The fire department wants that part two. They would prefer I live past past that. We can answer questions on that.

Um, can someone define the where is it in here? I think it's in this in one of the letters. It's the fu lane sneak. Yes. What is what is that? [clears throat] So, and is that how how is it being utilized by high school kids?

The the the FU lane sneak um is, you know, essentially high school traffic uh when it's letting out using that as an alternative to get around uh you know, the the traffic that's backed up on Southside Drive. So they come out Somerset or like out Allison? They come out I think they come down Allison and then few to avoid waiting at the roundabout. They go into the neighborhood and then come on. Okay. That's I'm just trying to figure out that definition of what that Mhm. is referring to. Yeah.

Um no other questions at this time.

Okay. Um I have some questions. Um, first off, um, for our next meeting, could staff pro or somebody provide a simplified drawing of the C dot drive land? You know, mo this a lot of this confusion is because of how they do engineering site drawings now where line weights are all kind of the same and line types are all kind of the same. So, they don't really delineate what's a property line and what things are. So, if we could get a simplified so we see whose property is what um what the widths are at FU Lane because that's that's kind of a a a point of contention [clears throat] and a more clear drawing would help us all talk about it and talk about the same thing.

So, that would be useful. Um I think um another thing that would be useful for the next meeting would be um better architectural renderings. Those are say just the more descriptive of the buildings themselves. Okay.

Um because it's kind of hard to tell. They're black and white and they're very very rudimentary. And at some point, um, we're going to have neighbors in here and they're going to see it and we're going to, you know, that's one thing I get phone calls about all the time. How could you? This is so ugly, you know. So, um, if we have better things to look at, really help us talk about them. Um, and also, um, another thing because this is this is something we've been talking about is what are the pedestrian connections? because they're they're shown on an engineering drawing and then they're mixed up with all kinds of other stuff like water lines and sewer lines and and property lines and so we it's hard to see. Um so at the next level of this we should have like a landscaper type drawing showing where the pedestrian connectivity is because we're talking about it a lot.

So we really really [clears throat and cough] need that. And then my last question is it looks like you've done an assumed property line between the two halves of the property or are you splitting the property into two actual properties? So when we laid this site out um we did put an assumed property line between the two. The reasoning behind that is uh most storage developers I've worked with don't do residential. Most residential developers don't do storage. And so it's been a rare uh occasion that somebody would want both. And so on a four rental um residential development um we wanted the ability to separate the properties off so that they could have separate ownerships,

but they'll be it'll be legally two separate pieces of property at the end of this. Yep. Correct. That that was my question. Yep. And there are two pieces of property currently. Uh we're just reconfiguring the the lot line to allow for a residential lot and a commercial storage lot. Oh, it's currently two proper two separate properties. There's actually a lot Y and a lot W. Oh. Uh, but it's a very strange little It's the on the south side. It's that strange lot that runs along there. Yeah. But to us, the only matter is what it's going to become. Yep.

All right. Um, that was all of my questions. So, let's open this up for uh public comment. Um, I'd like you all to be mindful of all of our times. Um, and so, if you could keep your comments to uh 3 minutes or less. um state your name and uh where you live and come up [cough] to the podium and speak into the microphone so the lady doesn't yell at us. [laughter] So if anyone wants to make a a public comment, be my guest. Oh, we're we're going to open a public comment at 7 p.m. on the dot.

We have one online uh who's raising their hand. Uh 57 fits. If you'd like to make uh public comments to the planning and zoning commission, uh please go ahead.

Yes. My name is John. I'm the president distor and I've spoken within our members and we really have a problem with a couple things the traffic is short um this uh development the houses 75 parking spaces I But I I think the amount of traffic is going to be tremendous uh impact on us on top of that coming down lanes already substandard and um I think that's a completely neat impact negatively long to software. Um, the other thing I' I've constantly had a problem with and and I think we really need to push up another form of heat press to the whole southside. The one intersection is just over driven. And at this point, I'd love to see if we can get Mland Avenue extending onto uh Southside Drive and there's a an egress if people want to just go up to the high school. They enjoy the high school. Um and and not have to make the whole great circle to come in. Uh safety wise, traffic wise, I think that will alleviate a lot of problems. Um, this has been something that was kind of somewhat screwed up when I first got the

dog over there that that should have been in consideration directed to town. But we need to have two forms of us. And uh that's about basically what I have. I just I can't believe the traffic count that says 48 store 48 houses and 54 um storage units is actually going to decrease the amount of drives into it where they it's going to drop at 8 in the afternoon and minus 2 in the morning. I very rosy expectation. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thanks, Vince. Anyone else wish to make a public comment? I don't come up to the podium and and uh I guess three things basically.

Could you name please? one is um the change to the storage units being mixedus is really uh going to be very disheartening to a lot of people because it's going to increase traffic significantly. Um the other thing is full lane has a problem now with the kids at school. I think you said it. They use it to to bypass the traffic going up to Southside High School

and making it two-way and wider is going to be a nightmare because they'll just use it that much more. They try to after school come down through Southside and get to that before the traffic backs up from the high school. So they're always, you know, mixing around. Whichever way is faster is the way they go. That's been a big problem. I don't see why they don't make it one way in in one direction and let emergency vehicles go through it in both directions. They fit. If a fire engine's coming, people are going to wait. There's only one bad point, and it's by that tree that you mentioned. They do that anyway, huh?

They'll do that anyway. [laughter] Yeah.

So, um I think the housing part of this is great, the affordable housing. I really do. But I really am concerned with the change in the storage units. Originally, I said fine, you know, southside people, you're going to see the back of the storage units. It's probably better than the fence that's there now. and it's a wider space between that and the roads. But those are the two detriments. I think you're going to get a lot of neg, you know, negative comments about the the units themselves were fine if they're storage units, not commercial many commercial businesses. um very familiar with the other storage units that are there and nobody is running out of business uh running a business out of those storage units you know on the south side. So th those are the big things I think other than that I don't see any major problem just keep your lights down at the ground not up in the air. [laughter]

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Any further comments? Anyone? All right. Uh let's uh close public comments at 7:06 and we will start with um commissioner comments. Mike, would you like to start? Sure. Um, [snorts]

I think the concept of of a two-way [clears throat] view lane seems not um not ideal for the community. I think a oneway should be explored um with the police, you know, if that has some larger pulloffs at points just so to help facilitate the two-way emergency access, something like that. Um, I think that that's valuable versus widening that entire street and losing all those mature trees. Um, I the one of the comment public comments was that Cody Lane is substandard. Um, so a little more info on on that would be helpful. Um, I do do question the traffic numbers. Um, I do think that 48 residential units seems to create more traffic than than what is presented. Um, and so I didn't dive into the full report. Um, but I'll, you know, it's it's in an attachment. Take a look at it next time around. Um, I I agree that the density housing density is at a great location. If you're able to connect off Cody Lane, especially with pedestrians, um, I think it makes sense to me. the concept of a PUD amendment for height due to public benefit. Um I I'm just not sure what the public benefit is. It seems like we're just

we're meeting standards in unit numbers. Um and so I'm not sure what that public benefit is above and beyond to allow [clears throat] that height. Well, underlying code allows it, but the PUB doesn't for mechanical screening. So, you know, they're kind of trying to coordinate the underlying zoning code for height for mechanical screening with what the PUD is saying. So that's kind of what that is. Okay. Um those are my comments.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but just kind of clarify it. I'm working through the traffic stuff with you too, which it looks like it's going to be an issue. But if you like the size of the housing that's going to be the main contributor to the traffic, those two don't Well, I think the the the mention the traffic study, the portion I read said there was no reduction due to public transit. I mean, you're you're right next to one of the best bus systems in the world. You're walking across two parking lots and you're at a BRT stop and a bus is there every 10 minutes. So, while I I agree that the numbers are incorrect, I think there is some reduction that needs to be studied further. Um,

I agree. We do have Curtis Row on here, the applicant's traffic engineer. Would you be accepting of a couple comments from him at this point? Yeah. Yeah. Let's let's do that now. Put this to bed. Curtis, good evening everyone. I'm throwing Associates. Can everyone hear me today? Yes. Yes.

Okay. Um I'm a professional engineer in the state of Colorado. I'm also a professional traffic operations engineer. I have 32 years of experience. Um I also am the traffic engineering professor at Colorado School of Mon. So I do really enjoy talking traffic and answering traffic questions. So happy tonight. Um so first off I took notes of everything so I could go over all of them but to answer the question is here recent with regards to the generation um for residential have to based on the IT trip generation manual. So the Institute of Transportation Engineers collects data of residential apartment units across the country and devel as well as equations for us to use. And so there's no manipulation, there's no adjustment. Those are our homes. Um there's 27 hour trips expected based on the 48 units and that is in the peak hour. So mind you that you know there's traffic that's generated in the hour before the peak hour and then the hour after the peak hour. And so this is just the highest hour um of the afternoon. And so that is that 27 that are presented. Um and then also since we know that traffic is a sensitivity issue, we work directly in front of town um on the southside study as well as the roundabout. So we're very familiar uh with traffic. We wanted to provide a conservative analysis and by doing that we we decided to notate transit reduction. Will there be residents that transit? Yes, most definitely. And the ones that do will actually reduce the traffic volume even further. And so although we're showing a a

decrease in traffic of eight trips with this red, it's actually going to be a greater decrease when you consider that a lot of the residents will be attracted to use transit with that being so close by. But again, we wanted to provide conservative analysis for the town and make sure that we weren't over building or providing too much density with this development. And so that's how we landed in this. All right, Mike. No followup. Okay, [laughter] good. Good. Well, I think the thing is we're just have to pay attention to this as we move through through the project because it's sensitive to everybody. Cindy, comments.

Um, yeah. So, my overall philosophical comment on this is um I haven't had anybody say to me recently in discussions, what we really need in this town is more expensive housing. Um but a lot of people and in so much of what you read not here but across the west is we need more housing to um accommodate workers and people who don't earn high six figure salaries. Um I feel like this location um it's it's it's probably our last best chance to provide any kind of meaningful employee housing to people given that it's right next to the transit. It's within walking distance of town. Um, [clears throat and cough] and I would like to see at least 50% of the units be deed restricted for [snorts] worker housing in order for this to be considered. I mean, I just I can't see approving more more and more and more housing without some kind of benefit to the town. So, um, yeah, I would really encourage you to look at upping that number significantly. And I wonder, you know, if the town could be a partner on this if it doesn't if numbers don't work from a developer standpoint. But, um, I really think this is this is kind of our last chance because the thing across the street didn't work out at all what it was supposed to be. So, this is this is kind of it,

right? Thank you, Cindy. Bob.

Um, yeah, my comments is, um, I see this as a natural evolution of a sort of lower density industrial use to a mixeduse development with a lot with dense housing, which is exactly what we, the town needs to be doing at this level of our quest to have more housing within walking space. And so, I'm really approval. I'm glad to see this being the development that's coming in there. I think the location next to Rafta is about as good as you can get for working people going up and down the valley every day. And uh and I support that. Um as far as the forale commercial spaces, I don't think there is any of that in this town. I know that there's a lot of that for instance near the Eagle airport that has done very well and there's probably a demand. So, um, so yeah, that those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Bob. Rob, it's hard to get excited about storage units, right? We don't [laughter] we don't need more storage units. We need less crap. Yeah, that's all I'm saying. True. And we don't need more housing. We need fewer people. And that would solve the traffic problem as well. Um, you can't control that.

I I do think housing near the public transport is is is the way to go. I feel confused because people are going to walk the quickest way possible and if the shortest way possible is through a raft to parking lot people can walk through a raft to parking lot. So do you make it safer for them and encourage more people to walk through it or do you not? I don't know the answer but I I think that people just tend to walk the shortest way they can. Um my bigger issue on the project is that I have a hard time building housing without building jobs. supposed to be mixed use and you know storage units not really providing jobs. We're just putting more people in the valley that are going to go up to Aspen to work. And um I mean the master plan's pretty clear that you know mixed use. I don't care if it's in the same building or in the same development but I would love to see more opportunities for people to work there or if we're going to put more people there than um to to put them all on the road up to up to Aspen. That's all I got.

Thank you, Rob. I have some [clears throat and laughter] comments myself. Um, some of these comments will be aimed at the town and some of them will be aimed at the applicant. Um, first off, I'm going to make my my usual comment that I make on all residential projects, and I would hope that um we could exceed the code required number of type A units, you know, the adaptable handicapped units. Um there's a a large handicap community here and I think it would be a good thing to serve it, but um you know, that's just a request. you know, it it's not a big one, but it is it's got there's has monetary impacts to do that. Um, and it has rental impacts to do that, but it I still think it's the right thing to do. Um, uh, the next one is I wanted to suggest um an idea to float for FU Lane. Um, and I'd like the Curtis to weigh in on this at some point, not necessarily now. Um because I think one thing that would that could work is um to come up with a solution that would actually work as a traffic calming measure, which would be to use it kind of like as a a designated bike boulevard and where the bike boulevard itself becomes a traffic calming measure like um what they in Germany they call them kinder straas and uh bike feats in in in the Netherlands, but they they do use them quite effectively in neighborhoods to keep traffic speeds down. If the traffic speeds are down, it's it it's less likely to be used as a sneak and more easily to be used as two-way traffic if people are going slow. So, some form of

traffic calming measure to keep people going slow. So, you could still do two-way. That's just one idea. or maybe with the one-way solution is a better one. But I think um there's ways to think outside of the box with that so you can especially so you can keep the trees which I think all the neighbors would really love to do and they're pretty mature trees so they look nice and that would be a way to do it without spending a ton of extra money and doing something terrible like cut all the trees down. Um, another [clears throat] suggestion would be for the outdoor storage component, which they're asking for mitigation for. And I think one way to get um a tit fortat kind of mitigation would be to offer something like that can happen in the interstitial space like outdoor bike storage, which could possibly be covered or they might have to rejigger the snow storage and where the gates go between the two sections. But it's something that could happen in the interstitial space between the buildings. Um, and that would that that's something that goes into outdoor storage a lot anyway. Like people usually put bikes on their balconies. So, it's something that, you know, it's not real storage, but it's something, you know, something that people have and use and the project could possibly mitigate that way. Were you overlooking the point that a place that's building storage units is doesn't have storage for the rentals. I mean

I know but it's a separate bit it's a separate whole separate thing you know. Yeah. It's just right over there. I mean Yeah. But it's got a it's got a property line between them. Right.

Yeah. That's why I asked that's why I asked about the property line because of that one thing. But there I think it there'd be way to think again outside of the box slightly on that sort of thing to provide the storage component and be creative with that. um something to work on I think for the next the next iteration of this. Um I think you know this is this is aimed at the town. We're losing more industrial zone land and we keep losing industrial zone land and I've talked about when this happened up in Aspen with the SEI district and I I fear that would happen to us too. So, we have to keep a mindful eye on where our industrial functions go. Um, and that's that's a bigger discussion for the town because this project is within its rights to ask for this and it's a beneficial thing for the town to do this, but it's also we can't just sort of let that that zone dissipate because there are functions in there we all use. Um, [snorts] my next comment is the exterior expression of the building. It's really really ugly. I mean, it's a basic building. It looks like an industrial building. And I think um it it if I had done something like that in architecture school when I was a student in the 80s, I would have gotten in all kinds of trouble for that. That happens a lot now because building costs are expensive and people try to keep things reasonable. But I think that it could use a little bit more attention with materials, colors. You know, you don't have to change the exterior of the building, but something could be done with a little more

uh spreader, you know, just simple things can can do a lot. Um, as far as the height is concerned, I've meant I've spoken about it, but I am okay with that because of the especially with coordination with the the town the town code and also I think this is another thing for the town to think about is the town has you know a really developed bicycle infrastructure between downtown and Willlets and it it it doesn't have much between say the high school and the underpass. And I think that's something with a project like this we should as a town think about. Um I'm not saying that this project should provide to it, though it would be cool if they did, but I don't think it's their responsibility to to do so other than to be mindful of, you know, alternate modes of transport and micromobility kind of things. Um, but I think the town is should start thinking about how this is utilized. I remember we were talking about the idea of putting a um a roundabout. I can't remember where the roundabout was going to go, but it was somewhere between Southside and and and um we were talking about if you're on a bike, how do you get around the roundabout? And the engineer said, "Well, you just ride in the roundabout." And I ride in the roundabout on Valley Road two, three times a week. And I tell you, it is the most frightening thing you could ever imagine. An F350 cannot see you on a bicycle. They just can't. And it it it it gets it gets frightening. So, we have to sort of think about this before

some kid gets squished. So, that's my comments. Um I don't think we need a motion or anything. Do or to continue the public hearing. Oh, continue the public hearing. Okay. Do we have a date? Um February 3rd. Yes. Okay. We need a motion to continuing continue this discussion uh in the public comment to February 3rd, 2026. So moved. We have a first second. Second. All in favor? I thank you all very much. Thank you.

And thank you to the public for coming. Okay. Uh, commissioner comments and staff updates. All right. Well, back to the light-hearted things here. It's always a tricky transition. Um, so the Basalt Public Arts Commission adopted a capital improvement plan last year. Um, and you can see the four consigned art pieces are all installed now. Um, there's a piece in front of Sabes, a piece in front of Zgroup, a piece across from the art base near Temperno, and a um, butterfly piece over here in the river park. So, I encourage you to look at those. Um, you can see more information about the artists and whatnot on basalt.net under BPAC. We have a whole map there. Um, sticking in the arts, the BPAC grants, I think I mentioned this at our last meeting, are open for nonprofits and artists to participate in or or apply for. Um, and that's closes February 20th, also on basalt.net. Um today we had a um pre-bid meeting. We have a request for proposals out to um for design build services to improve Cliff's Hillside Playground up on Homestead Drive. This is a priority project for post. Um so that RFP is listed on our town website. Proposals are due February 27th. that is to remove and replace that existing playground and make uh landscaping improvements among other things.

That playground used to be at Arbony Park before it was there. I'm sure somebody will want to maintain it somewhere. It [laughter] it's it it needs to be replaced. It's very old. Yeah, it's pretty sweet. Um and if you're interested in just watching the progress of that project go on, it'll be on Let's Talk Basalt um for regular updates. And where is that located again? It's on Homestead Drive. It's a small neighborhood neighborhood park. Will there be any more opportunity for public input throughout that design? There will. We're anticipating that the design process will be in April and May, and we'll reach out to stakeholders. Okay. For the playground,

it's it's right next to my house. [laughter] Does your property touch that? Yes. Touches [clears throat] on the lower side. I'm sure they'll make stuff you can play on. Yes, I'm hoping for [laughter] it. Um, what else? Oh, here I want to make one quick comment. Do not use the playground structures that they used at um at Crown Mountain. Those Danish play structures. Kids stand there and they go, "What do I what do I do with that?" You know, because they're everything's kind of Oh, I love those. They look cool. My kid likes them. They look cool. My kids couldn't figure out how to play on them. Well, Bill, maybe they weren't creative enough.

I guess [laughter] not. I guess not. They're not Danish. Okay. Anything else? Um, next PNZ meeting will be the February 3rd meeting. We will have uh the continuation of the 555 Bissalt Avenue and believe we also have uh code amendment update on that agenda as well. I can so 72 Sunset Drive 72 Sunset Drive as well. They're working on some building code issues that need to get kind of ironed out before they come for public hearing. You won't be here.

I Yeah, I'll I'll be out of town for the February 3rd meeting. Okay. Are we a dark sky initiative community? We haven't pursued it officially yet. We have lighting codes for nighttime lights. We have a lighting code that is um dark sky friendly, but we haven't as the I don't know the town hasn't gone the full. Is the FedEx building within the town of Basalt? Cuz I drive by one more time at night and my wife starts complaining about how bright those lights are. Which building? FedEx. FedEx. Oh,

it is. It's in the town. Um the the other side of Sunset Drive, we had complaints about the lighting. maybe two years ago or so and we did some enforcement on that. Uh we haven't previously done enforcement on FedEx. I know there's security issues I'm sure with what they have going on, but it's pretty bright. Is there We can take a look at that. Thank you. I can tell my wife I did something tonight. [laughter] That's it. That's it.

Any commissioner comments? Can I can I make my annual ongoing request for us to have a work study session with the um Western Housing Regional Authority? Sure. I think we I think it would be helpful to, you know, just to help to put things in context and to learn a little bit more about what kind of units are really needed because we're, you know, we're just kind of going on what the developer says. We're just doing, you know, two bedrooms because that's what people want, but I mean, what do they really want? this sure actually survey and I just think it would be helpful to know what is going on in the valley as a whole

absolutely um at the um town council meeting next week on Tuesday um we're having an update from Liz Axburg with the city of Aspen um the communities in the valley have been part of a regional housing needs assessment study um so that we can all qualify to pursue Prop 123 funds so there'll be some discussion in there about the um housing needs assessment as well. Um and we always direct developers to look on our Bach web page where our recent 2024 24 25 24 housing needs assessment update was um is for people to look at. So there's reference for them. I I I know it can sound like it's coming from nowhere, but there's [clears throat]

that that needs assessment is only for the town of Balt, right? Yes. I mean, I really think we need to look at things kind of with a valleywide mindset because Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. you know, to speak to Bill's point about these um apartments being attractive. Um there are raised apartments being built in Carmenale just to the south of the city market shopping center and they are extremely unattractive with parking underneath and you know two stories above it. Extremely unattractive and we do not want to replace that.

Yeah. Replicate that. I have done a shitload of podium housing and the it's hard to make them nice. Yeah, it's hard to make them nice, but also the the drive from the developer is to make them as cheap as humanly possible because they have to pay for Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for maintaining your comments about the application during the application time on the agenda. Any other comments for [clears throat] me? Nothing for me. Sorry. Let's we Let's uh a motion to adjurnn. One second. Two. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Thank you.