P&z - Regular Meeting

All right, let's uh call to order Town of Basalt um Planning and Zoning Commission. Um Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. Roll call, please. All right. Uh Bill Marin, y Kyle Oberetter, Eric Vozek. Rob Levit, here. Cindy Hersshfield, Mike Horvath here, Bob Kaplan here, Ben Firestein here. You have a quorum.

All righty. Thank you very much. First off, we have uh minutes uh January 6th and January 20th. Um does anyone have any comments, changes, or additions? Any of those? Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? We have first. We have a second. All in favor? I I motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Um public hearing uh 72 Sunset Drive PUB amendment and that's a continuation to February 17th. Um how many more continuations do we got on that before it turns to a pumpkin?

Might have one or two. Um they're still working on building code uh revisions to make it comply so that they can go through the development process. Okay. Motion to continue. We have a motion to first to continue. Second. Second. First and a second. All in favor? I I I. Great. Thank you. Motion is item is continued. Um continued public hearing 555 Basalt Avenue Special Review. James.

Yes. Thank you. Uh we do have the applicants here this evening. We've got Justin Fes from uh Architecture Group uh representing the applicants and we've got Mara Blahett uh who's the property owner. Uh this is a continued public hearing on the application by ME LLC. Uh and it's a request for a special review PUD amendments uh southside flood plane and associated land use actions. uh to construct 54 commercial storage spaces and 48 multifamily residential units at 555 Basalt Avenue. Uh it's the Meers & Company property in Southside. Uh the process as was discussed at the last meeting uh includes land use requests requiring review by the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission uh which is Bach uh the planning and zoning commission and the town council uh with public hearings at both the BNZ and council levels. And Ben, I I didn't know. Sorry, I jumped right in.

No, it's okay. I'm going to recuse myself here. Um and staff has also identified that a requested master plan amendment uh is required uh in conjunction with the application uh because they need to amend the future land use map as well as the typology designations uh for the property. And as such, staff will be bringing back a resolution uh for consideration on the master plan amendments at the next meeting. Um at the last meeting, the planning and zoning commission heard a presentation of the proposal as well as discussion items from staff and the applicants. Uh the commission took public comments and identified additional information that was requested by PNZ members and then the hearing was continued to today's date. Uh this meeting staff would suggest hearing a refresher on the proposal uh hearing updates on the additional materials provided by the applicants as well as updates on the discussion items as well as the draft conditions. Uh and then taking public comments once again uh and then at the uh end of the evening, staff would suggest uh continuing the public hearing once again to the next meeting uh to wait for the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission Bach to finish their review on the affordable housing items. Um so to begin as a refresher on the site uh the site is about 4.8 acres. Uh it's located in Southside. Uh it currently houses the Myers & Company steel uh project. Uh it's located in the Basalt Business Center South PUD. Uh and

it's zoned industrial PUD. Uh it's also within the urban growth boundary and partially in the southside flood plane. Uh the proposal as was discussed at the last meeting uh is to remove the existing buildings from the site and then construct 54 uh commercial storage units storage spaces on the south uh half of the property. uh and then uh 48 residential units in three residential buildings on the north uh extent of the property adjacent to the Basalt park and ride. Uh the access is proposed uh for the commercial storage uh from the south side on FU Lane as you can see here and then access to the residential is proposed from East Cody Lane on the north side of the project uh via this proposed driveway. Um, as noted, uh, there have been additional materials that have been provided by the applicant at the request of the planning and zoning commission. Uh, these materials are in your packet. Uh, they include uh a uh sorry uh a construction management plan that was requested by the PNZ. Uh the construction management plan shows uh access uh for the construction would take place from FU Lane uh and then exit onto East Cody Lane. Uh additional items that are included in your packet uh include a drawing of the uh access to Cody Lane as well as the pedestrian connection that is proposed. Uh the PNZ asked for a detail on this uh to see where the pedestrian connection could uh sync up uh with the existing network and

uh basically uh it's proposed to go to the uh crosswalk across East Cody Lane in this location. Uh additional materials included uh uh the existing conditions on FU Lane and there's a drawing in your packet that shows the existing conditions and uh widths uh as well that are included in that. And then the PNZ also requested uh revised elevation drawings that showed more visual interest. Um the applicant will present these updated uh renderings to the PNZ as part of their comments. Um in reviewing the application, staff identified a series of discussion items at the last meeting. Uh and so staff will give some updates on these discussion items and identify how some of the draft conditions uh jive with those discussion items. uh the first being consistency with the master plan. Uh as was discussed at the last meeting uh it was noted that the future land use map has this property as existing land use. Uh so it was wasn't uh envisioned to be redeveloped uh during the life of the master plan. Uh so that would require an amendment to the future land use map. And then in terms of the typologies, uh it is in the work mixeduse typology and the applicant has proposed to separate the residential from the commercial storage. And the work mixeduse uh typology uh requires them to be uh kind of uh with each other and uh intermixed. And so that being the case, typology uh adjustment would be needed as well. So, as staff noted, we'll bring

back a resolution for consideration on the master plan amendments uh at the next meeting. Uh other topics included the level of affordable housing mitigation. Uh the applicants proposed for 12 of the dwelling units to be deed restricted as category rental units that averaged a category 2. Uh all of the deed restricted units were proposed to be onebedrooms in the original application and the project proposed uh for 25% of the residential units and 25% of the residential square footage uh to be deed restricted. Uh the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission uh Bach reviewed the application since the last PNZ meeting and they recommended that the applicant incorporate some larger deed restricted units uh in the project and the applicants have uh been working on an update to the application and they will be going back to the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission uh to address their uh comments and motion. uh before the next planning and zoning commission meeting. Uh other topics included the requested waiver from the storage requirements uh in the community housing guidelines. Uh as I noted, the applicants did not provide um the storage units that are required by the guidelines and so uh the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission reviewed the waiver request and were not supportive of the river request at their last meeting. Uh so the applicants are working on addressing that and they can talk about this further in their comments. Um, so staff would suggest uh that the PNZ uh not go into the affordable housing items this evening and wait for Bach to

finish up their recommendation uh before the next meeting. Uh and so that will occur before the February 17th meeting. Other topics included compatibility of use. Um storage use as well as the accessory residential use are allowed uses in the industrial zone district. Uh with residential being a special review use uh that requires approval by the planning and zoning commission and town council. Um, as was noted at the last meeting, staff uh believes that it's important uh that the storage use remain storage and not become uh a uh business uh uh facility. And that being the case, staff has included draft conditions that you have in your packet. uh and in those draft conditions, it would prohibit uh the use as being a primary place for business uh for individual businesses and that it would have to remain storage. Uh and so other topics included the building height. Um the applicant has proposed a building height of 38 foot to the top of the parapit. Uh the Basalt Business Center South PUD requires a maximum height of 35 ft. Um it is being requested uh through a PUD amendment. Additionally, they've proposed the elevator uh overruns to go over the height limit as well. And so there are other buildings in the area such as the 525 Basalt Avenue building uh that have been granted amendments in height. Um, as the site is a PUD, they can obtain amendments through the PUD, uh, but it also opens up discussion as to whether the height amendment is justified given the level of public benefit of the project and so that's up

for evaluation. Uh, the applicants have revised the renderings and we'll present those as as part of their comments. Uh pedestrian connectivity was another topic uh that was brought up for review. Um as the site is near the raft of BRT stop, uh the site has an opportunity to act as a uh transportationoriented development. Uh however, it requires a strong pedestrian connection to the BRT stop. uh staff requested the applicant establish a pedestrian connection and so the applicant explored the possibility of providing a uh pedestrian connection across the uh park and ride. Uh RAFTA was not supportive of that concept and instead recommended that the pedestrian connection happen on the up valley side of the park and ride adjacent to the uh access drive from East Cody Lane. And so the applicant has provided a drawing uh that's in your packet of that pedestrian connection and how it crosses uh East Cody Lane at the crosswalk. Uh there is a condition that staff has added requiring uh that this sidewalk connection be provided as part of the project. Uh other topics included uh FU Lane uh as was discussed at the last meeting. Uh Fu Lane is on the south side of the proposed project uh and it's located between the Meyers project uh and the Southside 4 subdivision. Um it currently is two-way road that narrows down to the width of one uh lane at a couple of pinch points. Uh the uh police

department provided comments about consideration of it being given uh to being widened uh for a full two lanes of traffic uh in conjunction with the development. Um the applicant has proposed to keep it as it is but have proposed a uh access path pedestrian access path for firefighting uh abilities. Um ultimately this is a discussion of competing goals as there is considerable uh mature trees along this uh area. Um, however, staff went back and discussed uh the concept of potential for one way and uh the emergency services and the town engineer as well as public works uh are still supportive of widening it to a full two-lane uh road uh in that area. And so uh there is a draft condition that would require it to be widened to two lanes uh full two lanes as part of the development. Uh so that's up for consideration and discussion. Other topics that were identified for consideration uh included the uh access road to East Cody Lane. Uh, as staff introduced at the last meeting, uh, the access road to East Cody Lane is a sliver of property that's owned by C DOT and currently the C dot approvals only allow for five vehicular trips uh, per day on that access and so the applicant has made a request to C DOT to amend that. Uh we are still uh waiting for C DOT's uh response to that and so staff can give an update at the next meeting on that

request. Uh other topics included the traffic uh as provided in the traffic report and as was discussed at the last meeting uh the traffic report indicates that development would not uh generate more traffic than the current Meyer Steel operation u and uh that it wouldn't impact the Basalt Avenue Highway 2 intersection anymore than the current Meyer Steel operations. uh staff had Charlier and Associates do a third-party review on the traffic study. Uh his comments were included in this packet as well as the last packet. Um it's been identified as a concern uh that the site traffic generation was only based on one day of traffic count uh in May of 2025 and Charlier indicated that a broader review of the existing traffic uh should be considered. Um, Charier is supposed to be on virtually uh and so he can answer questions and and do a summary of his comments uh later on. Um staff has proposed conditions of approval uh requiring that the applicant uh provide a contribution to the Basalt Avenue Cody Lane uh mini roundabout improvement that is identified as a short-term uh solution to build capacity uh at the intersection. And this is a requirement that has been provided uh for other developments in the southside. Um other uh discussion items included the southside flood plane. Uh the southside flood plane uh is partially on this property. Uh the applicants work with the town's contract hydraologist who is Robert Crrael of Matrix Design uh on the

site plan uh so that it could be developed without increasing the base flood elevation on the adjacent properties uh in the event of a flooding situation. Uh they've done this by doing the tuck under parking uh on the residential buildings so that water could flow uh through the site in a flooding event. Uh other topics included uh green building and wildfire mitigation. uh staff has included a condition in the draft conditions uh for consideration uh that would require compliance with the sustainable building regulations as well as the wildfire mitigation requirements that are in place at the time of building permit. Um as was discussed with PNZ at the last meeting, uh the wildfire regulations are uh going to be updated. Uh the state is uh requiring an update to the local municipalities codes uh to comply with new state legislation that was passed uh about 3 or four months ago. Um so in total this evening, staff would recommend that the applicant consider applicant comments. Uh that the commission also consider comments on the traffic study from Jim Charlier. uh if he jumped on. I I didn't see him on yet, but hopefully he he jumps on. Uh and then take public comments uh provide commission discussion and we would suggest uh holding off on the affordable housing related discussion until Bach has finished their review. Um as I noted, they made recommendations and the applicant is in the process of responding to those recommendations. uh and then ultimately uh continue the public hearing to February 17th. And Jim

Charlier has identified that he is on the call and so he can provide uh a summary uh of his comments. Let me stop sharing my screen here.

Hi Jim, would you like to provide a summary of your comments? uh to the PNZ. Sure. Thank you. Good evening everybody. Um I'll do this just quickly. The um uh based on the traffic study uh and I commented um that my first comment that I probably is of most interest to the board um was do you is there is there an issue? No. No, we can hear you. Great.

Oh, I'm hearing an echo. It's probably a speaker. This is Yeah. So, everything I say, I hear myself. Um the uh the first I had was that it on day accounts, which I think is discussed already on May 21st. Um the uh ordinarily we would want to see uh at least three days a Thursday, Friday and Saturday. So you get a good week day, a heavy traffic day and a weekend day. Um and ideally you would have traffic from more than one season. Um so that was my first comment to that. Um I I noted that they have not considered the likely um pre presence of more than average amount of truck traffic and truck driver traffic in and around and around the the current facility. Um that's not a particular issue for the application because the reason I pointed out is that that traffic is probably more problematic in terms of congestion and crash rates and so forth and the kind of traffic that the new project would generate. Um the third comment I had was uh just to note that that um the traffic study was done using the institute of traffic engineer research generation manual which is a national document um updated frequently and um but it's based on limited sample size and almost all those samples are used in a generation manual. So generation annual is a document that provides estimates of how many daily vehicle trips and how many he

generated by different kinds of development. Um and in this case uh it's a part of the development under the terminology is a multif family lowrise housing and part of it is warehouse and I think those categories um the issue is that the auto rate in in the court is higher than what's national data and generation rates tend to be a little higher in the report than they do say in Kansas City or something like that. Um like again I I didn't think it was a big issue but it was something that over time I would think the salt might want to um begin developing some data that's own based on various studies that are done and various timing efforts have been underway um to supplement national data when projects like this come in. My first comment was the um just to know that at a lot of times when we see these including some that I've reviewed for your your town in the past u a lot of times these studies and the traffic study has taken a large credit for what was called non vehicle walking biking transit us and that is the testament to the impact sometimes That's pretty problematic because it's assumption sometimes it's not adequate information and sometimes it applies somebody else's to the benefit of that project. However, in this case, they do not do that and I just thought that was worth commenting. Again, it's not an issue. It was just a comment. I wanted to clarify that they have not conservative

and had not taken into accounts that might associated with the presence of the park. Um, and then I just know that as a general, you know, one of the things that I imagine frustrates the board is frustrates me is when we see like this and it doesn't really talk much about the real world situation on the ground. numbers and this this the quarters that serve this site also are used fairly significantly by the school traffic uh and people coming to and from the school has some ling travel areas. Um and so I suggested that they rather than look at the community the um peak commute travel times in their definition of peak hour that they look at pe times that relate to what's probably the actual pe location which is when the school is either people come to school. Um the uh so uh I guess you suggested that in terms of the traffic study that they that in terms of the traffic county the existing traffic they do Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Um and they shift the the peak hours to school hours. uh in the responses back they I had other minor comments but I think James has already sort of you know summarized most of the topics you want to comment on um in the comment from the traffic engineer they um agreed to shift the PD to reflect the school um traffic which um hopeful that it doesn't really change

any of our conclusions obviously because it doesn't change um the air traffic forecast hardly at all. Um it just changes the background traffic, right? Um and but they argued that it was unreasonable to um to request a duty board to verify the accuracy of their traffic. Um and that was backed up later by a a member that was provided to me from the current land owner uh talking about the current business practice and indicating that there's not a lot of seasonal fluctuation and not a lot of fluctuation for days of week traffic is pretty saggy throughout the days of the week to Saturdays and doesn't really have much season. So they they felt it was unreasonable to ask an account. Um James, what else? Do you need me to summarize anything?

No, I think that's a good summary. Um if you could please hang on so that P&Z could ask some questions if they have them. That would be great. Um so now staff would suggest hearing from the applicants. Do you want Curtis? Uh, he can provide responses as part of your your comments, applicant comments.

Yeah, you you guys drive what you want your your team to present and not so you you guys are in charge. So, um, just for also for the general public, what what's going to happen right now is we're going to have the applicant give a a short presentation and then we're going to have some questions that uh the the uh commission has of staff and the applicant and then we're going to open this up for public comment at that time and then we'll be giving our comments as a commission after that. So, go ahead.

So, we should have Curt, we're gonna have Curtis jump on just because it's it's fresh in mind. So Curtis Row, our traffic engineer that did the CRA traffic study, and he uh spoke at the last meeting, he's on, and he we'll just let him um mention any uh any items as to what uh James just talked about, and then we'll jump into our other discussion comments. All right. Thank you. Hi, Curtis. If you'd like to speak, uh please unmute and you can address the commission.

Yes. Hello, everyone. Good evening again. I'm Curtis Roy here. um prepare the traffic capacity uh for this development. Uh and so if you look through those comments, we really appreciate Charer and Associates and Jim and his comments for this study. Uh we addressed those comments in the updated traffic study as well response letter. Um you know they obviously I think the biggest point was the uh three days of cows. uh you know we selected a typical workday average workday that had um traffic for me company um and so that is a representative of the volumes that we expect on a dayto-day basis that was confirmed with the applicant and so that is a a representative count they do cost $2,000 per day and so you know we do want to be careful what we're those accounts um to to represent representative eliminated that uh there is going to be a reduction in truck traffic this use may generate trucks whereas the proposed use would generate very little truck traffic and so that is just positive did as it relates to the volume. We didn't take that into account in our analysis just did a volume volume comparison. Obviously, reducing contract traffic is a benefit. Um for the IT generation manual the sample size uh there are 49 morning uh data points and 59 afternoon data points for the uh for the

residential the multif family rise which actually is a good set of data the R square values on those which if you know statistics or statistics they're in the85 range. So those two represent good statistical data collection for that type of use. And then for operations there's kind of providing operational analysis. Obviously, this redevelopment is lowering the traffic volume and lessening the liquid traffic and so given those facts uh the traffic impacts associated with this site should lessen it should less than redevelopment and so that's why this study itself just had a limited scope of comparing the generation and then just note again just pointed out we did not take any reactions in our traffic volumes for the close by transit um for the uh traffic and so that provides conservative analysis and so we we like to provide a conservative analysis so that the jurisdiction feel comfortable with the with the direct comparison in reality we anticipate that the actual trips expected to be generated by this development will be less in the future and I'll happy to answer questions talk.

All right. Um, we'll be ask our board will be asking questions during question our question period. So, let's let the applicant get their presentation and we'll load ourselves up with questions at that point.

Okay. Uh, uh, Justin Free Studio DH Architecture. Um, so I am going to kind of follow um James's outline of discussion topics. I've got a couple more slides that uh might not be in your packet or uh provide additional clarity. Uh the first image you're seeing is uh an evolved uh rendering of uh you know more photorealistic and looking at the materials of uh what we'd be proposing to uh to clad these buildings in. Uh so you've got the singlestory garage condo personal warehouses over on the left hand side of that image and then the threetory um residential with the tuck under parking. You know, we've looked a lot at um excuse me, uh you know, projects like uh Tree Farm and Hoffman and some of the new developments around here. Uh we've used kind of a woodlook sighting uh that's a little bit longer lasting than a than a typical sighting uh along with stack stone uh and different metals and then provided banding and um uh daylight into uh the storage units along with steel balconies and canopies that um that wrap around the residential. And um so that's our update to architectural design since our previous meeting uh with a little bit more clarity and uh we have more renderings for forthcoming as we work our way through um this design process. Um you know it is in that schematic design conceptual design level currently uh as we evolve through the process. Um the next two items on James' list were both had to do with affordable housing. I just wanted to touch on those two items. So since our last meeting, we went in front of Bach uh we talked through uh the unit mixes and the um storage provision. Um so we have been working to revise our unit plans to provide a two-bedroom unit along with

one-bedroom units and storage uh 5x10 storage unit for each of the deed restricted housing units. Um that results in losing three a unit from each building. So we go from 48 total units down to 45 total units. Uh that does not reduce the number of deed restricted housing units currently. So we would still be providing 12 units. Uh so we are working through those plans and we'll be presenting those to Bach on February 12th for their review uh and response. Um I'm going to have you jump to the next slide.

Those Yep. Uh and then with the you know reduction in units, we're also looking at a slight reduction in traffic count as well um with with less units. Um so we've got the aerial here from the the last uh meeting we had just more for reference uh of both kind of the um you know local business center south neighborhood and then the um the regional with highway 82 and and its proximity to downtown. Jump to the next one. Um this is our site plan again showing where the current flood plane is. Uh and so with the regrading and the new building layout, it changes some. Um but that dash line with the blue shade is where currently the FEMA 100-year flood plane is. Um and then these tables have been updated to show with the reduction down to 45 units, uh reduces our parking requirement down to 81 spaces. That is 1.5 spaces for each studio or onebedroom and that is two spaces for each two-bedroom and 0.25 spaces for guest parking on the total of 45 residential units. Uh just a slight change as we've been working our way through those. Um I'll jump to the next slide. Uh this just shows uh the the current revision. The two-bedroom unit is actually in the center on the bottom of that floor plate uh showing that update. So, we had eight units per floor with a with an efficiency. That efficiency unit has gone away on this level uh and allowed us to allocate that square footage back to a two-bedroom unit and we'll have Bach uh review that further. Uh we are still hoping to maintain a level category 2 across the board um an average of it. So there could be a category 1 or a category 3 uh type housing unit available but maintaining

kind of that middle category 2 on the 0ero through five scale. Jump to the next one. Um this page I wanted to include this is a part of our PUD amendment. This is the current use table of the business center south PUD and the allowable uses currently. Uh and so as part of the process um and looking at compatibility of use uh we went through uh use by use and identified the ones in red as ones that we wanted to restrict as more heavy industrial uses. Um we can talk to that you know further. Uh really everything on the left hand side of the chart is um kind of smallcale industrial uses. Um I'll give a couple examples. It's um research, testing, processing, repair, and cleaning of things like textiles, cosmetics, artwork, ceramics, furniture. Um and then just below kind of that where the heavy red block in the middle is, uh it mentions shops for blacksmith, cabinet worker, machining, plumber, electrician, upholstery, or welding. Um, those were kind of the lower-end uses that we thought could possibly in a warehouse type project fit, but we're open to more discussion on that along with what we mentioned on the previous meeting that what we've been seeing with these projects is usually 70 to 80% of these are actually personal warehouses for people for RVs, boats, ATVs, additional vehicles. Um and so that is you know what we've looked at when we look at traffic counts and look at the HOA and restricting uses and um you know basing it off of the table that is allowed currently in that district. Uh the right hand side of the chart most of those have an S on it which means

special use which means they would need to be rever re reviewed further by uh planning and zoning. Uh but most of them on the left are P for permitted uses. Uh and then anything in red would be uh not allowed and S the yellow is uh also special reviews. Those were ones that we restricted from either from a permitted down to a special review uh use in our PUD. I'll be a jump to the next one. Uh so this is a cross-section and talking about the building heights. This is a cross-section through the building. Uh there's some dimensions over on the right hand side. Um and so I think we talked about this a little bit at the last meeting about how building height is truly measured. Uh and so the 35- ft height is to the top of the roof. Uh which if you see that kind of heavier black canopy over on the right just above that. So that that's the 35 ft measurement is to the top of the roof sheathing. And then there's a 3-ft parapit wall that goes to that 38T height. Um, this could be reduced down slightly. Um, right now, um, we feel it is in line with how the zoning code measures a building. Uh, it allows for an elevator overrun, uh, and would allow for that additional height on the parapit. It's just really the the zoning code language versus the PUD language. It also provides for a little bit more generous height in the housing units to make them a little bit nicer. We feel uh it could be compressed some. And so I wanted to get you guys a uh exhibit of that to to look at. Um we'll jump to the next slide. So this is jumping over to the Cody Lane uh access. Uh this would be the primary residential access and these are the photos we looked at during the last meeting. So, um we have um the

C dot access easement does allow for a sidewalk in that uh property. Uh we've researched that. Uh we do have some existing site infrastructure we'll have to deal with to install that sidewalk. Mainly uh we've got a drainage ditch and then you can see in the top left picture we've got a USPS mailbox and a electrical um transformer box that will have to be dealt with. Uh but then I'll jump to the next picture and we bumped up the property line weight on this a little bit heavier. So you've got the red property line, you've got the raft parking lot to the top right, you've got the C dot access to the bottom, and then the Myers property 555 to the left. Um there's a slight um dash line in the corner down there and that is an agreement between RAFTA and C dot for the access agreement to access Cody Lane. Uh and so that is kind of how we're bending that sidewalk around in the other uh exhibit that was in the packet. Jump to the next. Okay, the these are the photos we showed you last time for reference on the few lane um existing conditions and then we'll jump to the next and then this is the exhibit uh that we enlarged and James showed you uh in his presentation. So all of the uh just line work black black circles are the existing trees that we're proposing to keep and um and those were based on the tree report that we had done by the arborist uh about which had you know 50% or more life and also those are some of the largest trees uh in the area. So trying to preserve what we can there. Um you'll see that there's about an 18 foot width uh in the first part of few lane uh from property line to property line. Um there is a dashed line which we believe is an access easement on the southern properties

um running on those three properties there. Then that is where the property line narrows down and you see there's 10t set back between the pro the property line to the south and the 555 property and then another 10 ft for that access easement or setback. Um I think there is there's been a lot of we've read comments uh we've had multiple meetings about this. I think we're open to uh different options whether it is um creating this as a oneway uh or you know expanding this somewhat to allow some extra width especially where that next down towards Allison Lane. Um, you know, depending on comments from commission in the town, um, if there was the desire to take some of that property, I think the applicant would want to, you know, make sure that that doesn't impact setbacks or reduce setbacks and um, an impact to building location on the on the proposal. Jump to the next one. Uh this is just the flood plan exhibit. Um again the the change to the grading and the change to the building layouts uh results in uh the main southern warehouse building being out of the 100red-year flood plane. Uh the buildings we're calling them C and D to the eastern side of the storage and the residential properties remain in the flood plane. Uh again, the reason for lifting the buildings up and letting the any potential flood waters pass through underneath the residential buildings. Um then we'll just jump to the next one. Um

an update on C DOT. CD dot was accepting of um our traffic engineers traffic study and his traffic letter. Uh in regards to the access easement, as James mentioned, currently it's for five trips daily. Um we're requesting uh it gets increased to use that as the residential access and push the residential traffic out to Cody Lane and then to the roundabout uh to Balt Avenue. Um we are just kind of waiting now on their approval of that increase to the access easement. They have not requested anything more at this time. Um but they have been accepting of all of the studies and letters we've provided them to this point. Okay. Okay. We'll jump to the next one. Uh I'll touch briefly on this construction management plan. Uh as requested at the last meeting, we uh spoke to a couple of general contractors. Uh this project has not been awarded or assigned to anyone in specific. So this was kind of their first take on how they might access the site. Um thought process on this was to have pro uh access come in through fuel lane uh because there was concern about heavier traffic equipment backing up at the roundabout to turn left onto Cody Lane and then backing traffic up further with such a run a short runway to then get into the site. So, their first proposal was to go to the next roundabout and or the next intersection and then come through that access one, but then push traffic out through the Cody lane access. Um, again, this is one general contractor's first take at this. Um uh and then they would have staging areas and a job site trailer basically in the center of the project uh with two

trash dumpsters on uh either side, one for the residential and one for um the storage warehouses. Um there is the possibility of phasing this development just depending on construction window or construction timelines. Um and also as we mentioned uh there is we are proposing a property line between the two. Um so that a separate developer could do either the residential or the storage or they could become separate projects. And so um that would provide for a shared job site trailer or backtoback depending on how uh how they chose to proceed with this or phase this project. Um and then access gates uh near both of the stars and and I think those are the major items uh that we wanted to touch on. Uh we are aware of the wildfire mitigation and green building design standards and uh and are planning to implement those uh and we have worked through um things with public works uh basult sanitation and roaring fork fire uh as far as the buildings being fully sprinkled using fire resistant or fire hardened materials um and the the current water line uh access and how we best u kind of appropriate that with the existing conditions. Uh we have the civil engineer who did those designs here and the applicant and we're ready to answer any questions.

All right. Um thank you very much. Let's do some commissioner questions. Bob, you would you like to start? Sure. Um my question is on the traffic study. I want to make sure that I'm clear on this. Currently, all traffic is coming and going through the west side of F Avenue. Correct. Let's go ahead. Okay. And in proposed in the design here that you're going to have traffic for the uh for the self storage in a similar location, but all the apartment dwellers will have access through Cody Lane. Correct. Yep.

So, we need to realize that much of the traffic issues for a few lane are reduced. Correct. twothirds, threequarters, 90% of the traffic is now going to be coming through Cody Lane. Yes. The the higher intensity use of the the residential just because you've got 45 units uh would be going out that way. There there is a gate separating the properties. The gate would have a box access for fire department emergency to go through the properties, but the residential users would not have that access. Assuming we get the seed out approvals. Assuming we get seed dot approvals. That's correct. Is that James? Anything that

Am I correct there, James? This is as we understand it. Correct. Yeah, I think you're correct there. And and Rob, yeah, to respond, you know, we don't have a response from C dot as of yet. I I can't guess to what their response is going to be. Understood. Honestly, I just wanted everybody to be clear about that because that does lessen my concerns with the traffic issue. All right, that's my comment. Thank you, Rob. Do you have any questions? Um, just curious, James, why the um green building in wildfire was a condition? I isn't it automatically? It

it it's automatically required. Um, basically in all our PUDs, we like to require that it be the um code that's in effect at the time of permit instead of at development review approvals. So, that's kind of the distinction um because we do anticipate changes before they get to permit. Okay.

We still have our traffic guys. Yeah. I think it was Jim that said that if we're anticipating less tr truck traffic. Um but is that based on anything? There won't be semis. Um Myers has semis coming out every day. Okay. We don't really know what's going to be going to the storage units though, but not as you a steelard has a lot of semis coming in and out. Okay. So that's my thinking. I guess the traffic that's theory. I was wondering if there was data before that. Jim, can you please respond to that question?

Sure. Um the it's highly Yes. Okay. It's I agree it's highly likely that um the amount of traffic from the project would be quite a lot less than what is experienced today. It's also an that um the g classification was not part of the tractor study. Um and so we don't really have um I mean it's a reasonable assumption and I'm not comfortable with it but we do actually have to prove.

Okay. And did Jim and Curtis decide whether one day was going to be sufficient or we going to go ahead and do the three days of traffic study? Jim Jim had identified that he thought it would be appropriate to Thursday, Friday, and Saturday go to the three-day scenario. Um, and Curtis uh indicated that the applicants uh didn't believe that that was necessary. So, there's probably still um not not agreement on that. Yeah, we could add that to your comments, you know, because we've been a lot more discussion about that later. you say? Yeah.

Um, with the traffic study, can I guess it would be Curtis, what does the trip generation on paper state for a me for a operation like Meer Steel? Uh, yes, I have that. Um, so yield generates 22 drinks in the morning peak hour and 36 in the afternoon. That's what you guys counted. What is the the table of the trip generation state?

Yeah. So there exact generation manual. That is a great question. I did look at comparable uses and several of the comparable uses to one of the miners would be would actually show higher traffic generation than what we what we obtained in our accounts. Okay.

Again, we did conservative analysis. Um you know, we wanted to provide the most thoughtful study for you to make the best decision possible and not have any ambiguity. Um and then again, you know, doing one day has a typical standard traffic engineering procedure. I've been doing this 32 years and um we've never been required or requested to provide multiple day tasks for a project such as this.

Um question for James. What's staff's you know you mentioned public works police. What's their hesitation with the oneway? You know, I think generally they think this is an opportunity to be able to get a full-on two-way access there that meets standards. Uh as well as u um you know when there is construction or when there is an emergency that shuts down uh the main access. um they feel that it would be good to have a full two lanes so that they can route traffic around um a portion of Southside Drive and and Basalt Avenue uh if it were shut down.

Okay. Um the exhibit with the sidewalk shows multiple encroachments on the rafter property. Does has RAFTA approved that? Ra Rafta has indicated that they are supportive of putting the sidewalk on the up valley side of it. Um, as I noted, they the proposal was originally to go across the park and ride and RAFTA would not support that.

Okay. And then I guess from a process standpoint, what happens if C do denies the increase in vehicle traffic across that easement? Well, from a staff perspective, the applicants would probably have to go back and look at other ways to access the property. I don't know if you have other answers to that.

We we have looked at um a site layout that would push all traffic out towards the few lane roundabout. It would reduce a couple of the um storage units. Um but it would still uh accommodate circulation for both fire and and uh getting in and out of the warehouse spaces. Okay. Um those are all my questions. Okay, great. Um I have a few questions. Um, one of them, uh, the the first question is, has, so CD dot has flat out refused to have a pedestrian connection, just a pedestrian only connection mid of the north side of the site.

Ced or raft. Raft. Yeah. Raft. Yeah. They just said no. Flat up. They said don't. They didn't give reasoning, but I um it's my assumption that it's liability and safety. uh the reference was made that you know you'd have pedestrians crossing drive lanes and so um they preferred we uh move it to the C dot access site. Okay. Um and my my second question is actually kind of a request but of staff. Um could you give us a quick a very quick primer on um what triggers the second means of egress out of Southside because I I think a lot of us h a lot of people on the board now haven't been here for that. Sure.

And I think we should know what we're talking about and how the roundabout on Cody Lane impacts that. So the master plan going back several master plans actually has a concept of doing a second access out of Southside uh that would connect the uh Midland Avenue by the post office uh with uh Southside Drive by Big O Tires and it would be an underpass. Um, however, you know, the cost of that over time has just grown and so it's very significant at this point. Um, several years back, uh, 2017, um, SGM did a traffic study for all of Southside and potential growth in Southside. Uh, and it identified a level of service for the Basalt Avenue Highway 82 intersection. um that could sustain the amount of growth that was projected. Uh, one of the improvements that was identified as uh possibly uh improving the situation without going to the fullon second access and underpass uh would be to construct a mini roundabout at Basalt Avenue and East Cody Lane and then add additional lanes uh going out of uh Basalt Avenue onto Highway 82 uh going left or down valley and it would also free up a right uh free lane for those uh traveling up valley off of Basalt Avenue. And the biggest uh impact uh that it would have is it would remove the split phase uh from the signal at

highway 82 and Basalt Avenue uh which would allow traffic on both the south and the north side uh to be able to turn at the same time uh which would reduce queuing. And so other developments in Southside after that 2017 SGM study uh have been required to contribute to the potential of putting in that Southside roundabout and lane improvements to get rid of the split phase.

Okay. Is the Cody lane slip lane non nonfunctional anymore? That's not a operable idea. Uh you mean taking at the end of the culde-sac and and jumping on to Highway 82 with At one point that was discussed. You know the the traffic engineers have looked at that. Um they did not seem to think that that was getting as much bang for your buck as doing the mini roundabout and lane changes that got rid of the split phase.

Well, that's good to know. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, any have anyone have any further questions they want to expound on? No. Um, let's open up uh the uh public comments portion of this at uh 7:09. Please come up to the podium so we can hear you and you can be recorded. Please state your name and um where you live, please. And I'll try and keep your comments to three minutes or or less.

First, sorry. Hello, my name is Laurel Fox. I think I've emailed Michelle and James. Nice to meet you guys. Sorry, I'm just wondering how how many people live in Southside. Any of you guys? Okay. So, I'm a substitute teacher and I've seen the traffic coming out of the high school and when they get out early or lunchtime, which I know Mary can relate to. Um, so sorry. Hold on. Let me just give my thought here. Um, so we have a problem just with the high school kids cruising through Southside just in general and exiting in a very hurried manner which has caused accidents. We're afraid people are gonna get hurt. They don't stop at stop signs. I live on Allison Lane and Meadow View. Meadow View. Is it Meadow View?

Meadow View.

So, and Mary sees a lot of um them come down Sunnyside. Is it Somerset? Somerset. Sorry. Um so, we're we just have the issue of I don't think any of you have actually driven at the light when kids are getting out of school and people are trying to turn left. It is already 25 minutes that you're waiting to go from Basalt Lane turning left onto Highway 82 or going straight. Usually the right is okay, but I don't know that a mini roundabout would work. I mean, I don't know what that would do, but mainly I'm here to protect our neighborhood, which is there's a lot of things still not finished, which is St Mill, still not completely developed. We have a third storage unit on Southside Lane, still not finished. So, that's going to be a ton more truck traffic and just a lot more things happening. So, I just think you guys haven't considered just Highway 82, the the I don't know where this traffic study was was done, but I can also tell you the seniors were out of school. Those are our drivers. They were out of school on May 21st. So, that doesn't do us any good in figuring out a traffic study. So, All right. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Stacy Stokes. I have also written letters. I live in Southside and we actually live on the corner of F Lane and now you call it Allison on your map, but we think it's few that just goes straight out into Alexander. We would like to see that road made a oneway because as she said, none of you live in Southside. I watch it every day, all day from my kitchen. I can see it. I've seen a crash. I hear multiple screeching breaks. And the way Fuel Lane is set up, our driveways are hu they're wide. So even if the the road was to be made two lanes, people can still come right into my driveway. I was almost hit in my own driveway because someone pulled in because something was on the other side. I understand you think it at two lanes it would be made safer. We don't need more traffic in our southside neighborhood. There's a daycare at the end of fuel lane. I've seen kids fly. I've yelled at somebody and I've they've called me an effing because I told them to slow down and he lives down the street from me in Southside. There's people are in a hurry. We're rushed. That's the way the world is. But there's a park on Meadow View and Allison. There's the daycare at the end of few and there just none of us can come up with any good reason why increasing traffic in our southside neighborhood is a good thing. There's too many children. There's growing children riding bikes. The I talked to the police yesterday. They came and put some kind of something that's checking something right off my deck. And I I said to him yesterday, I said, "Sir, with all due respect, you're watching from the wrong vantage point." and they came and put whatever that thing is there and so now everybody comes around the corner at few sees whatever the cops put and they slow down so they're not seeing people fly out

there we need a stop sign at the end of that road it needs to be one way and I understand for emergency services I've been I tried to do this two years ago get it made one way to get emergency in faster if there's a path that is put up by the new development on one side that is level it's the same thing they use in states that have hurricanes You open it up for emergency access. You open it up for traffic mitigation if Basalt Avenue were to be closed. There's ways to use roads in different ways if you have traffic mitigation. It doesn't have to be overused all the time. And if that few lane turns into a two-way street, Southside is going to be a really dangerous place. And it's not just high schoolers, it's residents, too. And they fly through there. And we need a stop sign at the end of that road. There's too many kids. You've got a daycare at the end of the street. I think Mary came up with the idea of doing two ways so that people can turn around. We watch there. We live there. We see it all day long. We understand. So, I've heard traffic mentioned probably 95 times in this meeting since it began an hour and 15 minutes ago. Traffic is a problem and no traffic study in the world is going to tell you exactly how traffic is going to be in Southside. No matter what you do, we're going to get more traffic. So, why make it more less safe for our children? That just doesn't make any sense to me. Having more cars fly through a park and a daycare. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Miss Mayor Mary Wolfer. I have the preschool at the end, um the hobby farm and the Kender Cottage, and I'm not opposed. I They're doing great. That's wonderful what they're doing, but it needs to be a oneway. It is so dangerous. You've seen my letters. I've talked to James and the chief over the last several years about the safety concerns, especially with the Somerset Trail coming in where it merges to Fu Lane with the bikes and the ebikes and the pedestrians and the baby strollers and the Airbnbers that don't know where they're walking or where they're going with the bikes. It's an accident waiting to happen. Someone is going to get hurt. And if you're making it two-way, it's going to be that much more um dangerous. I I gave you a suggestion, and I'm not an engineer, but there is a rideway. Would you even look at that? Consider opening up the rightway. I gave you a diagram. Did anyone see it? I sent that to you all. And I don't know who to ask that. I just know that I never want to put a child in harm's way. And that's harm's way to the point that I may have to not be there. And that's really um hard. So share that.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other any other comments? We have John Fitzpatrick on he's got his hand up on the internet here on the Zoom. John, if you'd like to provide comments to the PNZ, please unmute.

Yes. Thank you. Um again um one thing that is missing is how much travel is going to be increased on Wayne it's going to be a big impact on us I think at a minimum down there needs to add curves sidewalks at both sides uh just All the rest has I think it would be safer for pedestrians safer for bicycing his own way. So we may need to look at changing the end of the day. That's uh that's basically what I have to say. All right. Thank you. Um any other comments online or in person? No. Let's uh close at 7:17 public uh public hearing uh portion of the meeting and let's move on to commissioner comments. Mike, would you like to add some comments?

Yeah. Um, you know, from the testimony here tonight and, you know, hearing the way Fuse is being used as maybe more of a collector, I I don't see how making it 18 ft wide in a two lane creates a safer passage because it's not meeting the requirements of a collector. That's maybe a local street width. It's not acting as a local street width with with the traffic and the high school kids using it. Um, I think if they're I do like uh Mary's idea on traffic flow. I I think that's a more controlled um local street solution to the issues on few. Um with that being said, you know, we're not making that decision at this table. Um, and so if if it's going to go to two lane, I think some pedestrian infrastructure at the end of Somerset where that bike lane comes out at a very minimum needs to be as part of this project. Um, and so just kind of considering those options I think is is important. Um, again, I do think the one way has some value. Um, you know, the keep harping on this traffic study, but you know, the applicants talked about a plumber having a yard there. Um, the traffic counts say one trip in, zero trips out in the AM. I I just don't think we're really I understand what the paperwork says and you know what that is the literature says and what it's getting to with those traffic counts. I just don't think it's necessarily real realistic from the examples you

provided. I mean, you're 40some storage units, one trip in, one trip out during peak just I don't know that seems really low. If it was if it is being used as people with boats and you know that may seem realistic, but I mean commercial space in this town, we're seeing it dis or industrial space where you're seeing it kind of disappear and disappear. Um, and so these businesses do need some place to operate. I understand it can't be their primary place of business, but um I just question those numbers. All right.

I don't think I have anything else at this time. Thank you, Mike. Rob, comments?

Um well, I did have two girls at Basalt High School, so I know what it's like trying to get out of there at 3:30. Um, and I, you know, I think I kind of agree with Mike and Mary that there seems to be a way around this. You know, we're not traffic study people, but I think engineers can make it work where we can circulate safely. I have left my car at High Tone and tried to walk down Cody Lane and it's not really pedestrian friendly. And if we're putting 40 odd units there, we probably should look at making that more pedestrian friendly as well. Um, I know it's early in the renderings, but that those buildings were kind of blah. Um, I know it's I'm not the architect you are.

I'm I'm now that I'm chairing, I'm not going to say anything super critical like I normally would. You normally would. Um, so I was counting on you. Yeah, I could if you if you requested. Well, it's of me. It's outside. You know, it's turning into a nice res if it's turning into a nice residential neighborhood. have nice residential buildings and what we saw up there. I I'll dwell on some comments. You can take it more um architecturally um further than I can, but I'd like to see it more in tone with the rest of the neighborhood if that's the direction it's going. That's all.

All right. Thank you, Rob. Bob, comments? My comments are very similar to Mike Corvass uh regarding the traffic counts and also regarding um few becoming a one-way street. It seems like a safe alternative for this neighborhood with everything else that's going on and we do need to recognize that more traffic is going to be flowing onto Cody and less on fuel lane. Um and that's the reality of the situation here. I think that that will be happening. Um, and I do also agree that a traffic study, we all know that traffic is lighter, almost the lightest of the year in May and late April and May when so many people are out of town and seems like May 21st is an very odd day to have a traffic count. Even if it is for an industrial building that has a company that works year round, it just seems the not the right time to have it.

Is there a question that I can answer? Um, do you have a do you have a question for the traffic engineer? No, it's just a comment that the timing of the count in the month of the year that's the quietest of the year here is not ideal. That's the statement.

And the counts were conducted in November um for the state highway and for the actually done on Thursday, November 3rd. uh 2022 the count of May 21st was just that the driveway counts for miners. So just wanted to clarify that all the southside are thank you for the clarification. Yes. Okay. It's good to know. Okay. Is that your comments? You have no nothing else. Thank you.

All right. I have some comments that I would like to put in here and it's all an elaboration on a lot of what has been spoken of before. My first comment is um I am not in favor of a storage off a storage waiver without some sort of creative solutions, but it does sound like you guys are working on that. So,

we'll see. We'll see what happens with that. Um, I still think, and this has been a big topic of conversation, that as far as both Fu Lane and Cody Lane, um, we really need to be more creative about what we're doing. Um, I know it's it's fire and police's desire to make this all highways because they're very truck oriented. Um, I think we can get more creative. I've suggested some things which are kind of European ideas which people see as very loopy and they're not going to be um in favor of things like that but it's my understanding that ashtto is going to come out with a new green book relatively soon and it's going to address multimmodal transit transport car interfaces with pedestrians and all of that stuff and I think a more creative solution if it comes from, you know, the traffic engineers bible, uh, you know, which that green book is. Um, I think we could probably find a path through this without, you know, killing people or squishing kids. I think that's important. Um, and uh, you know, other people have done it. I think we can do it, too. And we don't always have to do it with bigger roads or faster roads. So that's um I'm just imploring all of us to get really creative with that and I think a document from an engineering handbook would help us a lot. Um let's see. Um you know I I I I think that the to nature of this project is is impressive and I don't want to do anything that stands in the way of that. Um, I am unhappy that that uh RAFTA does not allow for pedestrians to cross the

parking lot, but I can that on top of there being pedestrians crossing where cars drive. Um, there they don't lose parking spot. And you know, when your whole thing is transit, you don't want to lose parking spot. It's like gold. And so I can see where they're coming from. But it if anyone has been to a college campus, you know, pedestrians go where pedestrians go regardless of what they're allowed to do. So just let's just kind of keep that in the back our back pockets. Um it just happens. Um I agree with Bach's comments on their number one comment about storage, which again we're working on. Um I'm not necessarily so sure about the two-bedroom part, but you guys are working on it as well. I think it's a very market driven thing and I think that is, you know, I've done a whole ton of affordable housing and the two bedrooms always take a long time to fill up. Um the the studios and one bedrooms always fill up fast. So u but again this is a negotiation between uh staff, the town and the applicants. But it's like I think you know you got to be careful with these decisions. you know, one or two two bedrooms, I could see that, you know, it happens and that you can fill those, but a whole slug of them, they'll sit for a long time. Um, I I also agree with the idea of a broader traffic study, not so much because the ineffectiveness of the traffic study that was done, but because of the to be reflective of the school traffic, which seems to be a problem for the broader neighborhood at large. and may or may not have been fully accounted for in the traffic study. So, I think to heir on the side of um keeping our neighbors safe, that is a wise thing to put into the next round of

conditions. Um, maybe not two traffic studies like like Charelier was asking for, but at least an additional one that will capture the school traffic because, you know, I you know, I don't live in Southside, but I have ridden my bike on FU Lane a lot because it's the place where cars don't go and it's the place where I don't want to get squished, so I go that way. So, it it's um I I I can see what everyone is saying and I think we'd be very mindful of that. Um, I think also the best category mix we can get is useful, you know, because as opposed to all being all more category 2 like Bach was saying, I'm not so sure that's, you know, I think a broader mix is the best thing for what we've got in salt. Um, as far as the building height, um, I said this last time, but I think, um, and you know, to co coordinate the PUB with the town code is a good thing. uh because one, it's fair to do that, but also um this will probably have um heat pumps for uh the the HVAC of the units and heat pumps that work in the cold are huge and really ugly and scaryl looking. They look like alien spaceships and so having something to shield them is a very good idea because the neighbors do not want to look at those things. So, it's probably best for everyone to accept a little bit higher building. That's all my comments. Um, does anyone have any further comments to make? Yeah, you know, you you speak to this multimodal concept and I think, you know, looking at a multimodal solution to um few is a is an important piece of this, you know, and there are a lot of people riding

bikes through that neighborhood, the Rio Grand Trail, the school. And so, um I encourage you guys to not only look at vehicle traffic, but multimmoal traffic through the corridor. Yeah. And it's not just bikes and pedestrians. It's weird things like scooters and recumbents and all kinds of strange things that people haven't even thought of yet. So, you know, you never know what's going to be on there. But, so to I I think just thinking outside of the boxes is a really good idea. And if ASHTO is doing it, we can do it, too. ASHTO, it's the American Association of Highway and Street Engineers, something like that. They're the they're the people who design highways. Okay.

And um they're coming out with a new version of their guideline soon. Do we have a motion to a motion to continue with the um 17th to the 17th? Yeah. the suggestions that we look into more creative traffic mitigation in the neighborhood as well as more creative building design. Yes. Oh, I forgot to say that. I got you covered. Yes, you got this is a we need to do that. The building is it's it's ugly and we can do better.

And I I I'll save my adjectives till next time, but it is it could use some help. Can I ask uh for some clarity just on traffic and the traffic studies as we've discussed maybe extending it out? So to Curtis's point, the traffic in and out of Southside was done in November on a Thursday. The traffic in and out of Meyers was done on a Tuesday in May. Uh and so looking at if we were to condition for more traffic, wondering, you know, if we can get a recommendation on that. And then also the applicant wanted to point out that uh traffic since uh the in-n-out was done on May 21st uh they've expanded operations and they have about 30 more employees from that time frame. So we would anticipate that that number would probably go up and so we just wanted to make those couple of points

and historically the average number of employees we've had over the last 10 years at around 100. The day of the traffic study we had 50 employees. I just want to clarify that. Okay. I I I think the best thing because we're not we're not qualified as a as a board. I think it's for for staff to negotiate with you guys is to Exactly. We just want something more creative as a board, but um and that it takes into account some of those other parts that have no effect that are not affected by what you're doing, but will be coming through what you're doing. So, I think for staff and the applicant to negotiate a more inclusive um traffic comprehensive comprehensive

Sure. comprehensive traffic study.

If I can, I'd like to just clarify a couple quick things regarding the traffic study. Um the goal here is for the applicant to demonstrate that the new use is not going to increase the amount of traffic that exists today. And so I just want to reiterate that to the public as well. It's to re it's to determine that the amount of traffic caused by the new development is no different than what exists today. It is not to count what happens at the high school or what happens otherwise because we already know that that's what it is. So I just want to be really clear as we're talking about what our goals are of getting more traffic counts done. So I think really the question for for the commission is are you comfortable with the singular day of traffic counts or would you like that to be re-examined?

I think we're pretty uniform and wanting it to be re-examined at some level. Right. That's what I that's what I heard as well, but I just wanted to make sure that we're all understanding the same. I think all all of us are the same thing. Okay. Perfect. Okay, Rob was you're in the middle of a motion. Yeah. Do we need to amend it to We talked about more creative traffic circulation and uh further traffic studies. Is that cover us? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. As well as more creative architectural consideration. Yeah. Okay. We have a first. I second. We have first. We have a second. All in favor? I thank you guys.

Motion is continue. Thank you all very much for your work. Thank you. Um, damn it. Well, we never got from the HOA traffic like Southside HOA. I know. I mentioned that last time. I'd like to hear from Southside HOA. Whatever HOA starts mill as well. And I said that last time.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay, let's see. intersections for a second. I'll cover this. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Well, that's just wonderful. Can you come back then? We're we're just guessing. Ben, why did you recuse? Is that I can ask, right? You certainly can. You know, I I work with I work for Kimley Horn. I have worked in the past with Curtis Row. um as a just to take any conflict of interest potentially in or out of it in the not but not currently. Nope. I'm not I mean I currently work for Kimley Horn. I'm not currently associated with this project at all. Okay. But Kimley Horn is associated as a traffic engineer with this with this project and as a employee of Kimley Horn I just thought it would best to you work for step outside.

Thank you for your um abundance of caution. Yeah, ethics are important. It's all we got to live by. All righty. We have a public hearing for accessory dwelling unit and community housing against it. Code amendments. Oh boy.

Yeah. Thank you. Um we have with us this evening we've got Christian Weber and Eric Cronold of Design Workshop. Um, as a little bit of background, this is a public hearing on code amendments to the accessory dwelling unit requirements as well as community housing mitigation requirements. Uh, essentially the changes to the ADU section are to permit ADUs throughout town in residential zone districts. Uh and then there are also adjustments to the affordable housing uh mitigation requirements that are proposed in the town code. Uh as a little bit more background uh in 2024, uh EPS uh concluded the housing needs assessment and out of that were recommendations that the town consider changes to the mitigation requirements as well as to develop an ADU incentive program. Uh the solid affordable community housing commission uh P&Z and council all reviewed uh concepts for changes uh to the mitigation as well as uh reviewed an ADU incentive program framework uh and passed several resolutions that were included in your packet. And so now design workshop has taken the next step to provide draft code amendment language. And so with that, I will turn it over to Christian and Eric uh to go over in more detail what the proposed changes are. Guys, can you hear us? Ah, yes. I'm sorry. I have to promote you to allow you to talk.

Okay, you guys should be able to talk now. Thanks, Jesus. I appreciate that. Um, yes. So, we have some slides. We'll just talk to them. What's the best way to go on this? Yes, I can do that. Just a quick second.

Okay. Perfect. Awesome. Okay. Um well good evening everybody. My name is Eric design workshop. Um uh you know we do the work of valley and the last years. Um next slide please. So as mentioned, we're going to spend most of our time today talking about the um that we made changes in trying to try to navigate with the community on some of the other work that we've done as well as here today. Um so just really start with the literature review looking at what other communities were doing um in the state um really understand what challenges are we seeing from the federal housing production standpoint and then what common or um uh what solutions are we seeing to try to to create try to incentivize or easy pathway for affordable housing while reading the literature show you we're also doing review the existing codes. So we evaluate the sections of the assault code to identify um what we thought are regulatory barriers uh that may affect the production of affordable housing within the community. Um we as James mentioned we worked with EPS for this project um really their

work focus on analysis they were uh looking into doing relative to commercialation has mitigation rates to see where this all fell where opportunities adjustments may lie. Um and you'll see some of those recommendations reflected in our guidelines. Um this work two two areas of work. First is restrictions mentioned earlier to you all last year. Uh and the second statistic this entrepreneur which is ready to use program. So we uh put together the framework submit to county council last year and now we're particular to try to bring some of that program to fruition. Uh next slide please. So we'll walk through these guidelines at a high level through this. Um the first requction and updated uh some of the other requirements um that we uh we also code we also housing we relocated the community housing definition to this act as well the other Okay.

through specifically uh the uh allowing our as all residential districts. Um and additionally section 16.31 we made some changes to um I'll say the directional requirements we're going to use um given a bit more lead in terms of maximiz address area and allow us. Next slide. Uh one of the biggest chapter 16 article 4 section 165 process. So uh current uh the addition to this would require that applicant to go through a rather arduous process for petition council staff that would last an or substantial modification. uh accordingly that um they uh were subject to approval. Um if they were disability, uh this would be approved by um so long as uh auh conform with the non standards being built in. Uh this is also an cases where there was conditions or uncertainty around uh the use of the standards whereby

for recommendation the goal for this is to just try to ease the process and to certain improve with the community. Next slide please. Um these uh for chapter 16 article 14 section 162 there is definition uh existed you removed it and replaced with the definition the definition this is where the changes were came into play so there were two uh two primary changes the first the community housing requirements currently 25% max res 20% total resation requirement EP recommended an opportunity for increase for either 30 to 35% of total square feet of residential development and 25 to 35% total residential units um respectively this isn't happens range. I think this is where input from this group would be appreciated as well as time um to see where where um the second change structure additionally The um recommendation was to decrease the detached exemption size to 1500 square ft and the detach exemption size 12,000 square ft. We

wrote this up to block and there was some concern from the group around um penalizing and putting additional burden on them. So we have two two options here. Um the first would be uh the initial recommendation which is just um uh uniform. The second would be aggregate. Um the exemption size resident occupied development um would be uh 304 and a non rescc occupied would be that 1500 square ft. Um really trying to get into burden on residents community. So since this is another question next uh additionally's work was some changes. So um they recommended a change for the new commercial development mediation rate to 30% new employees generated uh for 15%. um for us commercial development uh changed 15% rather than 10% and before whereas before it was only when you had project both in play higher on changing to be um both rates and these rates are made for alignment with what comparable located uh both in the Royport Valley and the western are further mitigation.

Next slide please. So those were the primary elements that the um existing code one of the other majes of our work was around actually creating a new conception. Um we're really in an effort to do a couple of key things. Um we wanted to um really consolidate information to make it easier for this uh to um find find requirements in the community. We want to additional clarity for folks um and really just create some additional clarity and pathways that hopefully um can uh can increase the community. Um finally um went to start to set up the framework for u an option we grant program. This was something that came out on our program recommendations that we uh we shared with town council last year or so that framework. Uh next slide. So uh we're going to be walking through this section and it's major. First uh section 16 right ability to verify his purpose of section for the public consistency of rules raised to ensure that there's town and uh to facilitate these as a means to further discrimination housing choices within the community and diversification housing stock. Uh the next section uh provides additional definition. So here we refer section 1612 where we located the uh the definition we also have in this particular section additional definitions and detach accessory or detach

applicability. This is where we uh we uh clarify that are districts. Um and uh for section 16 approval processes within developments. This is where we clarify um these streamlined administrative processes within. Um next uh section 16 development standards. Uh we this is where we establish uh clearly lots of science requirements requirements requirements for use um standards uh to try and support them also some compatibility um for uh section 492 occupies regulations. This is where we determ housing requirements. Um we also offer an alter. This is where I was expecting to set up settings for this grant tool program. So this section um clarifies eligibility if this program did come into play. This particular section verifies what are applicable if funds are used to construct that edu and then uh what types of restrictions may be required within anyone who receives funds for that particular brand. Uh finally section 163 um uh tax not performing at the time of this regition restrictions.

So, uh, it's a bit of a whirlwind through those, but I'm happy to open them up for any questions. And thank you. All right, let's uh let's uh offer up some questions. Ben, would you like to start? Yes. Uh, minimum ADU size requirements. Is my mic off on? Too high.

It's too high. Okay. minimum ADU size requirements. I think I saw you said it, you've raised it from 300 to 415. Um, we've already approved here as board with the Jadwin parcel studios at 350 ft. Is that what we 373? Weren't there variances that were provided for reduction in minimums at at BCC? the studio units were in the 370 range. Um, however, a ADU's that section that you're referring to is the R4 MD zone district.

Okay. And it had different standards than the rest of the code for ADUs. And so, um, just kind of making them all, um, uh, consistent throughout the code in terms of sizes is is what was proposed as part of that section. But the definition is still the same of it's a livable separate single family unit. So single unit. Yeah. Single unit. Yeah. with all means of eating, sanitation. I mean, I saw the definition. Correct.

Um, but yet we are approving variances below that in private development and and accessory dwelling units are different than multifamily dwelling. House is a house is a house, right? Well, under our code, these have these have prescriptive component to it that if you just meet those requirements, you get a you don't have to come to this board. Gotcha. So that's that's the prescription is that we are setting the bar high enough so that we answer. Yeah, we could skip the line. Yeah. No further questions.

Um I noticed the law minimum increase from 5,000 ft to 6,000 ft. Is that that's only in the R4MD zone district. Um, in the other zone districts that currently allow EDUs, like R3TN, the minimum size is 8,000. So, it actually came down from 8 to six. Okay. These amendments. So, it increased in R4 mixed and then dropped in others. Yeah. Okay. No further questions.

Questions? Ron, questions? Seems like a big stumbling block here is getting HOA buy in and was that addressed discussed any you know carrots incentives to to do that?

Do you want to respond? So part of the um task for the for design workshop during this process was to create um a template for individual HOAs to use to adjust their covenants to make um ADUs legal in their PUDS. We as the town cannot do that for them and and can't afford to do that either. So we're creating the framework to make it easier. Um down the road the council might decide to do some financial incentives for that. So right now this is the lowhanging fruit is to make it legal zoning wise. Okay, that was my Yes, that's low hanging fruit, but that's not going to move the needle like getting the HOA buy in.

Well, if it's not legal to start with, you're probably not going to try to change your covenant. So there's a little bit of that going on. So this is the first step, right? Okay. That said, uh, Design Workshop did reach out to various HOAs uh, throughout town and there was some interest uh, amongst some of the HOAs in potentially looking at legalizing after the town adjusted the code to permit them. Um, we'll see how many follow through with that. It'll be nice to touch back on that in six months and see if we've moved the needle.

That's all. I just had one clarification. It stated the max F that's relative to the house that it's being added to at 33. Okay. I think it's a great idea to make it as easy as possible.

Okay. I I have a question and I tried to parse this out. There's a lot of code to wade through, but I didn't see any part that required them actually to be rented or to be um to be used as a especially when we're decoupling them from affordability. Um how do these not become extra bedrooms above and beyond the F for rich people that I don't I can't see how it just seems like a giveaway, you know? It's like, yeah, you can add an extra bedroom.

Yeah. So, to get your permit for your ADU, it has to be more than an extra bedroom, right? It has to have the the cooking facilities and the restrooms and all of those things. Um, one thing we're seeing is that since they're not allowed anywhere right now, um, in town basically, um, there's not an incentive to make potentially bandit ADUs legal.

Yeah. Um secondly, the cost of construction is prohibitive. So you can't do it by zoning code. You can't afford to do it. So the next step after going forward here would be for the council to create uh an economic incentive such as a revolving loan program for property owners to afford to actually do it to get funds through that revolving loan program. And that's what um I was talking about earlier. You'd have to deed restrict the unit to build it

to get funds from the town. But this allows say because I'm seeing the people who are building houses in my subdivision and spending an extra half a million dollars on something is like, you know, he hey, an extra bedroom that F doesn't allow me to have. I could see that happening a lot. Yeah. So, we It's true. I mean, that is that is a risk. Um, one of the I think one of the restrictions in here is that you're not allowed to use it for STRs. Yeah, but you were worried about building a ADU and then having the in-laws live there, right?

Yeah. It, you know, you it's it's your property. You could decide who you want to live there, but the whole point of this is, you know, if you're getting additional ADR F Yeah. to build an ADU that that's meant to be used for workforce housing, not in-law housing. That's what I'm saying. Saying I don't see much uh workforce or community building component to this other than well the enforcement part or

I I I just see I see a lot of avenues for abuse of this That's all I I if I sat down and really figured it out and put my other hat on on how to abuse it, I could come up with a lot of ideas. Yeah, I think that that's certainly not uh something we haven't thought about. There's there's definitely going to be a difference in the market of what you can pay, right? Um what you can charge for your ADU. And not to say that it's um certainly not going to be category one rates.

Yeah. Um, we're just not going to get to that. Um, but what can happen here is that, um, longtime homeowners who need assistance replacing their roof

or doing something else can convert that basement apartment into an actual legitimized safe ADU that may not be up to code right now and feel good about it and not um, have repercussions from their neighbors because it's not legalized or or similar thoughts like that. Yeah, we're doing it to to bolster workforce housing, but there's nothing that makes that person use it as workforce housing. Well, it can't be used as an STR. Given them No, it can't be an STR, but we've given them the the pathway in then they can rent it out to whoever they want to for however much they want to.

We're taking, right? But it adds to housing. It does. But if I need a new roof, I'm going to the highest bidder, right? So, I mean, you could you could suggest maybe another avenue here is to suggest that they are resident occupied deed restrictions. That's the dream. But then you lose the buy in.

I don't know about that. But, you know, you have more flexibility on the price you're going to rent it for. you know, there is another potential tier system. you you could just for your basic ADU that's not getting any funds from the town uh require the primary resident requirement which means somebody has to live there you know as their primary residence and then have a second tier that if uh you're receiving funds from the town then it has to have uh income requirements on on the tenants and they have to satisfy by category incomes.

The the primary resident requirement makes a lot of sense. Yeah. I think that the the goal is to have actually somebody living in it as opposed to, you know, I've I've designed a lot of like pool cabanas that were, you know, they were like a full apartment, but no one was ever in it. And it's just a place where when guests come, you have extra place. So, you know, it's like instead of having them around a hotel, but I I I want to push back on the idea of like a mother-in-law suite is not a workforce housing, but it could also be child care offset, which is just as relevant to

Yeah. But that's a resident, you know? So, it's it's like I'm talking about not necessarily workforce housing, but community building housing where someone who lives in the community is in at least one of them. Correct. Which is usually the small one. And the big one is where the rich guy lives or goes to. But the rich guy more often than not is, you know, that this is their second home, not their primary residence. Yeah. Third or fourth or Yes. Seen it all. Yeah. So, you know, I just think we should have a mechanism in there to ensure that somebody's actually living in it. At least one of them.

I think I thought we used to have that that one of the for ADUs, at least one of them had to be resident occupied. Currently in R3TN, the deed restriction requirement is that one of the two units on the site needs to be somebody's primary residence. Okay. Eric is raising his hand. Uh yes.

Yes. Uh thank uh thank you. Sorry. I just did want to provide a quick point of clarification. Um in cases where someone has constructed an ADU using funds provided by the town, um the code does have this code this language does have a kind of enforcability mechanism where tenants must be eligible through a couple different pathways. Um, so they're either employed within the town of BALT or within the the three mile area. they're retired or disabled or previous previously worked with the town of Balt or that three mile area and that there is an employment verification done uh on an annual basis whereby uh uh we also just have clarifying language here that um tenant tenant that's related to the property owner shall be subject to those same eligibility requirements. So in that particular case, um it does uh kind of solve that loophole issue where um someone uh got uh you know funds from the town to construct this ADU and they want their you know kid to live there um but that that child has to meet these other requirements instead of just giving them a free place to live within the town.

That sort of answers the question. Thank you. Yeah, but that that's with town funds. I'm trying to think. I'm going to I'm going to pull something that's been used against us. Sorry. I'm going to pull something out of my pocket that's been used against us a lot. And that would be small town character. And it's I found it always really annoying when people talk about that. Don't call that exclusion brown people cuz that's wrong. No, I'm not talking about brown people. Okay. Because you've done that before.

We're not going to mention anything about brown people. I'm talking about density. If we're increasing density, we should get something for it. meaning people living in them as opposed to increasing density and just getting more empty houses. You know, it's important to me because I live in a subdivision that's threequarters empty houses now. And it's like it's just it's I'm microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Yeah. I I just think we we should get something for this and we should at least have people in some of them. My thoughts. Yeah.

Is is there a is there a fee offset that is required if it is not going to be occupied? or you're building the ADU and if it's you're choosing not to occupy it and you're just taking advantage of the program, then you are required to pay into an affordable housing fee or some something punitary that establishes the means upfront. I don't know how you hold them to the enforcement side of it, but

throwing spaghetti at the wall. Um, I guess really here maybe just to direct our conversation a little bit that this is really helpful by the way so I don't want to um throw that off but maybe it's really more about the use. Are we into the use of having ADUs everywhere and having these sizes work out? Some of these mechanisms we can go back and work through a little bit. We certainly wouldn't expect you guys to figure out the implementation there, but um prioritizing um whether one of the residents has to be occupied full-time or if we want to try to figure out I think we have a clause in here that um the ADU has to have a minimum six-month lease. Um and that came back to us from town council. Town council said, I think we started with a year-long lease actually and town council said that doesn't make sense. Six months is fair. You have ski co-workers, whoever else, six months is reasonable. So, that is a stipulation that's in there. Um,

I think to that end as well, I mean, you just described a potential community member who is not living in the three or not working in the three mile planning area, but a part of our community, right? Um, and it feels it feels rough to say, you know, the deed restriction is you're requiring them to be within these three miles. Yeah.

Yeah. I I think the three miles is too restrictive for exactly that reason. Sko employee. I think I may be speaking for the word. I think we're all in favor of the concept and that we think on the whole most actors will be good actors and have employees or other people in the community there. our sounds like our concern is those that aren't and how is there a way to to try to mitigate that through some language? Because the reason I bring it up is because Aspen did this and that's what they got. Right. Right. And as free TDRs, what free TDRs? Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

So, uh, you know, but as far as the concept is concerned, I think we're all behind making this prescriptive so it's easier to do and the size requirements are good. I think we're all on board with that. Um, and so really the the hangup for me and I think it sounds like some of you guys too is that it's who who's in it,

right? I mean, I live in Willlets and Willlets by code allows ADUs and I don't know all of them, but there's a lot of comm a lot of houses there that have ADUs and from what I can tell and from what I know, they're used by, you know, renting tenants who pay and are part of the community and it's very successful and from what I know of it. Mhm. Um I would say every fifth, every sixth house there maybe has has one and it works really well from what I know.

My friend that lives in Willlets has one, but it's not one of the houses that's allowed to have one. They made him empty it out, right? And that's exactly what we're trying to get here back into the housing pool. Right. And I know people recently retired in their 60s that are figuring out ways to bring in more cash flow and that have done this in in the region have added, you know, improved their basement and built another entrance and that sort of thing to make it to help to make ends meet in this very high high cost of living environment. So, we're all for it. Absolutely. Great.

Okay. What's our our end product here? Um uh we want a um public comments. Public comments. Well, I should open this up for public comment even though nobody's here at uh 8:11. Anyone online? No. So, let's uh close public comment at 8:11. And um we've had our discussion. Do we a motion to do what?

Um you would be making a motion to recommend um approval um to town council. You could include in your motion um with a condition to pursue um to emphasize occupancy. occupancy six month or longer occupancy encourage who would like to make that a res who would like to make a motion to that end you're welcome to say so

I will move move that uh as as written with the uh provision that we do something to encourage that those units be used language be inserted uh for council for the planning department to um look into language which would encourage the use of and occupancy by uh community members. There you go. Okay, we have a first. Do we have a second? Second. We have first. We have a second. All in favor? I. Thank you.

Okay, that motion passed. Um what do we have now? Um commissioner comments and staff updates. updates.

Uh I happened to be at the CAST Colorado Association of Ski Town meeting conference last week. Um and actually ADUs are a um doula program right now across the state. Basalt won't qualify because we're too small of a district, but there's state funds to promote exactly this conversation that we're having in bigger areas. So, we're not alone here. Um, Salida has adopted a comprehensive ADU code amendment. So, they're basically allowed everywhere, any size, no income restrictions, no deed restrictions. You just cannot use them for STRs. So they have had a um I think a 25% increase in ADUs in their town which is pretty exciting.

Salida Salida it's a totally different animal. Their building is different there all of the things but um it's been successful for them. So um Salida has a tremendous influx of micro housing too which I think is really interesting. 3D printed housing. There's the neighborhood. Mhm. Cool. It's wild. It's pretty It's pretty neat. A road trip. It's worth it. Definitely worth it. The town's changed a lot in the last 10 years. An annexation. Six annexations a year in the last five years. Yikes. Basalt news. What do we have today?

Uh next meeting will be February 17th, uh when you'll have 555 Basalt Avenue. uh and uh some other code amendment uh review um and potentially 72 sunset depending on whether it's figured out. I'm here to continue it just because yeah other code amendment stuff.

I think that's all for now. All right. Any comments from any of us here? No, I don't see any faces looking like comments. Um, do we have a motion to adjurnn? So moved. The first. Any seconds? Second. First. Second. All in favor? I. I. Thank you all. We do the over under. yourself.