P&z - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the town of Baal Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 17th. Can we have a call to order, please? All right. Uh, Bill Marin, yo. Kyle Obereter, Eric Foszic, here. Rob Levit, yes. Cindy Hersshfield here. Uh Mike Horvath here. Bob Kaplan and Ben Firestein here. All right, you have a quorum. Excellent. Uh first item on the agenda is to approve the minute minutes, excuse me, from February 3rd. Any comments, changes? If not, I'll take a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? I wasn't here.

Yeah. Okay. Likewise. Got it. Excellent. Uh, next item is a public hearing on 72 Sunset Drive, PUB amendment. We have a recommended action to continue the public hearing to March the 3rd. Excuse me. So moved. A second. Second. Second from Mike. All in favor? I. Okay. Excellent. Moving forward quickly. Uh, our next item then is continued public hearing on 555 Bissalt Avenue Special Review and Associated Development Review requests. I'll hand it over to staff to get us going.

Yeah, thank you. Let me please share my screen here just a quick second. Uh, we have the applicants here this evening, Justin and Ma, if you could please step up to the table. Uh, we've got Justin Freeze and Mike Blahett representing the applicant group. Uh this is a continued public hearing on an application submitted by MRE LLC uh for special review, PUB amendments, uh Southside PL flood plane review and associated land use actions uh to construct 54 commercial storage spaces and 45 multifamily residential units at 555 Basalt Avenue uh which is the Myers & Company property in Southside. side. Uh as discussed at the last meeting, the process includes land use requests uh requiring review by the Basalt affordable community housing commission uh which is Bach uh the PNZ as well as the town council uh with public hearings at both the PNZ and the council levels. Uh it also requires a subsequent subdivision uh review to condominiumize the uh residential. Staff has also identified that the requested development uh would require approval of a master plan amendment uh to amend the future land use map as well as the typology designation for the property. And so staff has included uh in your packet materials a draft resolution uh four amendments to the master plan uh for PNZ's consideration. Uh at the last meeting, the PNZ heard a presentation of the proposal uh and discussion items uh from staff and the applicants as well as updates on the conditions. Uh staff uh also uh suggested the applicant uh sorry the PNZ

take public comments and then the commission took uh discussion up on all the topics with the uh exception of the affordable housing related topics uh before continuing the public hearing. Uh so at this meeting, staff would suggest uh hearing more updates on the discussion items and conditions uh from both staff and the applicants. Uh also considering the resolution for the master plan amendment that's in your packet. uh and then taking public comments and providing uh P&Z discussion on the discussion items as well as the conditions uh including those related to affordable housing because the Basalt affordable housing commission has now uh made a recommendation on the application. Uh so with that staff would like to offer a brief refresher on the application. Uh the site subject to the application is a 4.8 acre parcel uh that houses Meyers and Company steel. Uh it's located in the Basalt business center south PUD and it's zoned industrial PUD and in the urban growth boundary. Uh it's also partially in the southside flood plane. Uh the proposal as has been uh identified at the past two meetings uh is to construct 54 storage units on the southern portion uh and then also 45 residential units uh in three buildings on the north portion of the site. Um just to get your bearings, this is the basalt park and ride. Uh and then you've got FU Lane up here to the south. Uh the proposed access to the uh storage spaces uh is from FU Lane and the proposed

access to the residential component is from East Cody Lane uh via driveway access. Um in terms of uh other aspects of the proposal uh the applicant has revised the affordable housing component uh in the overall number of residential units. Uh the number of residential units is dropped from 48 to 45 and the number of deed restricted affordable housing has proposed to be dropped uh from 12 to 11. Um, in reviewing the application at prior meetings, uh, staff identified a series of discussion items and we'll give some updates on various discussion items this evening. Uh, but PNZ uh, did uh, request some additional materials uh, at the last meeting. Uh the additional materials that you have in your packet uh include updated elevation drawings uh showing additional visual interest uh and the applicant can uh present those this evening. Uh there's updated traffic uh report uh that includes additional traffic count uh and also some additional analysis around East Cody Lane. And uh the applicant's uh traffic engineer is on the Zoom this evening. uh to provide additional comments on that. Uh it's also noted that the applicant received uh confirmation from C DOT about the ability to increase the number of trips on the sliver access piece uh which is located right here. Uh if you remember uh there was a limitation on this uh sliver access uh from C DOT that limited it to five vehicular trips per day. uh but CD dot has conceptually approved uh increasing the amount of

trips that are allowed there to accommodate the residential development. Uh going back to the discussion items and updates on the discussion items uh as I noted uh there have been some adjustments. Uh the first being consistency with the master plan. uh staff identified a series of goals and objectives from the master plan uh that could be furthered by the proposal in staff's memo in the last two meetings. Um it's noted that the amendments to the future land use map and typology designations uh would be needed and so there is a resolution uh in your packet uh for consideration for those changes. Uh the draft resolution would amend the future land use map designation uh to storage warehouse on the southern aspect of it and then to multifamily residential on the northern aspect where the residential proposed and then the uh typologies would also be amended uh to uh designate the property as multifamily residential. Uh other topics include the level of affordable housing mitigation uh and the mix of affordable housing mitigation. Uh the Bach committee originally reviewed the proposal and recommended that the uh project incorporate more larger affordable housing units uh since all the units were uh smaller uh one-bedroom units. Uh the applicant responded by combining studio and one-bedroom units in each of the three buildings uh to create three two-bedroom units uh in the project. Uh in doing so, they reduced the number of units total uh from 48 down to 45. Uh and they reduced the

number of affordable housing units from 12 to 11. Uh the revised mix of affordable housing deed restricted units that are in the project include one studio uh nine one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom unit. Uh the applicant also changed the proposal to make the all of the units uh a for sale product instead of the originally proposed rental product. Uh in total the revised program uh yields uh 24% of the residential units and 25% of the residential square footage uh being deed restricted. Uh the talent's current affordable housing requirements are the 20% of the residential units and 25% of the residential square footage has to be deed restricted. Um, it's also noted that this is a mixeduse project and so the town code currently requires that the higher of the residential and the commercial mitigation be applied to the project and then the lower of the two be forgiven. Um, this is in the process of changing through code amendments that the planning and zoning commission reviewed at the last meeting. uh but that uh requirement is still in play uh for this project. Uh Bach reviewed the revised affordable housing program and they were supportive of the change to for sale units uh since the town has very few for sale units in the inventory of affordable housing. Um Bach was also accepting of the percentage of units and square footage uh that's proposed to be deed restricted in the revised program. Uh Bach did recommend that the average category of the units actually be bumped up to category 3 uh with the change to the for sale product.

Um they had a concern that with the lower category of units uh that uh potential purchasers might have uh difficulty getting loans to actually purchase uh the lower category of units. Uh so they've recommended a category three average uh for all the restricted units. Um the applicants also eliminated the need uh for the waiver from the exterior storage requirement uh because the applicant was able to accommodate storage units uh in the building uh and they can speak to that. Uh so ultimately Bach reviewed the revised program uh and recommended approval of the revised program. Uh so staff has updated the draft conditions to reflect the revised development program as well as box uh recommendations. Other topics uh for consideration included the traffic. Uh as I mentioned, the applicant updated the traffic counts uh in response to concern about uh there only being one uh days worth of traffic counts uh identifying the existing traffic. And so they did a second uh traffic count. And uh you've got a letter from the applicant's traffic engineer uh that identified the conclusion of the second traffic count. Uh basically uh the second traffic count was higher than the initial traffic count that was done. And so that uh further substantiated the conclusion of the traffic report uh which was that the proposed traffic would not exceed the traffic from the Meyers current operations. Uh and the applicant's traffic engineer also provided some discussion in the letter uh about East Cody Lane and how the queuing would work on East Cody Lane. And so the applicants

engineer is on the Zoom and we'll discuss that uh further as part of the applicant comments. Um the conditions continue to reflect a requirement for the applicant to contribute to the uh mini roundabout and lanage improvements at the Cody Lane uh Basalt Avenue intersection uh which would get rid of the traffic signals uh split phase uh to improve the intersection um performance. Uh other topics included the uh FU lane. Uh FU Lane has been a significant discussion item thus far. Uh emergency services, the police department, and the town engineer have been interested in having the applicant widen to a full two lanes of width uh for two-way traffic. uh given that the current few lane uh cross-section uh basically narrows down to one lane at points. Uh the PNZ at the last meeting expressed a desire for exploring alternatives to the full two width two-lane width uh that can be more friendly to multimodal uses uh and yet provide emergency services and the police department uh with the access that they need uh from an emergency standpoint. Uh so staff and the town engineer believe it's appropriate to have a third-party traffic engineer evaluated to make recommendations to the town council before the town council uh makes any decision on a final plan application. And so staff has adjusted the conditions of approval uh to require uh that uh in the conditions uh and then also uh still has the dedication of a 10-ft access easement on the applicant's

property uh in case the town were to desire to widen it in the future. Uh so the town would have that additional room for that potential. Uh so that's included in the revised condition. Uh the applicant also provided uh revised elevations uh which is kind of the final discussion item. Uh the revised elevations are in your packet and also staff sent some updated versions that the staff received from the applicant today. Uh and we sent those and there are copies at your seats for review. uh and the applicants will go over those as part of their staff com or applicant comments. U so this evening staff would suggest uh hearing additional applicant comments on the updated items uh taking public comments and then providing PNC discussion. Uh if you're comfortable, you could uh provide potential motions on both the master plan amendment resolution as well as a development application. uh staff has identified uh several decision options uh for the P&Z. Uh you could recommend approval with the conditions that are drafted. Uh you could direct staff on changes to the conditions and recommend approval with adjusted conditions. Uh you could recommend denial. Uh or you could provide direction that additional information is needed and continue the public hearing. So, with that, I will stop sharing my screen here and uh turn it over to the applicant group. We've got Justin and Marah. And let me pull up your presentation. There we go.

Okay. Here we go. All right. Uh good evening, commissioners. Uh thanks for having us uh back. Uh I'm going to touch on uh and try and keep uh the format of James' uh discussion items just so we can kind of keep uh some organization there. Um so uh originally uh I just want to open with kind of discussing the project from uh the initial concept to where we are today. Um so you know when my uh firm got engaged with uh the Meer Steel uh ownership and we wanted to look at how do we rightsize development? How do we make an appropriate proposal for redeveloping this site? Um, you know, as an industrial zone district, it was partially about how much industrial is right size for that area. Uh, it's a heavy industrial use right now that straddles kind of Cody Lane and some smallcale industrial with residential housing behind it. And so, a lot of this site planning that we've done from the start was what is appropriate, what is the right scale, uh, and then how do you add housing into that? because it's an industrial district as well. And so, you know, we looked at more housing, we looked at more storage, and we feel like we've settled in on a site plan that really offers the best of both worlds because this is an area that really wasn't conceived of as a lot of housing, but it's right next to the raft to park and ride and uh transit oriented development uh would be very beneficial here. Uh we think it provides uh more housing than that was anticipated. It provides a storage unit type that is in demand. Um because there is self storage in this district, but it's more smallcale, you know, 10-ft garage doors.

It doesn't accommodate typical RVs or larger uh equipment. Uh there are trade contractors that like this type of um uh storage unit as well. Uh right now I'm aware of uh similar development in Aspen that's fully sold out by the airport and there is a similar development going on in Glennwood Springs of about 30 units of which half have already sold out. And so it is a a type of storage that uh isn't readily available nearby uh that is in demand. Um and it also the proposed development does remove a heavy industrial use that is directly you know abuing a residential district. And the other thing that we've talked about in all of the meetings uh we've been and we'll talk about tonight is traffic. And so as we looked at this we had to look at the uses that generate a lot of traffic and uh and less so. And so that was also how we kind of settled in on this the number of residential units, the number of storage units. Uh and you'll see that through the traffic studies that uh we had previously and that we had done uh just last week. Um so with that, I'll probably have you jump to the next page. Uh so again, we've got the aerial uh images, both the regional one and more of the local of the Southside business district uh for reference here and jump to the next page. Um, so we've expanded this page uh from our previous presentation to do the overlay of the uh the real kind of local uh aerial to see the raft parking lot to the north uh the 525 mixeduse building uh to our west. We've got an open contractor yard and the gas station to the west and then fuel lane coming down to the south. Uh just for some context there that we can uh use to look at Um,

and I'll have you jump to the next page. So, this is the um our flood plane map. Uh, we went through multiple iterations. We actually had uh originally six storage buildings with a few more units. Uh, because of their layout, it was providing um it was essentially holding up the water and in a 100red-year event, it would um it would back up onto the property to our east. Uh so this is the resultant of uh a couple rounds of revisions with uh public works and engineering uh to provide a site plan that would meet the 100red-year and the 500year events for FEMA flood planes. This also resulted in the residential buildings being lifted off the ground to allow pass through the site in one of those events. I jump to the next. Um, in looking at the allowable uses in the industrial PUB, uh, we've we have further limited the heavy industrial uses, uh, heavy traffic uses, uh, so that if anybody wanted to use their storage unit as a small shop or a fabrication area, they could through what's allowed in the industrial district currently. That being said, we are proposing that the HOA would limit this to only a secondary place of use, more in a storage type of use, not in a primary place of use, hosting, clients, guests, things like that. So, that language has been added into our proposal uh in the event that anybody were to use this as a as a personal warehouse or a flex warehouse for their business. Uh we also believe that limiting factor uh keeps traffic to a minimum versus uh heavier warehouse and industrial type uses. Uh so anything uh in red here or yellow are categories that red has been fully restricted. Uh yellow now becomes uh

from an allowable use becomes a special review use. Uh and for the most part everything on the left hand side is smallcale. Um I can give you some examples from that. Touched on them some last time but they are um machining, printing, plumbing, electrician, sheet metal, upholstery, general repair, uh artwork, ceramics, furniture, something like that with uh uh we're seeing more or less smallcale contractors or um small businesses like caterers use this as overflow space. I'll jump to the next page. Uh so since our last meeting, we went in front of the Bach Commission last t last Thursday. Um as James pointed out, what we did was reduce uh one of our one one of our studios from each building, combined it with a onebedroom to provide a two-bedroom unit. So now in lie of just providing all onebedrooms as deed restricted units there's a mix of a studio a one-bedroom and then nine one-bedrooms uh giving that a mix and we have changed from rental units to for sale units. Uh in discussion with Bach uh we did uh agree to shoot for a category 3 uh as James mentioned to allow for the affordability to buy the units since they're now for sale and not for rent. um they seem to uh receive that uh pretty well. And you will see uh so what we did here is show the first level, second level, and third level of a typical building. Uh this is the building that actually has the two-bedroom unit, which is on your lower right in the center. Uh two-bedroom, two-b unit. Uh and then there's a studio unit up on the top right of the third floor. Um the one of the considerations

and one of the requests we also accommodated was on the lowest level to provide storage closets. So we have shaded in orange the affordable units but then also it would be a deed storage closet at the headend parking of their parking space that's deed restricted to that unit. Um so that would allow them first floor access for bikes, skis, any sort of gear. uh and it would be deed restricted to the unit. That way someone wouldn't be parking in front of it and trapping that in. They could just move their car and uh access storage closets. Uh that also allowed us to add six storage closets for the market rate units as well. So we added uh in total four or 10 storage units. Uh there are a total of 15 units per building. So some of the larger units we would would probably go without storage at this time. Uh and all of that would be deed restricted to the unit carry with the unit uh also with the parking space. Jumping to I I think um I'll jump back one more thing on uh on the Bach was so we originally had 48 units because of the reduction we went down to 45 units. Um we originally were at 25% and 25 25% of the area 25% of the units with the reduction down to 40 from 48 to 45 units we went to 11 deed restricted units um that maintains it's essentially 24 a.5% um and uh we felt that was still in line with total number of units uh being offered and total number of units being uh offered as deed restricted. U just being one percentage off or a half percentage off the previous um

application. Have you jump to the next one? Uh one of the items we talked about uh previously was building height. Uh with some of the design revisions, we now have sloping roofs. Uh basalt zoning code measures the sloping roof to the midpoint of the average of the slope. Uh we are still carrying that kind of 37 12 to 38 foot range. Uh so I we've updated uh the building section to show those adjusted heights. We're essentially still showing the 35 foot to the top of the flat roof and then as it slopes up the midpoint of that slope is right in the 37 to 38t which is similar to the parapit height we had previously shown in in our uh drawings at the last meeting. So this is the site plan that James has showed you. Uh more for context just to show the next couple discussion items were pedestrian connectivity and site connectivity. Uh so we've got north to the right. We've got the Cody lane uh access with walk added at the raft lot. Um, as James mentioned, uh, CD DOT has provided a access permit offer to the applicant to provide for both the storage traffic and the residential traffic. Uh, and it was approved for the previous 48 units. So, the reduction down to 45 uh, should be no problem. Uh, as far as the C dot access permit goes to Cody Lane. Uh, I could jump to the next. Uh so this is looking again at the Cody lane access uh the drainage ditch and the sidewalk and and the existing conditions currently. Uh so we uh top right picture we aren't able to bring a sidewalk uh down to connect over because we've got landscaping and utility. Uh

and so we are working within the C dot access uh to bring the sidewalk around and connect to where you see those uh traffic cones in the lower right. and I'll have you jump to the next uh this is the graphic from the last meeting. Uh the heavy red line is the property line for the raft lot and then that is our proposed sidewalk crossing from the 555 property around to the C dot access and then wrapping uh around through that little triangle in the corner is an access easement agreed to between C dot and raft. Uh and so in our discussions with both RAFTA and C DOT, uh the access allows for a sidewalk there. And so we would just need to through our construction drawings, uh complete that and probably do some rework to the drainage ditch in that area. I'll have you jump. Uh this is jumping over to the few lane side. These are the existing conditions currently. So there is a 8ft tall 8ft tall fence 6 or 8ft tall fence currently and that's right up on the property line uh of fuel lane and so the proposed development actually eliminates that fence and creates a 20 foot might be 30 foot um frontage to the closest building uh and creates a path that both uh the fire district has asked for but also be a public usable path to walk on. Um that would eliminate people really walking down few lane at this point. Jump to the site plan. Uh so here we have kind of an enlargement of that area. Uh we've got the soft path that uh goes along the back side of the buildings. Uh and then the landscape. You'll see the existing circles or the circles that are black

and white are the existing trees we're proposing to save. uh we believe most of those have at least 50% life or better based on an arborist report and they are also some of the tallest trees uh on the site and in the area and so the that is what is making widening few you know one of the discussion topics um a bit of a difficulty would be the elimination of landscape to widen it uh you'd be eliminating some fairly mature trees at that point Um, the applicant I is open to either making it a two-way or a one-way. I believe based on what we heard from uh the neighbors in the district last week, a one-way uh would be looked upon more favorably uh in that, but we're looking for some guidance from the commission and the city as to, you know, what would be preferred there. I think we would be able to accommodate either of those. um it would really just be upon that guidance and and so looking for some more direction there as to how best to proceed. And then I'll jump to uh last part of the pedestrian connectivity and traffic that uh this is the construction management plan that we showed last meeting. Uh this was one contractor's initial take as to how they would uh proceed with construction to the site. Uh this was accessing the site from Basalt A through the roundabout and then leaving the site out through the C dot access and through Cody Lane. Uh one of their reasonings behind that was to not have large tra uh tractor trailer or dumpster or dump truck traffic u waiting to turn left onto Cody Lane. Uh so bringing them into the site a bit further uh and then exiting them out so

that they could then take a right off of Cody Lane onto Basalt Avenue. Uh exiting the site. Um other than that, pretty simplistic as far as just a centralized job site, trailer, centralized staging, uh and then trash dumpsters for for both sites depending on how construction would be phased. uh with uh and then the red line throughout would be construction fencing. Jump to the next. Okay. Uh and then wanted to touch on the topic of design uh that was brought up in the previous meeting. Uh and so um one of the things we've really focused in on is the site is really a transitional site between uh industrial and residential. Uh and so we've got some images of uh the buildings in the area on the left. Uh we've got the the mixed juice kind of flex industrial space uh right at the roundabout across from the gas station on the top there. The uh 525 mixed juice building on the left. Uh the uh new domestic center uh going into the area at the u far east end of Cody Lane. Uh and then the new housing over in Stats Mill. Uh wanted to show all of these to show that a lot of them are a mix of metal um and of some masonry or um some siding elements. You know, typically the more residential elements are siding uh and metal whereas the more industrial type buildings are uh a masonry and kind of a mix of metals. Um, and also looking at this, we wanted to kind of celebrate the the site and its steel heritage. Uh, and so we looked at, you'll see in the lower right some historic kind of mining images, looking at steel mining head frames or looking

at elevated mill buildings and how um, they could possibly apply to uh, the architecture we were providing on these buildings. And in the top right, we've got some imagery of alpine style buildings. we um we took some inspiration from uh whether they were new hospitality uh buildings that we've seen in other mountain towns uh or even then looking to kind of typical alpine uh the the lower left in that kind of fourpack on the right uh is a uh western Alps northern Italian ski town style village. uh we really looked at the vertical wood sighting of that and we've been uh looking at that application. So then I'll have you jump to the next page. So that is the evolution of the design from the previous meeting. So from the previous meeting we had a much more flat uh kind of extruded type of uh architecture. In this, we've uh created some new roof lines with sloping and variation uh to really kind of break down the massing and not just give a block that's lifted up. Uh we've also to celebrate the the steel history of the site a little bit more. Uh traded out the stair towers for and they were stone in a previous rendition. Uh we traded them out to treat them like a steel head frame uh from a mining uh type uh appearance. Uh also adding some additional steel detailing at the top at the at the fascias uh wrapping the bottom of the building and they are the you know kind of oversized steel columns lifting the building up out of the ground um and providing this new view to show kind of the size and the scale uh of the buildings. And we have, you'll

see the roof lines kind of vary along that rafta uh face there. Uh also showing uh the exterior patios and you'll see some of those storage units that we added in uh in that front view there. Uh and giving you some idea of the scale between the flex warehouse storage buildings and the residential buildings. I'll have you jump to that. And then that is that same first image just giving you a better idea of the overall development. Um and the storage building. I think we're stealing some of the uh kind of that roof monitor um popup of the building across from the the shell station, but th those also are providing light into those storage units when people are in there. So they're not just caves. Uh so every storage unit essentially has daylight uh along with um uh the revised design to the residential buildings. Um so I think you know with our changes we have really um made accommodations to a lot of the discussions items that we started with in the first meeting. uh whether it was making revisions for the affordable housing um changing of the design uh and uh the last one would be the traffic uh the traffic study that we had done recently that James touched on uh showed traffic uh very similar to the one two years ago. Uh and with the reduction of residential units, uh it does show that traffic in and out of the site would be reduced by about a total of 13 trips daily. Um so the overall development, you know, is still respecting trying to reduce or be a reducer of traffic uh in the area. So with that, I will um open to hear your questions and comments.

Any questions? Just just one quick one. Can you remind me are the storage units for sale or rental? For sale. Okay. Yep. How many uh employees do you envision working in the on site or the storage units? So when we did the full-time equivalents, we had nine. We had calculated about nine based on industry data that we had available. Um, and I appreciate the changes to the architecture. No questions.

Um, more so questions for the town. This project is required to contribute to the roundabout project. Yes. Mhm. What is the trigger to initiate that project or is that just something that's once there's enough enough funding collected? Um or how how does that work?

Yeah, it's it's based on the amount of funding that can be collected. Um there is uh a contribution that's required from basically all the development in Southside that occurs and originally it was set up to fund uh basically 500,000 worth of uh funding towards that roundabout. Um costs have went up since the roundabout was originally designed and required. Um, we anticipate uh potentially going into design, kind of a a final design in the next couple years here. Uh, it was chosen by council not to do the final design at this point this year. Um, so there isn't really a trigger. It's it's uh trying to collect enough funding to make the project work.

Okay. Um, no other questions at this time. Um, I apologize I missed the first couple meetings, but um, for my own interest, are you able to reuse any of the existing infrastructure for any of the the units, any of the the storage units or anything of that nature? I don't know that we've looked fully into that. Um, there there could be some slight possibility, but yeah. And then um I saw a blip on it. No issues with meeting the green building requirements or anything else?

Nope. At this time, we're aware of that and it would be the intent to meet all of the green building initiative, uh fire hardening code, all of those items. Uh but really not having gotten full depth into, you know, construction drawings. Um we are we're acknowledging those and and will meet those goals. Okay, great. Um have a question of staff if you don't mind. Go ahead, James. If this actually were a mixeduse development like envisioned by the master plan, can we guess how many units and jobs would be on the site?

Well, uh, we had a calculation in the housing memo. Basically, the the mitigation requirements are, you know, for residential and commercial. Um the the residential is the what is being uh provided for with the 11 units. Uh but because we have the commercial and the mit uh residential mitigation requirements and we take the higher and forgive the lower. No. So so the total would would be basically another three units on top of the 11 for the commercial. Is that what you're asking? No. 14.

Had it been a mixeduse development as envisioned by the master plan? Yeah. Not this uh proposal. Given the sight of the land and the size of the lot and everything, how many units would there be there and how many jobs would be there? Because it would be h because it have to be mixed use commercial. It it's not that it's not that detailed in the master plan. Okay. Yeah. There's just too many options for what the commercial use could be. best. Yeah. But but it's being considered as a mixeduse project anyway as a whole. So from a mitigation standpoint, right? I got that. Okay. Thanks.

And to James, your point then if we didn't do an either or but we combine it, it would be 14 units instead of 11. Yes. Correct. Any other questions pop up? Yeah, I actually have a followup. Um, can your traffic engineer talk a little bit about, you know, we've touched on traffic numbers. Obviously, the flow of traffic is changing significantly and pushing more traffic on the Cody lane. And can he discuss the impacts to that intersection with the increased traffic on Cody versus FAW F. I'll get it right once.

Yes. members of my commission service I'm traffic engineer traffic study professional engineer in Colorado also professional traffic operations manager 32 years experience I worked for the town on the salt southside study and I think due to that my dad suggested that you help with this project since I'm very familiar with the salt southside area great budget with regards to the co lane and avenue of the intersection. Um that's something that we've we've evaluated here between our plan meetings. Um the uh shift of residential traffic to lane actually improves the operations of lane intersection. Um it's better for the exiting traffic to queue at the south sign on westbound road approach rather than along northbound Salt Avenue because it's all about keeping that intersection clear so that can turn to and from avenue to code and so actually shifting that residential traffic to lane provides benefit as we mentioned few lane uh few lane going to see a significant reduction in traffic volume uh because most of the traffic generated by this development will actually be determined from the code rather than lane. Uh few lane traffic will be the storage unit traffic only contain residential. Uh then we did check the southbound left turn at the code intersection for the coming home traffic and it's the same with project.

Uh we're showing just one vehicle of Q storage there and it works at level service. Uh keep in mind that this development generally regular volume um in the in the afternoon peak hour um there's 14 southbound less and one car um that would be riding in the peak hour and so that can you know very easily spread out and accommodated in that section. How many vehicles are able to um be accommodated in the left turn lane on the Cody off of assault?

Um I would say that it can accommodate four to five for you know backing into the high spacing. Um, as mentioned, you know, we're working towards roundabout at that intersection and so the cues from both round and existing control were checked and they work acceptably in those conditions with this project. Okay, thank you.

Awesome. If there are no more questions, we'll open up for public comment at 6:48. If you wish to comment, please come up to the microphone, state your name, your address, and if you can keep your comments just about two or three minutes, that'd be great. And we'll go one at a time. Yeah.

Thank you. My name's Andy Rothschild and I live at 409 Meadow View Lane in the Southside neighborhood right near Allison. And I was not aware of this development till maybe a week ago. So I then read the sign. I emailed James. He was very kind to send the development materials to me. I and I only have one comment and I don't know if you've heard from other residents of Southside on the same subject. The current 8-foot privacy fence I think has been a benefit to those in our neighborhood while the Meyers operation has been there. If I understand the proposal, it'll be removed. uh and I guess I have a concern about what will uh provide the privacy as an equivalent to what currently is there. Um and so that's a a concern I raise for everyone to consider. Uh and the second point is F Lane, which I just learned to pronounce by the way, uh has also been an important uh access in and out of our side of the Southside neighborhood. And so I don't know, I heard the comments about the emergency services and the like and where that might go. Um, we certainly hope it won't become a more heavily traffked area and I heard the traffic comment a minute ago. Um, and so, uh, what can be done to on the one hand allow us the residents there to continue in and out there and not have it to be overly burdened would also be appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi again. I'm Stacy Stokes. We actually live at 221 East View Lane and 223 Alexander on the corner. So, I see a lot. I see a lot of traffic. Almost saw a kid get hit the other day by a car. That intersection is a nightmare. Few lane is a nightmare. Um, sorry for all the typos in my email. I was in a hurry. I got chastised for it. Um, if you look at F Lane, you guys have seen pictures. It's basically an alley. We don't even have a street sign and the road itself is our driveways along the entire road. So, if someone slips or someone goes into those road, they go right onto our property. I've almost been hit. I watch my grandson like a hawk because he goes and plays on the driveway. it. In my opinion, it should for safety purposes be two lanes until the big rock where you've got um NJS farm and the entrance into Meyers now so that people can come in and go out so that the people dropping their kids off can use her roundabout to go out and then have I know they propose a soft path. I think more like a six foot wide hard path would be better so that if few lane is needed two lanes for emergency access or something happens on Basalt Avenue and you need to reroute traffic, you've got it. It can all be a level service. I referenced in my letter, we do this in Florida, specifically in Monroe County. If anybody wants any information, I can certainly get it from our county commissioners or anybody at the county. We have roads in Florida that are two lanes until there needs to be an

evacuation and then they turn to six or they turn to four, but they purposely keep them at a minimum of either, you know, in this case a oneway, but then they can turn into a two-lane road in a heartbeat for safety purposes. And they do it there for hurricanes. We do it for a lot of reasons, but mainly because on US1 they can keep the speed limit at 35, 45, and 55 is the fastest. Otherwise, if it goes higher than that, it does have four lanes somewhere in there. But people drive 85, 90, people die on that road all the time when it can be too high. I don't want to get too much into that. That's just there are places that do this. There are places that use roads in a dualpurpose manner. And then if we had a hard path, we would be encouraging bikers, strollers, children, walkers, instead of a two-lane road, then we lose all that space because there's not enough space for them to provide place for pedestrians. And I see people that is the access for Stoz Mill for Southside. Also, if we don't make fuel lane, keep fuel or make fuel lane a one-way road into the neighborhood, traffic is going to increase on Meadow View. It will increase on Alexander and it will increase on Allison. I already see the high schoolers do it. And I mean I'm not I listen I have I have kids. They drove. They got their whole thing. I'd like to see more people walking and biking in Basalt. I hate driving around town. I think it just is better. It's greener. You know the whole thing. Um, but I when I was young, I saw a kid get killed by a car and it was just my seven-year-old friend and a 17-year-old kid. And we watched him die on the street and I don't ever want that to happen again. And I really don't want it to happen in Southside. And the way that traffic is now, somebody's going to get hurt. We need a safe place for the kids to ride their bikes, for families to walk, to

get in and out of a daycare center. We've got a park up on Meadow Lane or Meadow View. The kids from Stos Mill walk there. I know that the traffic from this particular development isn't going to increase per se on few because if it'll turn around and go here and they'll go in. I'm worried about what's going to happen in Southside neighborhood. So, thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Any other comments? We we have a hand up online here. Uh, John Fitzpatrick. John, would you like to make comments to the PNZ?

Looks like you're on mute, John. John, there you go. Yes. Yeah, we can hear you now.

I'm president of the East Homer Association. My question to the traffic engineer didn't seem like it was a specific study. How much traffic will be added on to Cody Lane from basically zero down that that area to what it's going to be as you know main sources of heat press to the natural area. Um, so I just I'd like to see what happens with that. Um, the other thing is, you know, this thing we ended up doing the roundabout roundabouts to make it flow. We have no shots. Everything keeps going. But the only the pedestrian is mean there. All the license closes, everybody who walks goes under town. Um that's going to be totally impacted by not not having a stop anymore to make true roundabout flow. I think um really town needs to look into extending the underpass past to make that really safe access for bicycles and pedestrians really down to we need another form of east of the whole south side and that needs to come down outside probably and you know I had no problem with great residential area everything that lines

that way with the uh with with the public transportation but that the whole southside really needs more joint more building over there until we have another eress into the town into 82 and I'd like to hear from the traffic at that time.

Thank you, John. Maybe we'll keep go. If there are any more comments and then we can come back to Curtis, I guess there are no more comments. We'll close the public comment time at 6:57. Um Curtis, did you hear John's comment? Would you like to comment on that?

Yes, I did. That's a great question. evaluated as part of the southside project from our camp has a peak hour volume of 132 vehicles per hour. Uh this project we add 26 trips um to that so that we increase from 132 to 158. That's roughly uh you know almost three per minute. Um and so that volume is low enough it works u the access works the west actually uh is a negligible traffic volume increase it's better for that traffic actually to access lane because of that volume also because of the control overall and queuing those vehicles on west approach rather than having that traffic onto lane and the north avenue approach to lane. So there should have been traffic to the access for the residential will provide a overall network benefit to traffic in and out of this area.

Thank you. Yes, I will open it up for commissioner comments. Mike, you want to get us going?

Um, sure. I think that you know the traffic flow in and around this project is is important to make it a successful project. I've spoken on the location and the feasibility of transit and those uses aligning um with the multif family and the transit right nearby. I don't know if I necessarily have a a comment um but want to discuss the third-party traffic study that's going to be requested by the town. What are we what are we studying? Are we studying one a oneway versus a two-way? Are we studying pedestrian movements? What exactly is the um desired outcome of that study? What do we what information do we want out of it? I think we generally want a recommendation on the oneway versus the two-way and and the two-way widening approach versus the existing two-way and and you know I think our uh kind of inputs are h how do we also uh make it work uh well for multimodal in terms of pedestrians and bicyclists being able to use it without um having having concerns of safety. Um there there have been several different options thrown out by various members of the the public uh in in providing ideas. Um those included the the oneway, they included uh the widening to two ways uh and and and having two full lanes. uh they included

a potential uh separated two-way where you have one way on FU and then you have uh the other way coming back on what's currently the Somerset uh pedestrian path. Um so there's there's many different options to kind of consider there. So, I think we'd like to see the third party traffic engineer kind of evaluate all those and and make a recommendation on how it works best from both traffic flow but also from kind of uh accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists in the area as well. Okay.

If I can just add to that really quickly, the town of Basalt public works manual has standards for all of the streets and what size they need to be and what the widths are. And so what we're trying to do is navigate the input we're getting from the neighbors um with those standards. If we just followed the standards um we would automatically be widening this to a two-way full-size um two-way street. So we're trying to navigate some datainformed decisions about whether oneway street is is the right answer here, one way with sidewalk, all of the suggestions that alternatives that James just mentioned. So that's what we're really navigating.

Okay. Would it be worthwhile from the town's perspective to do an open house with the neighborhood and the traffic engineer?

I mean, we we certainly could. I I just back to the point of I think we're we as staff are certainly very open to the one way, but I think we all need a little bit more data so that we're not pitting emergency services against the neighbors. We need to understand some actual um traffic flow analysis. We we'd probably also need to talk to the town attorney because they they currently are in a development review process and and whether you know we could step outside that process and you know take more public just a suggestion.

Yeah. Yeah. And so so that would be part of the question I think. Um, comment-wise, I think creating a hard surface trail versus soft surface trail that is usable to bikes, folks with strollers, um, something that could be used in maybe a one-way instance as a second route. So, maybe a more wider multimodal path that could be used for vehicles in in time of need is a is a um a positive in that sense. I don't have any other comments at this time.

I have some comments. Um uh first off, um I want to thank you guys for the revised elevations. I mean, you put a lot of thought into it and um the results are are much much better. Um especially your historical basis and all that. that type of thought is what I think projects like this in our town really deserve and I appreciate it. Um, I think that the uh the unit mix though smaller looks good in that it allows for a lot more livability and a lot more variance of of unit types. And I think it it's not going outside of the realm of what units in that price point can support. You know, unit mix-wise. there's not a lot of like, you know, three bedrooms or something like that that would sit there forever. Um, so I think that unit mix is good and operable and even though the affordable housing goes down a little bit, the the livability goes up. So that makes it makes it uh a good thing. Um, I think the revised storage is great. I think that's part of what adds to the livability of the whole thing. So I think that's a really good solution. Um, as far as FU Lane is concerned, um, this is a complex and thorny issue and I agree with the town's plan in the draft conditions of, uh, a third party study, though I don't I'm not really a big fan of the language you use there. I think if you put the language that you just read to us in in your presentation to us which talks about um you know a a you know a third party uh study uh based on multimodal and pedestrian friendly solutions. I do think that the the current and future uh AASHTO handbook green book is um has some pretty good solutions in it and the upcoming one

will have even better ones. So, and I think that type of actual, you know, uh, industry guidance will work well with the the basalt emergency management people and getting them on board with this because in a sense, this isn't really a road though people drive on it. It's more like kind of a bike path that people drive on, but then sometimes people go really fast. And so I think the the the up the overarching goal is for this to work well for the community and to keep kids from getting squished. Um I I could see it happening. Everyone can see it happening. So that's I I think all of those things can come together by um a neutral engineer with like industry recognized document solution. So I think that's a good way of doing it. So, as far as I'm concerned, the that draft condition, if we could just modify that language basically just to be what you said. Um, I'm okay with the revised building heights. You know, it just coordinates with underlining zoning and um your new roof design fits well with that. And so, that's all a good thing. And again, goes back to my comments about the uh um the rooftop compressors. They're going to be big and then you got to hide them and people will see them. And the way those those rooftop compressors that are non-freezing look, they're like kind of scary. They look like spaceships and so you need that to hide them. Um uh so therefore I'm okay with the draft conditions as written and with the master plan change. You know, I think we haven't talked about that, but I think the master plan adjustment is is is a worthwhile thing. So,

basically with other than what I said, the draft conditions as written sound great to me. Cool. Thank you, Bill.

I am stuck on the master plan. Um because I feel like I was I was beeping the horn when we did it to have commercial included in all the residential that we're envisioning because I had two kids in braces and in order to go to the orthodontist I had to go to Aspen or Glennwood and if once we build and we don't have place for commercial we're never going to have any commercial in basalt that just means more people living here driving to Aspen. Um, so that's my biggest hang-up is we're not adding jobs that that the master plan envisions. And if we want to go by what the master plan thought it was going to be, it wasn't industrial. It was going to be mixed use. Um, so you know, the housing near the transit I think is fine, but storage space while it's needed, do we need it in close to downtown Basalt next to a residential neighborhood? Could that use be could that land be better used? And if we're going to reszone it, could we resone it to something more useful to the community? So that's where I'm stuck. I'll speak to the um few lane thing first and I think that's a discussion that's long overdue probably for Southside. In fact, I almost feel like the whole the whole few lane thing is even separate from this development because I don't see, you know, cars are going to be turning off before going into it. Um but yeah, it's really more it feels like you're going down somebody's driveway when you go down it. I I can't I mean navigating one car down there is enough and they're not clear sight lines. Um so speed is an issue. Um and I just I I

can't reasonably picture it as a two-way street. So I would be I would definitely be in favor of looking at the oneway. Um, not I'm not really sure if how it would work if the now pedestrian thing at the end of Somerset was to become kind of a loop thing. I'm not not really I think that would need to be studied a little bit more, but um yeah, having traveled down feed lane a lot, I would agree with the oneway um change to it. And it was open to either. I'm sorry.

The applicant I believe was open to either. Yeah, but but again, as I said, I think I mean, it's worth a discussion in and of itself. I I wouldn't even, you know, I mean, I'm I'm not thinking of it in terms of this particular development. I think we just need to talk about it in general. Um, as far as the specifics of the development, I appreciate all the work that has gone into it. And I I don't like continually being the voice of doom and gloom. But for me, um you know, my my my priority, and I I don't think it's I know it's not just my priority listening to uh people try to find housing here, but is to increase the amount of um deed restricted affordable housing that we have available. And um you know I said last time and I still feel this way I would you know I I would ideally like to see 50% on this. Um, I know that Bach is not recommending that and so there's not really the teeth to put into that, but I do feel like we keep, you know, we as a commission keep seeing these proposals and we just keep giving away and giving away and we're running out of spaces to put employee housing near um in locations that make sense near near transit and near town. So, um, yeah, I mean, I I feel like I'm kind of a oneperson crusade fighting that cause, but that is my opinion on it. So, um, I'll let it rest there. As I enter into this after missing the first couple meetings, um, as a Southside resident, I've driven few, uh, numerous times, and I think having a third party study would be huge. Um, I'll go on the record right now saying the idea of turning Somerset into a a road is awful, especially with the hobby farm there just be just disaster. But we'll get the study and see what it says. I think it's important. Um, I want to echo what Rob was talking about

because as I was reading the notes and the proposals and I think you guys have done great work and met what people have been asking you guys and I think you're doing great. I had the same question. Another storage unit. you know, we just put in, you know, the storage units right there on Southside Drive and now we're doing it different and I understand it's a different type of storage unit. Um, but I'm not sure that's the best need for basaltt to echo what you're saying. Um, I'm torn because I like the multimotal. I like the access to to public transit. I like the mix of units which I think mitigates a little bit, Cindy, of what you talk about. I I tend to agree with you. The more the better, but the unit mix, we're not going to get a lot of the second homeowners like we're seeing in other developments in town. Hopefully not. Knock on wood. Of course,

just check the sales across the street for units the same size.

Same size, different location, different uses, but not that far. I know. Um, so that's what's going echoing in my head. Is is it the best mix use, you know, for that space? Um, and I appreciate what you answered tonight because you answered a lot of the questions I had about what it would look like. And you know, you might have um different types of storage units. I'm still not sold. That's what we need personally. So, that's where I'm left. So, here we are. Do you want to go forward with a motion? Do we want to talk through this? Well, I I could make a motion like I just talked about, but I don't see a lot of concordance with that, but I'll do it just to start the discussion.

Um, you know, I'll I'll make the motion to um uh uh recommend to to council that they uh review this uh based upon the draft conditions written uh with the changes spoken about. Not sure we'll get much support on that, but that's that's my feeling on it. Mr. Chair, if there's not a second, then you might allow the applicant to respond to some of the items brought up. Okay. Let me take a minute and see if there's any thoughts, any comments on bills.

If we whatever we vote, we're not voting whether or not it goes to council. We're just recommendation to council. Correct. It goes, I think. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Before I open up to the applicant, anybody want to respond to Bill or questions about that? I don't know if I have questions. I guess I'd like to hear more. I agree, Cindy. I don't think you're the only one who would love to see more affordable housing in this development. And I think it's a good spot for it, but I don't know if we have the teeth on this commission to to do anything about that. Unfortunately, we don't. But we can take it as it is or not take it as is. And then

the hard part is everything that's being proposed is allowed under code. Correct. So, and we don't really have a control over what they proposed. There is a master plan change. There is a master plan change and we can approve that. If not, I'm okay with it. Right. But so that is not currently approved. Yeah, that is not currently approved. But other than that, the the the um industrial to industrial is already approved. Yeah. Industrial to residential is would need a change. Yeah. And that's the part of it that we're generally okay with. the industrial to industrial that uh

I've spoken about the loss of industrial square footage, you know, in in the town and I think that's a different issue than the one we're looking at here. You know, I I think because of its proximity to transit, there's so few of those left. I think this is valuable at very valuable as housing and that's why I support it. Um, but I do worry about the loss of industrial industrially zoned land because I think it's necessary for the community, but that's a discussion that's broader than this project and this application. I think

if I could respond to that briefly. I think it's also um you know the the the the demographics and the need for it have changed a little bit because I remember when we toured the did the onsite like Mara was saying that one of the reasons they're um you're doing your your um moving miner steel to rifle correct is that most most of your workers are down there anyway so it's not like I I don't see that adding keeping more industrial in Salt to solving anything except making workers commute up here if there if if that's where there's going to be a job.

Combine the two thoughts. It's whether it's Meyers or some other industrial use and other office space and other things that accommodate the community. It becomes a storage unit for housing. But if you're well but if they're mixed use like envisioned in the master plan then you're looking at doctor's offices or accountants or architects jobs or people that live I guess I'm not thinking of those as industrial. Yeah there there's a no they're not they are mixed use and that's how it was envisioned. Industrial uses that aren't heavy steel fabrication which you know heavy steel fabrication used to be an acceptable thing on that parcel. Yeah.

Um and now it's not. But there's a whole host of other things that people who live here need like plumbers shops, appliance repair, you know, stuff like that that actually needs to go in places like that that if it doesn't then we're going to Rifle to get our stuff fixed. We already are. So that that's my feeling.

I mean, I have to admit, I've listened to Rob for a couple years now. I've listened to you for a couple years. I've tended to kind of agree with James like I mean uh with Bill, sorry, that this fits what we can and can't do. And I've usually voted here. I'm leaning more this way than I have in the past. Um right now, it's a tough one. If it was half my steel and half uh residential, we'd probably take it. And I and to be honest, if I didn't look across every single day at the now finished store or finishing storage units, I probably would have thought differently about storage units, but we just put in four massive buildings right there that weren't there 10 years ago, 5 years ago. And they're there because people want them.

Correct. And I I get that, but how much more? And what And what does storage units do? Second homeowners and people that, you know, you know, not here. See, are they community serving or not? Like if you have one yes but for everyone else and that's now we're getting discussion American yes yes we missed it for them but you mentioned that it's yeah

I mean do we think if it was more you know if it was some sort of more commercial and more of a public serving industrial use that's also going to create more traffic and so that's also one of the largest concerns of Southside so you know just b trying to balance all all that. I'm not saying we just accept but it could force the town's hands to make the improvements that would solve some of the additional issues of that many more trips.

I mean, I would love to see the town push this to one of the top priorities. Every year you wait, you're spending 25 to 50 grand more for the same project project. And so, you know, the developments that come in after still should be responsible to contributing and backpaying the town for what they were and what they've agreed to as part of the Southside development. But I would like the town to push it, but I don't I don't know if that's really my my place.

Yeah. I mean, it looks to me like this is going to go to town council with our reservations. You know, whether we vote whatever it yay nay, you know, we are mixed on this. If you hear add your reservations to the motion. We've done that before and I think you were the one who said either yes or no. Well, interesting. You know what? How do we get our point across to council? Do we send this to council losing one to four or do we send this to council winning with with our reservations noted? It it doesn't matter. They'll

That's what I'm asking. I don't think it matters. Um I think um you know it will this this discussion will be in the minutes anyway, but if we put it in the motion, then it's directly in the top of what they'll be reading in their packet. if they actually read their packet. I'm trusting that they do and that's that's a good idea. Uh Michelle, do you have any advice for us?

Yeah. Well, so what I've heard over the last few meetings amongst the commissioners is that the concern that the benefit of the project is bringing housing near the BRT. So, you probably want to have that noted in your um motion. um that you're hearing the concerns and this is really clear I think across the five of you that the study of fuel lane is overdue and needs to be done. So that's a good thing. Um that the um architecture has generally gotten better for the proposed project. That's a good thing. Now, um the discussion about balancing out um commercial uses on the site um versus storage, it could certainly be noted in there um as a preference or you could vote it 4 to one. I just think you might want to you might want to balance out what the benefits are versus the costs here in your in your motion. So, you might want to double down on what you think the benefits are and then equally note we would prefer more commercial if we could or ask or vote it that way if you want. Um, but I think there are a lot of things that are coming up here that maybe are not as linear or connected to what the commercial uses. That's all. I mean, I'm just, you know, bringing back the issue that we don't know what the commercial use would be and what the the traffic rate would be. It might kill the project, frankly. Um, so that it's just those are that's what I would be weighing if I were sitting in your seats. What are the benefits here versus it not going forward? I mean, it is going to go to council regardless, but I think you guys have had a very meaty conversation about this for the last three meetings. So there's some things you you definitely like and some things that deserve more discussion.

I guess I have a question to the applicant about the concept of the HOA of not allowing it to be a primary business. Is that based on traffic? No, it's based on the user. So in similar developments like this, you have you can, you know, have a board of three or have a board of five. Uh and then based on uh anyone that is an owner within that unit, they can, you know, if they see somebody using it as a primary place of business, they can notify the HOA, then it goes through the HOA's recourse process. So why not allow it?

Um it would depending on the the uses, it could increase traffic somewhat. Um and so we were willing to make that suggestion to to help in limiting traffic. Uh you know from the beginning this finding that right balance of you know you have lots of basic storage space just to the west. um providing a different type of storage space that you know theoretically I have seen in other jurisdictions some people could use this as an architect's office as a you know um CPA could use it um that does generate some more traffic and so in trying to balance out the southside the traffic not to generate more but to try and rightsize it is how we landed on that you know we we looked at could you do 90% of the site as these storage units and only one storage building. That didn't seem right either with the proximity to uh the park and ride. Um and so looking at town linkage, looking at Boach uh requirements, we felt this provided that balance. And uh we think we've mentioned kind of industry data on these units. They tend to be about 70% 70 to 80% personal use and about 20% commercial use. uh with the factors that Curtis looked at in his traffic study, uh we felt that that traffic generation number was adequately uh sized for the uh the storage component of that. Um and so I'm sure, you know, we'd be open to to either of those. It would just increase that traffic through the um the Basalt roundabout. Basalt roundabout and And to uh to your point, Rob, you know, if you look at it from a mixeduse development, my firm does plenty of that as well. And uh looking at trip

generation from coffee shops to medical, uh it's just going to 5x and so then you're you're pushing into that next part of the traffic study there. So we we fully understand it uh as we've worked our way through the site plan and hopefully kind of settled in on something that is a best of both worlds. But understand your point. Did you look at having more deed restricted housing at any point? And

we looked at doing more housing units. Uh we also looked at doing less. Our understanding was we were above the town linkage. Uh we weren't aware of this mixeduse uh component to that because the town linkage right now is only 15% of full-time equivalents generated which would only be uh 2.7 houses required. uh with the new 30% linkage that was being looked at, it would be four units. So, we were at 11. We thought we were far in excess of that. Um and as an industrial only zone, the amendment to add the housing um essentially creates that uh next layer that I think James mentioned the 14 units would be the um it's a square footage linkage in there. But with u with the 15% linkage and then the boach 20% we were exceeding both of those at that point. So we were thought we were above that. I was just curious from like a community serving benefit

something you thought about I'm trying to just just looking at um the the units we thought we were in excess already the kicks the we haven't done the costbenefit analysis of you know full construction costs and and if it will pencil um that has not been done at this point Bill if we're going to put addendums to a motion I have housing traffic and jobsmixeduse What else would we want to highlight as part of the motion? More affordable housing.

Yeah, I guess I'm not so sure about the job thing because I feel like have such a hard time finding people to work anyway. Do we want to be adding to that problem? I don't know. Where are they going to fun the employees who don't have a place? Well, like in a lawyer's office or you know, someone that's not going to pass into practice or a architect. Um,

let let me tell you a little a little a short very short story about architects and industrial zone district. When I first when I first was living up in Aspen, um this this SCI zone district, service, commercial, industrial, was all like auto body shops, repair places, um plumber shops, you know, wholesale type things. They were small, but they were because it was it was basically a Mil Street and Puppy Smith over my place. No area. No, it was it was it's more

Mil Street. Mil down on Mil Street. Okay. Down. Yeah. And uh um probably it was around 88. Um Harry Teague was in the Elks building and was going to move his office into one of those metal buildings down there and he had this whole big campaign to do it because it wasn't allowed to have design offices or architects offices or professional offices in that zone district. And it was a it was a big deal. It was like lots of council meetings, lots of people there. It was on grassroots TV. Um the whole council chambers were packed and it was a giant argument and then it was um you know and they the council had a vote and allowed it to happen. Big cheering. Everyone was super happy. Within a about a year and a half, every single one of those industrial uses was gone. And it was full of interior designers, architects, and you know that that's what I do. But it's like all that part of the community serving things were just gone. And then you were all of a sudden driving from Aspen to Glenwood to get that stuff done because Basalt didn't have much of it either. So it it sort of happened all overnight. And um so it's a very slippery slope and that stuff can change really fast.

Bill, why did that happen? Because the professional offices are willing to pay more in rent. They'll pay way more in rent than like vacuum cleaner repair.

May I give you a suggestion here? So, um, we need to have one motion for the special review and the PUD amendments and a second motion for the master plan amendments. So there's an opportunity to have Bill's motion as stated go forward related to the special review and the PUD amendments and then possibly a second um motion or a different motion for the PUD for the excuse me master plan amendment request

and that might be a place that gets your message across if you were in agreeance with the other motion. Everybody's I agree with that and I'll remove the master plan component from my motion. Okay. So we have first and second. Go ahead. Can you can you repeat what your motion is then? Um my my motion was just to accept the uh draft conditions as written but with the discussion on FU Lane being as I discussed and James discussed with the um the multimodal the third party review

and um you know looking into one way versus 2A and all that other stuff. First, we have a second. That one's for the master plan or No, that's the PUD. PUD. Just the PUD by itself. PUD in this in the special review. You have a second. You want to take a roll call or just a vote? Um, just a vote. All in favor? I can move. I Okay, motions pass. Do you want a word Smith the other motion

or a motion or not a motion? Help me, Michelle. We're amending the master plan to permit a change from industrial to residential. Yes. despite our concerns about traffic. Well, I think you're maybe commercial use or on I think on this one it would just be whether um this is your your place where you could say that you would prefer more commercial. Um because basically the site plan review and the PUD amendment address the traffic and the other other issues, housing.

Yeah. Um, so the the motion itself is to amend the master plan to allow res. That's that's as clean as that. Okay. And we would then tag on um I'm just not wording it right. With the allowed change in use, we would want more affordable housing. No, it's just more about the different mixed use. Yeah, the mixed uses as envisioned by the master plan. That would be it. M because traffic is covered, housing is covered. Um

did we we didn't really cover all of that? We we made the motion that we'd like more. Is that part of that wasn't really included? That wasn't included in mind. Well then, okay. Okay. So include here. You can you would include because we are reszoning from industrial to residential. So this seems like it'd be the place for it if you want to include housing. Mhm. Sure. So we were like that emphasis I don't know what the word is the the focus. make a motion to approve the change um from purely from all industrial to mixed use residential industrial. No, because it's only going to residential. No, it's it's mixed use. Oh, it is mixed use

on the currently it's mixed use on the um northern portion closest to Cody Lane and that needs to be adjusted to uh Oh, so we're losing the mixed use on the northern portion. Yes. I thought we're adding residential to mixed use. Mixed use has residential. We're we're making the mixed use solely residential. It's really odd because the property is two different lots and the lot with the primary existing facility is industrial and it's staying industrial and it's staying industrial and the lot with the proposed housing is in the master plan mixeduse typology.

Yeah. Current currently the mixeduse typology requires those be integrated. Right. And they're separating it. So, we have to make a motion for lot. I mean, how would we designate the lot? Yeah. So, your choice your choice here because the master plan amendment is really only on the on this area where the residential is proposed is to either approve the motion as written is to approve the motion with conditions. You'd like something to be higher. You'd like more commercial whatever or to recommend denial on that or to recommend denial.

Denial. Um, so we would like the conditions to be I mean this is a great place to put the 50%. So something like we I I would make a motion to approve the um approve the permission of residential along with the existing mixed use or this mixed use is going away for this property. Um it'll go away. It'll go away. So allow the conversion of mixed use to residential

on this property um with the desire to see a much higher percentage of the residential be deed restricted housing. Would that work? Is there anything else to add in? Do you want to add? Well, we it doesn't matter about we lost the mixed uses. We Right. Because that would apply to that. We were losing mixed use anyway because it was always just going to be residential on that lot, right? Industrial and residential, which mean they should both be mixed use. Yeah, we could go back but we could but Rob, we could go to the industrial parcel and say we want to make that mixed use or

you could make a motion the amendment. You can make it. I don't care. I I I don't think I don't care whether I don't think dividing it is a bad thing. It just makes our motions more complicated. That's it. But it sounds like because of the legality so that they have to be separate, two motions, the two motions, but I I would like each parcel to be mixed use. That doesn't it's not what we're discussing. I I think that's not in the proposal at all. Correct. I mean, the way it's designed, that's not an option. So, no, but that's where the master plan was envisioned and that's what we're amending. So, got it. We're overlooking it. Um, so then your motion might be to deny it.

So, so you actually have a resolution in your packet for the master plan amendment. So, it would probably be helpful if you tied your motion to that resolution. So, that's what we're doing, isn't it? James. Well, yeah, but by saying in your motion, you know, you recommend approval of the resolution with suggested um adjustments that there's a desire to see a higher percentage of deed restricted housing on on the piece that is um going to be multifamily residential. Um 23

23. Okay. Thanks, And then whether you want to talk about mixed use or not. Cindy, is that your motion? Um, I'm just looking at the what uh James was referencing. Um, so the resolution, the wording here, James, is what you were saying to change the future land use map and the typology map. Is that the resolution or is Yeah, the actual resolution itself. That's the resolution. There's a resolution. So, you you could recommend approval of the resolution with whatever adjustments you're you're talking about. Okay.

Because PNZ has to pass a resolution to change the master plan. So, I would I would um I propose a motion to approve resolution of the change as detailed on page 23 and 24 in our packet. Um with additions that the desire for a greater percentage of affordable housing be considered. We have a second.

Anything else? I'll add I'll add whatever else you think. Any other concerns you want to add to that? As well as the originally intended mixed use designation. Okay. As well as reconsidering the original mixed use designation. Does that make sense? Well, that would that would negate, right? Right. That would negate the the potential. So, um,

can't we can't we just start from scratch and say we, uh, I'd like to make a motion to approve approve this resolution, um, with two things to consider. one being a greater up to up to 50% ger restricted affordable housing and reconsidering recon the second one being reconsidering um the elimination of mixed use on this parcel. I was going to say the inclusion of mixed usages

with a preference for mixed usages on the property. I think that would work. Okay. I I was just going to ask council to consider it. That's all we can do, right? Yeah. Preference. Consider. I think that works. I do appreciate the thought you guys put in behind this, and I'm sorry you have to see the sausage being made. Yeah. We don't usually get so in the weeds on this, but we obviously have a lot of different opinions. We're trying to consolidate. Okay. Second. We have a first. We have a second. All in favor? But a little little further discussion before we vote. Before we vote. Okay. Yes.

Yeah. I'm going to vote against this. Um because I'm in favor it as is written. Just to be clear. All right. Comments before I swear the the increase in affordable housing. I'm not sure how the mixed use ties into the recommending approval, but no, just trying to let them see the discussions we had about what is exactly um industrial uses and what uses best benefit the town. That's all we're going for. Okay. So, does that come across? Motion. We have a second. All in favor? I I all against billion pass four to one. Good luck. Thank you.

Yeah. On that note, we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is a public hearing on the Midland Avenue design guidelines.

Thank you. Welcome back in the spirited conversation. That was They're going to hear us, so they they're going to get all this. Carlton, are you introducing this one? I am. I'm trying to get It's okay. I think we're all happy to have a 5second break. I'm I'm good on breaks. We can keep it going, guys. Break for a while. We'll be expecting a lot of interaction from you on this deal. We're all leaving now. That's just you.

All right. Good evening. Uh, I'm here this evening to introduce uh or reintroduce reintroduce, I should say, the Midland Avenue District Design Guidelines. This evening we have a final draft for your review and staff is requesting that planning and zoning commission uh provide a recommendation for um approval or referral to town council uh for these guidelines. Um, a little background. Town council approved a contract with GMA in 2025 to create design guidelines to ensure consistency and compatibility with the historic nature of downtown when a new property is built or an existing property is altered. Um, this contract uh follows directives from uh the master plan um specifically to promote the historic nature of basalt and human scale development through goals 1.2 two and several objectives found in the master plan. Um those objectives and goals are included as part of your memo this evening. Um this evening we also have Jessica Hubard from GMHA on to walk through the changes since you guys have last seen uh this draft at the beginning of January. Um and just for a little bit of a refresher, the design guidelines specifically address a a number of um architectural considerations including historic context, treatment of existing buildings, treatment of new buildings, treatment of roofs, windows, material, uh and considerations for parking, landscaping, site accessories, service areas, overhang overhangs and awnings, arcades and galleries, signage age and lighting. Um staff values the input of this commission and requests a recommendation to town council as I

mentioned. Um however, as uh these guidelines do not uh amend the land use uh considerations of town code. Um this uh recommendation is a courtesy from planning and zoning commission. Um if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I will defer to Jessica. What was that last thing about a courtesy? So be so as uh these guidelines are not adjusting the land use code portion of the municipal code. Uh your recommendation is a courtesy um and is not required for uh town council appro voting on something then. Yeah. Okay.

Carlton's fancy way of saying this is a referral. Okay. Correct. Thanks for trans. I have a question. jump in here and just introduce myself to those that I have not met. Uh, apologies for you all tonight. Um, Jamie, would you like me to go into my quick presentation? Yeah, I think that would be helpful. Would you like me to share it or do you want to share it on your uh I'm happy to share. Do you kind of need granny access? Sounded like Bill might have a question initially. Yeah. And while you're uh getting access, I'm going to promote you to panelist. Bill has a question.

Yeah. To begin with, I I have a question for Carlton because this is more of a code issue. Um this document seems to dance around um demolition quite a lot. So is that a code issue or is that this this document doesn't really deal with demolition of historic buildings? So, um I can add that uh demolition there there's still code that uh deals with demolition and again these are design guidelines and so it

doesn't talk about that at all. Should a structure be located within uh the district, uh we would still um have an applicant go through the process of um providing the um the the planning documentation for redevelopment of a property within the design district. Does that answer your question? No. And and more specifically, if it's a historically designated building under the local designation requirements, demo's already um covered in in the code.

Okay. Good. Good. Because I I I lived in a in a Victorian that was equal to Brad Putnham's house. And right after I moved out, um, it was bought by the neighbors and just boom. There was not a thing wrong with it. It was a perfectly it was plum, square, and true. I mean, it needed insulation and windows and stuff, but it was it was it was it was the structure of it was it was you, but been historical buildings, you know, that's like a big deal. It's not wasn't falling down,

you know? it needed what old buildings need and they just flattened it because they were could and they were from Houston and that's what they do. um seen again about the people of Houston.

Anyway, it's gone, you know, and it was a it was a it was like a you know, and all of those pictures in in this thing about, you know, historic basalt, that building's actually in a lot of those pictures. So it it I just hope that we have some strength to that because we've we've never been able to deal with that ever and it's been everyone gets upset when it happens and it still happens and I still don't think we have any control over it whatsoever but but that's not gerine to this discussion. Sorry off my soap box.

Jessica I think the floor is yours. Okay, I'll jump in. So, I think most of you know me, but um for those of you that have not met me, my name is Jessica Hubard. I'm with GMA or Denver studio and I am going to try and fly through this as quick as possible because I think most of you have seen this presentation and I didn't condense it. Uh just a quick introduction to who we are. We are a full service architecture firm Oh, I'm getting some for you guys. We're all good on our end.

Oh, okay. I'll just um so we have full service architecture, uh nine fulltime team members. We're based in Savannah, Georgia. That's why we were hired by the town because of our extensive experience with National Land District and design manuals and working within urban context. So for those of you that need a refresher or are not familiar with the project, we were contracted by John Planning to develop designing guidelines for Midland Avenue. And as we dug into the project, we actually designated the Midland Avenue District. So it's an area defining the C2 Young Business District and properties avenue. And just to clarify, we discussed this last meeting, but we are not proposing a design board. We are truly proposing an overlay to the existing municipal code. And so we're strengthening bolstering up already existing and municipal code design guidelines just to dig into exactly what they are. And I hope all of you have a chance to review your package to see the breakdown of diagrams and materiality restrictions. There's flexible policies. They are a proactive planning tool that will be upheld by our planning staff. And if you were able to take a peek at our checklist, there are some items that will be reviewed by the commission and ultimately will need to be approved in order to move forward to site plan and or building permit review. But essentially they provide guidance for treatment of existing buildings, new development, historic buildings, which we are calling contributing in these guidelines.

And then just to build on this, if you're saying to yourself, why do we need these sign guidelines? Um it's to protect the celebrated culture in the avenue. Um, and we'll get into some of the features in the next slide, but essentially they provide consistent framework for the planning department development as it comes down the valley uh to make objectives decisions about projects that are coming across their desk. Oops. Here you can see the district, the proposed district. Uh, as I mentioned, it's not the entire C2 zoning district. We did remove some parcels that would not be the design would not be applicable to those properties and it is in design guidance too. So hopefully having an opportunity to review it and then just zooming out. So we define what makes Mill Avenue so special. As I was saying, the design guidelines protect, what makes this district welcome and charming. And so uh some of these qualities are vibrant colors and playable variation in group lines, two degrees building. So living through scale, a walkable environment and then the connection to the history and nature and uh really these characteristics are they're driven by money but they're reinforced by design guidelines. So I won't get into each section because hopefully everyone had a chance to review the full document but we still have the seven sections and an introduction and character portion. We describe what

made salt the way that it is today, what historical events and um industries shape them avenue. Then in section three, we dig into how to treat existing buildings and particularly reference how to treat historic buildings referencing the secretary of interior standards even though none of the buildings within the district are designated on national register. And then in section four and five, we start digging into new construction, new development, how to treat landscaping, uh, masking, doors, windows, awnings, things of that nature. And then in section six, we build on the already uh existing sustainable design overlay that the town assault has and we make recommendations to how they implement those systems or treatments with a catchup diagram. And then in section seven, we talk about processes and applicability and the certificate of appropriateness. And so just digging into the revisions and additions from our last meeting on January six, we did take the feedback from the commission and we implemented different changes to mostly section 4. But the biggest change we made between DJ and town, we landed on the property process. We decided that a certificate of appropriateness is the most appropriate checklist and process. And so in order to be approved for planning a building permit review, you have to have the ACOA if your property is within

the Avenue district. And then we did uh create a form and checklist. So uh the applicant could go through that. And then we do have a column identifying the elements that are flexible versus nonflexible. The items that are flexible would then go on to the planning and zoning commission and then the items that are non flexible will be reviewed at a stack level. And then uh some of the feedback we got on January 6, we heard some comments regarding the open space maximum percentage diagram. And so we removed that. We refined the language and then we reorganized the section regarding building placement, active percentages, accountable in the bill and the open space. And so hopefully that is uh clearer and um more applicable now. And that's in section 4.1 through 2.3. We revised our ordinance and awning requirements for the zoning commission comments in section 4.8. the town archers provided some language and revisions to what we were saying and so that's now section 4.5 and then finally uh we revised some of the language around sidewalk paving and we also added water mitigation in section 4.64 64 and then we made some other other changes. We're working on making the graphics so that they're equal and consistent. But these are the major changes from our meeting in January. So finally just I want to go over our goals for tonight's meeting. I know uh we are ready to get some talk but we would love any feedback from the planning as a commission on draft number three. If there's any items you feel are

missing some of the guidelines or if you have any specific concerns we are here to hear them and ultimately mention we're seeking recommendation or approval to take the final to council on March 10. So, I'll open the floor to comments and

well, I'll I'll start with a comment. I've used quite a few design guidelines for downtown historic areas, and this is one that is actually useful. You know, it tells you basically where to go and what to do, and it's not heavy-handed. So, um there's I I have like a few minor quibripples with it, but you know, that's kind of what the community wants. So, I'm not uh in a position to even make some specific changes to it. It's a it's a good usable document that would serve the people who need to use it. With any of the conversations with the town of Assault Arborist, were any discussions made about the new Colorado laws, WOOI districts, historic trees adjacent to historic buildings? Was there anything specific related to that in the town or or Jessica, your discussions with the town arborist? I would just make a quick note that any state regulation such as WOOI would still be required to be adhered to for this. Uh as to the specificity of the discussion between uh Chris and Jessica, I'll defer to her on that.

We yeah, we didn't really talk in detail about those. I mean we definitely have language regarding um mature canopy sizes and in our historic breed we talk about um we have some general language around landscaping and nonto foundations. Um, but happy to follow up with him and and talk about any state regulations. But we we do have that as like Carl just mentioned that any any building code, any state law, state code, these guidelines would be.

So any tree removal over a certain size, regardless of where it is, requires a tree permit removal. A tree removal permit. Sounded weird. There's no mitigation. There's no mitigation for basalt. Correct. There is if you're over certain size. Yeah. Yeah. And so that will apply here too. Um and just for whatever it's worth, um Chris did review all the landscaping recommendations in these for appropriate native species and whatnot. And I I think staff is generally more concerned about kind of the WOOI requirements for the Hill District up above than than downtown because it's going to get tricky with the WOI code in the Hill District.

I'll lead to the game. Looks great to me. I'll Excuse me. I'll just add that it looks like a really comprehensive document. And I mean, I can't really tell looking at it and trying to remember back to the um graphic pages the the the work study session. I can't remember, you know, like what everybody said on their sticky tags and stuff, so I couldn't really tell

how much of that is incorporated into the into the final document. So, I just have to go on good faith with that. If there's no more comments or questions, do we want to entertain a motion? Motion to recommend approval. Second. All in favor? I. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jessica. And last item for us then is commissioner comments and staff updates.

Is it too late to revisit one of our something about our our resolutions or amendments. Um particularly without the applicant here, it's it's not good practice if it's a deal breakaker. No, I just wanted to I just wanted to point out one thing and in all our discussion about that I don't know that we got in with the two you were saying about about um it being he like not not being sure about the community serving purpose of the storage. Did that get in into that you think? I would say that it got into the notes or into the minutes. Okay. I just want to make sure

multiple multiple times. I'm not sure if it's fully covered in the conditions, but it's certainly covered in the minutes. Okay. Yeah, that's all. Fair. Good. Good discussion. What are updates? Let's see. I think that our um Cliffs Hillside RFP is coming due with proposals next Friday. Next Friday. What was that? The wet RFP. Cliffs Hillside. Oh, okay. Mhm. Um,

additionally with due dates, uh, referral period ends on Friday for 540 Basalt Avenue and we will be bringing that shortly for a PUD amendment across the street from 555 Balt Avenue. Mhm. So the rug washing

it's uh yeah the rug wash building for an additional dwelling unit deed restricted unit. Um other updates uh we had the third uh meeting of the land use code subcommittee today which several P&Z members are on. Um, and so there's a kind of a onepage uh update memo that's uh was provided via email to the commission today that just kind of primes you for um further discussion uh that'll take place uh likely early uh March here on on updates to the the land use code.

What's the status of Black Mountain? Black Mountain. I actually heard from them today. Um they are uh getting close to submitting their final plan application. Will that come to us before it goes to council again? Yes.

I think that's it. That's it. We have Do we have any upcoming dates that are of significance? Uh our next meeting is scheduled for March uh third minute. Yeah, March 3rd. And so we did have a plan to have code amendment discussion on that meeting. And then uh the second meeting would be March 17th. And uh you'll probably be looking maybe at the rug wash in that time frame. Cool. Do we have a motion to adjourn at 8006?

Motion to adjourn. Second. Second, Cindy. All in favor? I mean 806.