P&z - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Town of Bass Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 21st. Can we have a call to order, please? Yes. Uh, Bill Marin, yo. Uh, Kyle Overberketer is absent. Uh, Eric Voszic, here. Rob Levit is absent. Uh Cindy Hersshfield is absent. Uh Mike Horvath here. Bob Kaplan here. And Ben Firestein here. Thank you. You have a quorum. Excellent. Uh the first item then is uh a the Riverwalk at Fry Pan PUD amendment referral and I will hand it to staff to introduce what's going on.

Yeah, thank you. Uh we have the applicants here this evening. We've got Patrick Raleigh and we've got Kevin Patrick uh representing the applicant group. And let me please share my screen. Just a second. Uh so this item is a planning and zoning commission referral to the town council on a PUD amendment uh for the Riverwalk Property Owners Association to install a vehicular gate on the Riverwalk parking lot at 227 Midland Avenue. And uh you can see here uh on the vicinity map uh this is the Riverwalk building on Midland Avenue. And the applicant is proposing to install a gate uh located about here uh as you see on the map. Um as background, the Riverwalk uh currently manages parking in their private parking lot with a permitting system and they wish to install a vehicular gate for more efficient effective parking management. Uh process-wise, this is a PUD amendment. Uh, and the planning director previously waved the formal PNZ public hearing in the process. Uh, but staff felt it appropriate for the PNZ to provide referral comments on the application to the town council. Uh, so in reviewing the request, uh, staff identified a couple of discussion items, uh, including, uh, compliance with the master plan. Uh, as is noted in the staff memo, the 2007 master plan had language discouraging gates. Uh, but that language discouraging gates was not carried over into the 2020 master plan. Um, staff notes that some other private lots may make similar requests for a gate. Uh, but each uh of those

individual requests would be considered on their own merits and not precedent. Um the uh application was reviewed by uh the town's referral agencies and we received several referral agencies uh providing comments. Uh the fire district uh required that a NOX box be provided for their access. Uh the police department and the public works uh department uh indicated that they need a code to access through the gate in emergency and uh maintenance situations. and the police department wanted a turnaround uh for those vehicles uh that could not access through the gate to be able to turn around and so the applicants uh included that in their application as you can see here on the site plan. Uh in addition, the public works department desired uh potholeing to occur where the gates going to be installed uh so that it could be uh ensured that there are not u impacts on utilities uh in the installation of the gates. And so all of these uh referral comments have been carried over in draft conditions that are in your packet materials. Uh they include the requirement for the Knox box. Uh they include uh the requirement for a code for police department and public works to gain access. Uh they include the vehicular turnaround being uh installed and striped uh to the satisfaction of the town planner and the town engineer uh before the gate becomes operational uh and then also the potholeing uh requirement is included. Um so this evening staff would suggest uh hearing some comments from the applicant team uh and then providing discussion. Uh it's not a public hearing. Um so you could

provide comments and uh discussion on the conditions uh and the proposed gate. So with that I will stop sharing my screen and let the applicants share theirs. You guys got it? Cool.

Yeah. Okay. Cool. For the record, my name is Patrick Raleigh, Raleigh Design Planning. I'm here with Kevin Patrick, chairman of the board um of the Riverwalk um association and also fellow board members uh Janet Lightfoot and Richard Marshek are also here as well. So uh thank you for the introduction James and the condominium association u wishes to install this gate uh to establish uh to support the established parking rules that we have. Um we have updated um the the rules recently. We issue stickers. We have multiple locations of signage throughout the parking lot and we are still faced with um unauthorized parking. um in our parking lot. Um we would like to make a a statement that this is not an admission or a waiver that a change in the parking enforcement uh to be inst to the to an installed gate constitutes a substantial amendment to the existing PUD approvals. We believe that the existing PUD approvals which um allocated parking for the U units in the Riverwalk also um allowed us to regulate the parking in any means that we see fit. Um, as I said, the parking is currently strictly enforced by a permit um only and we have uh parking regulations that as I said are updated and um submitted throughout the to the community to look at. You can see also that we have these red signs in that image where um parking is by permit only. Um violators will be booted um or towed. that's of a last resort that we have, but those are um placed uh frequently throughout the parking lot and they tend to be ignored um unfortunately. So, we have constant pressure um and particularly in the summer months. That's the the time that is the worst I can come back from a meeting um and have no parking in the

parking lot. So, it is an issue that we need to control our parking. Here's a uh the final plan of the PUD as approved. Um you can see that the the PD consists of two buildings. This is the building that um is so uh town hall. This would be going up the frying pan. So this is the building that houses monkeys or um Karen White um interior design. It has what you're seeing there is a subgrade parking structure. And then where the gun shop and um uh the fishing fly shop is located is in building number two. Here I can see it. Give me a laser pointer. That helps. There we go. Um you can see that the parking that has been allocated by the PUD is largely unchanged currently. Kevin's um office is the Waterlaw building is located back here and of course the river um is located at the bottom of the drawing. So the um development is largely it's a mixeduse commercial office and residential on the second floor. Um we have 87 total parking spaces. So that's 63 in the surface. Um there are 10 guest spots. So the first seven um spots immediately off of Midland are guest parking. And then there's several guest parking spaces throughout the rest of the parking uh lot. And then we have those 24 subgrade parking spaces underneath building number one. Um so the final PUD approved this. this these are where the the number of parking spaces that are required for the the parking um of of the building and um that's what we would like to maintain. One aspect that we should point out and it made its uh way into the referral comments is the public access easement that goes across the swinging bridge which is located here and that will be unimpacted um by our parking gate um and largely

probably unimpacted even through our construction period. Um, and actually I think the parking gate will go to to support the and protect that public access easement. So we did recently as a board update our parking regulations, make sure that they're up to date and capturing all of the issues that have arisen. We have um a vigorous with our property management team um you know a vigorous parking outreach program where we're trying to educate owners, we're trying to educate tenants and also the public that are coming to you know um try to use our our property. Um so we have all of these permits are required. You can see the red permit. All of the um authorized cars would have that. We do periodically go out and verify that most cars have that and if there is not a sticker shown they will get a warning. Um so we are actively trying to police that. Um as I said notice violations are issued. We try to also talk to our neighbors. Unfortunately um some of the offices along Midland um have seen our uh parking lot as their kind of deacto parking. So we see people walking frequently day and night um across the street. Um, and historically we have booted cars. Obviously that's a something the last resort that we would um not like to have to get into, but that has happened. It's it's gotten to the point where we've had to take extreme measures like that. And you can see also this parking we have the two-hour parking. Each guest parking spot is individually assigned. Unfortunately, all these efforts have not always been as um uh successful. Um you can see we have standard cars just parked there throughout the day, large work trucks that are um coming to frequent uh job sites or also going to adjacent businesses. I've spoken to people that we all know and say, "Hey, where are you going?" "Oh, I'm going

over to the Tipsy Trout and I I like to park in this parking lot because it's closer." Uh we have cars that park overnight. that winter picture that you can see there. Um the parking lot is snowplowed, but those cars that are unauthorized have been there overnight and the snowplow had to walk work around them. You see this kind of van here has an orange uh violation that was placed on the windshield, but that car had that van had been parked there for some time when this picture was taken as evidenced by the the snow that has built up. And then we also have the odds and ends of somebody dropping off a a trailer for fishing or you know whatever. So it's all of these efforts that we go to to try to limit and restrict the and enforce our parking are just not enough. So uh here we have had an existing condition survey made of the property. One of the u points that James made about the potholeing. Um we're happy to do that. We have indicated on here um where the utilities are located. So there's water running in the street. Um we will probably be taking electrical out of the corner of this building right here and running it to the corner where the gate will be. But you can see this is a an image that I took the other day of of looking up the driveway up towards Midland from from the parking lot. So that's generally the location of this parking gate. Uh having taken a look at the the functional aspects of the parking, uh like I said, we have these seven guest parking spaces here at the front. They'll be slightly reconfigured to provide for the gate, which I'll get into in a second. Um the gate is located sufficiently in uh board of of our property so that there should be sufficient queuing if for instance somebody came and didn't have a a gate code or something um that you know cars pulling in won't be backing out onto Midland. So we think this is really an

ideal spot to kind of um allow for the the function of the guest parking as well as for the the queuing that might be required. Um we have a vehicle turnaround. So currently this will require a little bit of work. U currently there is a bumpout in this location, a vegetated bumpout um that will be removed. One of the parking spaces then will be converted to a striped turnaround zone and then we'll have the the landscaped um uh bumpout which again is a requirement of our PUB reestablish directly in line where the automated gate will be. So if somebody comes in, they realize they don't have access to the the parking lot, they'll have an ability to turn around safely and get out um without creating too much issue issue. And then beyond the gate, of course, everything remains largely unchanged. Here's u the the public access easement kind of rolls down that sidewalk um right next to the building. This is the actual gate um material or uh equipment that we have. It's it's rather low profile. It's pretty standard stuff. Um you can see some of that information. The um uh the functionality of it would be that owners of the building would have an RF, a radio frequency sticker that you would place on a headlight or something in the car and you'll immediately be granted access through the gate if you have that sticker. If you don't have the sticker, they they do cost they're a little bit costly. Um so um dedicated each business can have a dedicated gate access on a smartphone. So somebody pulls in um if it's an employee they'll know the gate you can immediately um open up the gate or if there's a visitor that's coming that's an authorized you know person that's coming to your business you can give them that code and the gate will also be accessed will be opened.

Um very standard stuff whenever you do a gate you have to provide a box. an Xbox is a a standard in the industry where emergency services will have access to um open up the gate whenever they need to. We're happy to give um a code to the town of Baltt to access any town features that are in the uh bottom of the Riverwalk um parking. Um and then Basalt sanitation district also has some uh facilities down there. Luckily Ian and um is a the Basalt sanitation district has an office in our building. So they'll all automatically have the uh the code and they were rather supportive um of of and recognize the need for this gate. Um I did meet with Brook Scott, fire marshall for the War Boring Fork Fire Protection District or Fire Rescue as they're now called and uh we went through the um the function functionality of everything, the location of everything and she's written this letter that says that it's an acceptable location to the fire district. Um, finally, we have a an agreement or a permission with U. St. Vincent's Catholic Church, which is immediately across the street from us. They have been allowed uh by the board to use the parking lot on Sundays for church services. Um, and we will honor that um permission moving forward. the gate can be programmed so that the the arm will swing open, you know, for a set period of time on Sundays when um uh when they'll be using the the parking lot. So, in summation, the benefits the parking gate will ensure that the our PUD approvals can be enforced by us and that the parking uh that we need and um were required to provide is available to the the PUD. Um, we think that this gate will actually enhance the safety of the area because we do have frequently uh sprinter vans, other people that are car

camping down there by the river. I get it. It's an attractive spot, but that is a bit of an issue, a safety issue, not only for residents and tenants of the building, but also people using the public um access easement. Um, also by controlling some of the parking and the the comingings and goings in the in the parking lot, uh, we'll provide some protections for the pedestrians using that um, access easement and going over the, um, the swinging bridge. A lot of school um, children use it throughout the day coming from um, you know, the middle school and the in the elementary school. Um, so they'll be protected. Um, and then finally, um, I think this is a this is really kind of a bringing what our community has been trying to do for parking and protect our parking and and have a formalized um, understandable situation from a parking standpoint. U, this will really help us kind of bring all of the rules and all of the work that we've been trying to do um, to a head and and help us in that regard. So, with that, I Kevin, would you like to add anything else or

I certainly don't want to take up too much time. Thank you. Um, we've owned the one building down there for since about 2008, and parking has always been an issue. Um, I would say in the last 18 months, it's gotten to be somewhat out of control. Um, literally if you come down in the parking lot past 10 o'clock in the morning, even if you're an owner, there the spaces are taken. And I've personally walked around and seen at least 20% 25% of the cars do not have stickers. There are people that are just using the parking lot. And we don't want to be people that boot. That's kind of a draconian approach. We've tried stickers. We've, you know, we can't find people. We There's so many rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do in parking that this was the cleanest and we thought the best way of administering the parking and we really have get gotten a lot of feedback from our tenants and our business owners that they're customers and they cannot find parking spaces during the middle of the day. So, it has become a problem that we'd like addressed.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll open up for any questions from the council. Bill, I have a couple questions. Um, can uh bikes get through the parking gate? They they could get through the Well, they they don't need to go through the parking gate because they have a sidewalk that would be immediately adjacent to that. So, yes, you could dismount your bike and walk safely down the the sidewalk. Yeah. It's against the law for grown-ups to ride their bikes on the sidewalk in Bol if you That's why I say you can dismount.

Yeah. But um but you can't because I I've I generally ride through there to get a swing bridge and so now you can't stop get off walk around. But um also um you've you Patrick you've have used the the word we quite a bit. Are you a tenant? Are you a tenant or an owner in I'm an owner and also a member of the board. That's that's good to know. That's all my questions. Okay. Um, have you talked to all the owners and tenants about this and it's 100% supportive or are any is anyone concerned about privatizing some parking that might be used for their customers?

I have not heard of any concerns about this. Everybody is in support of this. they they understand that the issues that we have again many of us come back from a site visit or you know whatever there's a there's a a whole host of professionals that come and go throughout the day and it's an issue to come back and not have parking um in your parking lot. So no I have not heard of anyone that has any issues with it and you know our board is fully in support of it. Um so no I don't I don't think there's any we've had several meetings on it. We've had public outreach on it. In addition, this is never there's not going to be a privatization of a public parking. Yeah.

This has always been private. It was mandated by the town approvals that it would be private. So, all we're doing is just changing a method of parking enforcement. Okay. Uh, who's your current parking enforcement contract with? our u silver mountain properties is our uh property management and we are in uh frequent contact with them and they will come out and and monitor the parking as well as members of the board as Richard has provided. There's also other members of the board that go out and do um surveys and and see what's going on. And and who does the physical booting and or towing?

Uh well, we we haven't towed or booted to my knowledge recently. not in I want to say two years. We're trying not to do that. There I I believe there's some rules, you know, in connection with booting and and things like that that make it difficult. And obviously, as we've said, that's the last resort that we'd like to get to to create that inconvenience. Let's head it off by just preventing people from illegally using it so we don't have to go down that route. James, are are is are you aware of any rules associated with the regulation of a private lot?

Uh, not in the town code. I think Patrick is talking about maybe state law or what are you referring to? That's Yeah, that's what our our property property management team has has advised us. Yes. that that it's state statute that there's a notification and a timing period before you can boot. So, it's it's not a really probably an effective means to try to dissuade um unauthorized parking because of those requirements. Did you

as a as a private property owner? Did you look into any other transportation demand management or parking management systems? Because you're spending a lot of money to rip up this this area to reconfigure it, to avoid utilities, to break up the sidewalk, um to pull power, to route posts, to go through a PUD application. I I recognize the the costs that you are in in importing to attempt to do this. So, I'm curious what other methods you guys looked at in parking management systems. We looked at more stringent enforcement. We looked at hiring people to actually administer the lot on a daily, monthly

from an opex standpoint. Yep. And it's this is the this is a less expensive approach than having someone stand there and eight hours a day. But is that your only solution or were you looking Well, I'm curious. You you mentioned like a TDM measure like yeah you you're going through with the RF stickers. You're you're you're putting in all the processes for parking management and and we're still at a gate. So in other words, you're like saying that we could do uh we or try to try to have an alternative means of I'm I'm just curious if you looked at any other alternative means. I'm just trying to understand like how that would work or how

there's a difference between being able to identify people that are improperly parked correct and enforcing that. Correct. And the enforcement is the what's the difficult avenue in Colorado because of the notice requirements. So we've consulted with our um management company who's consulted with attorneys and it is a very laborious, expensive, difficult process. Understood. And this is just so much easier and cleaner. Great. No further questions. Bob,

um, just a technical question. The fire department approved the the turnaround. Do they envision turning around inside the parking lot or is that Well, they would h they would still have that possibility or access to do that because they would have clearance to go through the gate and then use what they would normally do is come down the long run of parking and then do a turn down by the river and stuff. So they they would still have that access. So that backup is just what people don't have access. The access is just for yeah um personal vehicles or yeah normal vehicles to make that. Yeah. And how many cars before you get to the You said you have Q capacity. Is that two or three?

We have I think I think three. Um but even probably space for a fourth that would be close, but I think three would be fully contained within the the parking lot with common spacing and things like that. Um the the the number of of cars going through at any given time is not incredibly high. So, it's it's a rather low traffic volume that's going through. So, queuing three cars is probably more than enough to to keep cars out of Midland. Thank you.

Uh questions for staff. The concern of setting a precedent that we're going to have gates. Is it a big request? Does it come up every five years, every 10 years? We've probably had maybe one or two requests over the last uh 15 years. Okay. So, not very often. Not very often. Gotcha. Is it a big concern that this going to set a precedent or not that big a concern?

Well, I think every parking lot is a bit different and they have different characteristics. Um there are some other private parking lots that may not be set up as well to accommodate a gate in the downtown area. And so, you know, that comes back to staff's comment that each individual parking lot would have to be evaluated kind of on its own merits and not not be a precedent item. Great. Thank you. Um as this is not a public hearing, we'll go into any sta any uh commissioner comments. We'll start with Bob.

That was my concern as well is there in the immediate downtown area that this may cause a ripple effect that negatively impacts parking downtown. So that's a concern that I have.

Cool. Um, I share the applicant's view of of the increased parking challenges that I've witnessed in there. Um, I also share fellow commissioner Marin's opinion that, you know, this is a a bikeway down to the the public easement. Um the S turn configuration sidewalk there is noticeably challenging for my children. Uh and I am a frequent user of this. Um and my wife previously worked in this building. So definitely familiar with with all things associated with this. I have concerns with the three-point turn configuration and traffic backing up into um Midland or requiring someone to back up into Midland, those guest spots are typically very full. Um, and if we are providing even a striped no parking area, that's a recipe for it being parked and therefore um increasing the inability for someone to make that three-point turn effectively in front of the gate. Um I think also to what town in of itself just denied its own application in in the uh nine parcel nine uh to have a gate to to separate the housing with the public parking here. Um but this is sort of systemic to the changes and the reduction in parking that the Midland Streetskate project brought and now people are searching for additional inventory. Um,

those are my comments. Um, I agree with Bill. I also walk through here, ride my bike through here often. Um, the sidewalk route is not that convenient at all. Um, and so having some sort of whether it's shortened or gap in the middle or something that could provide bike access while also limiting access I think would be um positive would back to a question. Would these seven spots be signed twohour guest parking? I'm sorry, say that again.

The seven spots outside the gate, would those be as they are as they currently are today? Just two hour guest parking. That that's right. Yeah, we have an image of that slide slide right there. Yeah. So, they would that would contain that. And to your comment, the the striped area would have a no parking turnaround only, similar to what's happened on Midland. Looking at that auto turn, it looks like they probably sideswipe the the car next to him. Um, which I'm sorry, what's

your auto turn exhibit? Yeah, it it looks like the front end of that car sideswipes to the car park the parked car. It extends into the parking spot. So, I don't know what vehicle you're using and that really I mean actually that's a well that's it's a standard vehicle that's a a it's a wider that is it's a parking spot currently. So, it's 8 and 1 half 9 ft wide. I think those are actually 9 ft wide. And what we're showing in a turnaround would be like 11. So you're actually gaining it's a wider than standard parking spot um that you would be turning into. So if you can park a car into those spots, it's no different than a that type of a movement that you're just ran a bad auto turn.

Just something to consider if you're going to put it. Sure. Um the car in the bottom can is that car able to get out of that parking spot? That would be a standard parking spot. Yeah, it's it's it's a parking spot currently. Get out and and turn back towards the gate and then exit Midland facing forward. That's what we're asking.

Yes. The the the turnaround zone could also be if if you had a concern about that could be relocated to a different location there. But that is currently a parking area and we believe they can make that movement. Again, it's it's kind of a standard parking lot. Mike, are you asking about the parking space closest to the closest to the gate? This this gate and whether or not a car can can pull out of that spot and turn around. Yeah, especially with the bulb of the tree and reduction in the drive width. Tight. Yeah, you'd probably have to make a three point or, you know,

um I don't if they accommodate bikes, I guess. I have I have some comments to make.

First off, um I I voted for the non-gate article in both the 07 and 20 master plans and I was overruled in the second one. So I definitely have or the latest one, the current operable master plan. So I definitely have some thoughts about this going way way back. Um, and and I'd like also like to say that, you know, from at the end of the day, it's your right to build this. You know, you you have to ask us because it's PD, but you know, there's nothing really standing in your way from doing this. Um, but I don't like it. You know, it's just not it's just not who we were. Um, I'll get back to that one later. But I would like to say that uh Freda Wallace, the the original developer, would love this. She would just love the hell out of this because and she used to brag that Dick Cheney was her best friend. And

I I know Freda was a Rotarian with her. So

yeah. Yeah. Anyway, um um and also um in feeling negative towards this, I really feel it kind of honors the whole small town character thing, which I've railed against many times on many meetings about it being abused, but in a lot of ways, this is definitely not that. It is not the small town character. And people you probably no one here would even know these people like Jim Powza and Steve Solomon would just hate this. They opposed the Roaring Fork Club because it was a gated community and um they I I opposed them on virtually everything they believed in. But on this particular case, especially right downtown and in a place where I ride through all the time, it it it it just feels wrong to me. You know, it's like a gated community is not who we were as a community, but it is sadly very much who we are now. You know, we are now a town of second homeowners and trust funders. Those are both my neighbors, by the way. A second homeowner on one side and a trust funer on the other. And I bet uh threearters of my subdivision are second homeowners. and um it just it just feels wrong. But again, this is they have the right to do this, so I'm not going to vote against it. But um it I feel I feel sad for where we're going as a town. That's it.

Um I don't feel as strongly as as the other gentlemen. Um, I don't view it like a gated community of keeping people out. Even though, Bill, I understand the sentiment of what you're saying. Um, uh, I wish there were better parking arrangements. Um, I do understand it's overflow from what we decided to do on Midland, but at the same time, there are other alternatives that we've afforded on Midland that a lot of the people can afford to do. So, I think you've done your homework. I think you've kind of answered the questions. Yes, being nice to the community and allowing bikers to go through would be lovely. Um, but you don't have to do that. It's not part of the agreement. Um, it's just a nice neighborly, small town community thing to do uh if it's available. So, I I don't have uh any issues with what you're proposing. Personally,

I'd like to add one one one thing if if you're done. I would like it if you could find a way to make the gate shorter so you could ride a bike through it. Sure, we can we can take a look at that. I mean, it's um the access is for pedestrians and not for bikes, but um we can we can take a look at that. Yeah, cuz I am older than 12 and I've I've seen you ride a bike. Is that once my daughter turns 12, I got to kick her off the bike on a sidewalk? Yes. Yeah. Basalt's finest could write her a ticket and you

uh So, we're at that point. Do we want to entertain a motion? Do we What? Gentlemen, what would we like to do? I'd vote for it, but I won't make it. Yeah. motion to uh pass the application on to town council with the request that bike access is provided within the gate function as per the gate layout as per staff's memo. Have a first. Do we have a second? Second. You want a roll call or you want to take a vote? Yeah, let's go roll call. Okay. Uh, we'll go with uh Bill.

Yes. We'll go with Eric. Yes. Uh, Mike. Yes. Uh, Bob. Yes. And Ben. Yes. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. Good luck. Appreciate the comments. Oh my god. He should have recused himself.

I feel I know. I I've done that other times as well. You know, in my mind, I hear I hear your comment. I don't feel that way, but I get the spirit of what you're saying. Um if if we as a town wanted to make it not right, we would have put it in master code. Yep. Um as we resettle, we're going to jump into our next item, which is Eagle County referral on 257 East Valley Road application to construct a storage and warehouse facility. And I will leave it to staff. Give me 30 seconds.

Yeah. Yeah. I'll give Bob that. You got to be official now.

I'm sorry. I thought you were done. It's all good. Waiting for a storage facility. Like a landscape. I feel like they got like covered storage they're parking in. This is exactly what our valley needs. More storage and homes. Can't live in storage, man.

Bob, are we good to continue forward?

Yes. All right. Go ahead. Good evening. Carlton Henry, Planner 2 with the Town of Assault. Here to introduce a referral from Eagle County for a subdivision exemption application um within the the town of BAL's three-mile planning area. Uh the town of Basult was given the opportunity to provide referral comments for this application on a development application uh or on this development application rather uh located at 257 valley road. Uh this site is generally uh to the west of the Elabel Road and Highway 82 intersection uh and north of Crown Mountain Park uh immediately south of the Highway 82 right ofway. Um, I will just take a moment to note that staff received some additional information about this application today. Uh, and I'll just lead with that because it will color our discussion here this evening. Um, the application that staff received and the understanding that staff had was that this application uh would be the town of BALT's opportunity to provide referral comments uh on the associated development application. Um in the uh interim, Eagle County staff had determined and has notified the applicant um that further development uh applications will be required um which will be noticed for and will provide the town of Basalt another opportunity to provide uh referral comments. So, the draft conditions and referral comments that

you see here um it focus on not only the subdivision exemption application but also the associated development proposal. Um and so staff will be tacking uh a little bit differently here to um uh lead planning and zoning commission uh to only address the subdivision exemption proposed here. Uh for a little bit of background, uh this site, as noted, uh immediately south of Highway 82 was formerly a filling station. Uh however, due to issues with the use on the site, um Eagle County, the owner at the time, um the town of Baltt and uh other interested parties came together to help close that business. Um, and since 2007, the site has primarily um, uh, remained vacant with several operators, uh, including most recently a contract yard for a tree service business in the valley. Um, this subdivision exemption application seeks to legalize a non-conforming parcel um, per Eagle County land use regula regulations. This step is uh necessary before Eagle County could approve uh any uh building or construction on this site. Um that that would also be the case. Um that legalization of the nonconforming parcel would be required ahead of a land use application such as I mentioned will will be required for this site. Um because it's already here, I will note that the applicant is proposing the development of two singlestory storage buildings. Um but as mentioned, uh staff would recommend that planning and zoning commission limit discussion on that development proposal. Um and the

development materials included as part of your packet and linked here in as well. Um James, do you have anything else to add here? Yeah, I think I would just add that we had conversations with Eagle County staff today and and they made the request of the town and town staff that really we concentrate in this application and our referral comments on simply the subdivision exemption. uh as Carlton mentioned um they've indicated to the applicant that they need to go through a larger development review process on the actual development of the site. So, um, we we've, uh, heard from Eagle County staff and and as Carlton noted, staff would suggest, uh, if if you don't really have any comments on the legalization of the parcel that, uh, PNZ could simply adjust the letter to say we have no comments on the legalization of the parcel. and then you'll get uh a future opportunity to actually provide comments on a development application if they submit one. I would note as well that the app um one of the members of the applicant team uh Michael Forest of Lello Property Group is uh online and has been promoted to panelist. So, Michael, if you have anything that you would like to say, we've got you um online here, and you're welcome to take a a minute or two to uh to provide any additional detail as you see fit.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Yep. Yeah.

Yeah. I I mean, I think to James' point, there's there's really not much right now. Um there, you know, without getting into the weeds of of the process with Eagle County, it's been a little bit of a moving target and including today. Um so yeah, tonight we're really just holding comments. We're really going to propose something potentially even um slightly different than we were initially proposing. Um, so to James' point, this is just the legalization of the lot. Um, I don't know why when, you know, C do DOT and all the municipalities and the the property owner at the time, which was not me, when it was a gas station, when that gas station was closed because of the concerns about safety because the gas station basically had an entrance onto Highway 82 directly. Um, and that became dangerous and the and the property was closed essentially, but they didn't legalize the lot back then. Um, so we're doing that now.

That's all I I think James, if anybody has any questions, I'm here. Yeah. And just for more framework, this is the old Fitz Simmons gas station property for those that knew it. It was an Arco, what' you say? Arco station. Arco station. Yeah. Uh, thank you, Michael. Um, does staff wish to, excuse me, does the commission wish to have a big discussion? Do you want to accept the letter as is with the changes that staff has recommended?

I do I do have a question. Um, this is kind of a technical question, but is the curb cut and access permit that used to the gas station used to have onto Highway 2, has that been vacated or it's it was proposed to be vacated um and is included in the site plan um that was included as part of your packet tonight. So, if you if you zoom in on it, you can see that it's proposed to be vacated. that will be covered at a future date when they go forward with the subdivision, but it it's still technically a live access permit with C dot. That's my understanding. Yeah.

Any other questions? Um, how does development in this area and Eagle County view development in this area and the intersection at Elabel Road? So there's been I think it seems like we've developed beyond the capacity of that intersection and we now we're adding more and so I didn't know if there's there's a path forward there or capital requirements or what that looks like.

It it sounds like the applicant and Eagle County have had extensive conversations regarding this issue. Um it's not a surprise to anybody in probably in this room right now that um there are continued issues with the Elabell and Highway 82 intersection and the capacity at that intersection. Um our master plan as noted in the original draft comments identifies this site due to its location for service commercial. Um, and it's our understanding that between the applicant and Eagle County that Eagle County has directed the applicant to select a use that will not incl the the vehicle troops in the area and and further threaten the the service at that intersection. Um, again, those conversations have not been extensive on our end, but that's my understanding of where the conversation has been between the applicant and the county.

And we just heard from the applicant that he's potentially changing the use question mark. Uh, I'm sorry.

No, no, not not changing the use. Um, but just changing the process of the I guess the application process is changing. It was it was our understanding that previously um the application had been slated for admin an administrative process for approval and that as of the last day or two that the applicant was informed that um there would be a full application with noticing and a decision to be made at uh the Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission. Okay. That's our understanding from Eagle County staff as well in our conversations today.

Understood. Other questions. If there's no questions, how would we like to proceed?

I'd like I have a couple comments to make. I'm going to make some abstract comments about the site in general, not gerine to the what is proposed on there right now. But um I I'd like to say that um first off this is the first thing people see when they arrive in Basal from the west. So if they're looking at the back of a building that is a storage building, that's a thing to consider. We're not talking about that now, but that's for everyone to keep in the forefront of their mind. That's what you'll see a as it's proposed now. But also, um, there has been affordable housing proposals on this site in the past and it is the closest partial to a BRT stop and as such a TOD site. And to see it go to storage I feel is again sad but legal but you know it's that it's it's their right to do this but that's just my my feelings and we're not here to talk about my feelings. So that's my comment.

Yeah.

If I could this is Mike Farest. If I could just, you know, make one comment about the the look and the feel is um we we built that Snow Mass self storage um on Highway 82 at the KICO gas station um at the Snow Mass Creek Road intersection uh between Midstate Motors and the post office there. And um for those of you that are familiar with it, you know, we built an A-frame building. We clatted in in natural cedar wood. Um, so we have the same, you know, sort of thoughts here. Um, you know, we haven't really fully designed the look and the feel, but that's something that, you know, is at the forefront of our mindset as well as we, you know, move this through the process.

Thank you, Bob. If your comments are going to be about the development proposal, I would ask you to focus on the issue tonight, which is more about this referral than getting into the weeds about what might be coming down the road, which we'll have a chance to address later on. Okay. Thank you. I don't want to stifle conversation. Just we can get we can get in the weeds pretty easily on that. But I do share Bill's concerns that it's it's the entry to town that is not attractive. This is certainly better than a a yard job's yard, but it would be nice to have something that helps the entry to town. Fair.

If there are any more comments, great. If not, do we want to address the letter that's being asked of us? I'll make a motion to accept the letter as as as drafted or changed as as uh staff sees fit for the as per James James' comments or yeah staff's suggestion was to if if you don't really have comments on the legalization of the parcel to to direct staff to send a a letter that says we don't have any comments on the legalization of the parcel. Yeah. and then kind of save the the development review comments for that's kind of where I was going with that. Just just to talk about the part that's germaine that we're doing tonight. Yeah, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. Then seconds. All in favor? I motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck, Michael. We're over two. Thank you. I'll definitely take those concerns and talk to you guys more. Thank you. Yes, Michael. Uh, our next item then is a public hearing on code amendments to the town code chapter 16 and 17 in regards to affordable housing. And again, I will leave it to staff.

Great. Again, Carlson Henry, planner 2 with the town of Balt. Uh, here to discuss a and open a public hearing um for land use code update related to expedited review and compliance with state proposition 123. Um, with me today I also have Jess Garrow and Riley Timonss with uh, Design Workshop who will uh, in a few short minutes provide a presentation and further detail on the Prop 123 efforts. Uh, for a little background um, as all of you know, we are uh undergoing a land use code update currently. Uh however, as an aside to that, um uh currently the town also has an opportunity uh to qualify or become eligible for Prop 123 funding um through Proposition 123, which was passed uh several years ago. Um, in order to become eligible uh for Prop 123 funding, the town is required to both provide proof of affordable housing development, which aligns with the number of units as identified in the town's housing needs assessment, and additionally uh incentivize the construction um or protection of affordable housing um through an expedited review process. Um, municipalities which qualify by the end of the year may qualify for future Proposition 123 funding and commitment cycles. Uh, DOA uh has provided additional incentives for municipalities which adopt the Prop 123 expedited review process before the end of the calendar year. Uh should the town of Bassau uh adopt the expedited review process before the end of June, uh we would qualify for $45,000

uh in local planning capacity grants. Um that does not require a local match. Um so as I mentioned already engaged in the update to the land use code staff and the design workshop team uh have elected to prioritize the drafting and adoption of the expedited review process aside from the rest of the land use code uh update. Um for a little background on the review process, the proposed code amendment requires review um and recommendation by the planning and zoning commission as it is a part of the land use code and this recommendation to town council for decision pursuant to town code 16267 amendment procedures. Staff has provided a draft code amendment uh to PNZ attached here for your consideration. Um, one other thing, uh, or just for a little bit of background, which the design workshop folks will get into. Um, the state requires that developments which consist of at least 50% affordable housing units qualify for an expedited review. Um, the state enables municipalities to lower these percentages to further incentivize affordable housing development. At this time, staff is not recommending that this percentage be decreased. Um similarly the state requires that expedited review be made available for rental projects where the qualified units are deed restricted to 60% AMI and below. Um the state requires that expedited review be made available for for sale projects where the qualified units are deed restricted to 100% and below. Uh staff is not currently recommending that these percentages be increased at this time. Uh the land use code working group, a group of citizens and industrial or industry professionals supporting the land use code um has also

recommended maintaining the state standard. Um but we felt it would be appropriate to uh introduce kind of those other options um which the state gives to municipalities to to customize or uh rather provide some local color to um to this opportunity. we'll call it. Uh staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission hear public comment as this is a public hearing. Uh discuss the draft code amendment and provide a recommendation to town council regarding the code amendment. Uh you may also uh suggest changes to the draft language as presented. Um planning and zoning commission may recommend approval, recommend denial, or recommend approval with amendments. And with that, I will open it up to the design workshop folks. getting good with that.

Oh, great. Uh, thanks for having us. We have a few slides that we wanted to share just to go into a little bit of additional detail related to uh Prop 123. Um and so Riley's going to pull up her screen. Um as uh Carlton mentioned, this is part of a larger code amendment process which we've talked with you all about in the past. Um, and we are continuing to work through the um the overall project schedule, but wanted to meet some of the timelines uh that the state has identified and so pulling this piece out. Um, so yeah, great.

Thank you, Jessica. Um, thank you all. We're looking forward to sharing a little bit more on the Prop 123 work tonight. Um, I'm Riley Timonss. I am a project manager and associate with Design Workshop and I have Jessica here with me as well who is our principal in charge on the project. Um, we provided a update back in February um, albeit brief and just wanted to give a little bit of context of where we are in the code drafting process tonight. So, we're still sitting in that kind of 50% code draft. Um, we have furthered some of the concepts and priority items uh with the working group and with staff and are launching um the project website and community engagement um this week and we'll have some additional work upcoming as well. um really wanting to dig into a little bit of background on Prop 123 in addition to providing some context on applicability uh for BALT before getting into the proposed code language um and then following with some project next steps. So, for those that maybe are less familiar, um Prop 123 brought forward um in 2022 um created the state affordable housing fund which is intended to fund affordable housing development across Colorado through um DOA and the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade.

Uh, these programs are overseen by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. Prop 123 has uh made available approximately $300 million in affordable housing funding since 2022. Uh the funds are available through grants and loans to nonprofit agencies, community land trusts, nonprofit and for-profit developers and local governments. Initially passed in 2022, Prop 123 was signed into law in June of 2023 with initial funds transferred into the program that July. Um, starting in November of 2023, local governments were able to begin filing commitments to the program. In order to qualify for the Prop 123 program, local governments must file a local government affordable housing commitment, which includes a requirement to increase the affordable housing by 3% a year and include an expedited review process for affordable housing developments that meet the program requirements. Additionally, it's important to note that there are some stipulations for meeting these requirements that are granted to rural resort communities, allowing for towns to petition DOA to utilize different percentages of area median income. Projects are only eligible to receive this funding if they're within a municipality, county, or sovereign tribal land area. um that has successfully filed a commitment with the division of housing. So the commitment outlines a jurisdiction's goal to increase affordable housing stock above an established baseline through December 31st of this year, 2026,

after which a new commitment cycle will commence and remain open through 2029. Uh for Basalt to remain eligible, the town needs to meet their committed affordable housing increase from the submitted baseline and also codify the expedited review process of 90 days for housing projects that meet the state's affordability requirements, which Jessica will walk us through in a little bit more detail.

Thanks. So, we're really here today to talk through the expedited review process um for Prop 123. And so, as Carlton said, want to just reiterate it, uh, Prop 123 establishes specific thresholds for a local government to adopt that identifies, uh, what projects would be eligible. Um, it requires rental housing at or below 80% of AMI. A local government, particularly in rural uh, jurisdictions, could increase that if you wanted to. um for sale at or below 100% AMI. Again, could increase that if you wanted to. And as Carlton said, the recommendation from the working group is to go with the state standard of 60% AMI for rental projects and 100% AMI for for sale projects. And that's typical for a lot of the communities that are moving through this process. Um so again wanting to get this completed by June 30th in order to be eligible for additional local government matching um that is an incentive to to move through this process more quickly. So what applies uh in terms of an application type? So um Prop 123 very specifically identifies what type of application is eligible and what type isn't. So, um any type of site plan review, a development plan review, a variance process, conditional or special use, um and then a permitted use all qualify. And what that means is if someone is coming forward with an application that includes 50% of the residential units as affordable housing based off of those thresholds, the local government must move forward with that application within 90 days. And so, um, what is included in the language, uh,

which we'll dive into in a few more slides, is an administrative review to meet that threshold. Um, I didn't mention, but really important, PUDS that don't constitute kind of an updated reasoning are also eligible for this expedited review. What is not included in an expedited review are things like subdivision and annexations and resonings. Um so mixeduse projects applies to 100% residential projects as well as mixeduse projects as long as 50% of the residential units meet the definition of affordable housing. Again those AMI uh target numbers and that decision has to be made within 90 days. Um these are the pieces that are not eligible just to be you know very clear about it. So, as I said, annexation amendments, um, initial zonings or rezonings, um, and then things like comprehensive plan amendments, um, things that are not really actually related to development, for instance. So, proposed code language is again very reflective of what the state standards are. Um, we've identified rental housing units at 60% of AMI and below. For sale units at 100% AMI and below are eligible for this process. Again, as long as 50% of the units uh meet the that standard. It very specifically calls out the sections in the code that do not apply. So annexation, reszoning, appeals, and subdivision is what we've identified in the code language. The other piece that's important is that an applicant can choose to opt out of the process if for some reason they wanted to go through a more complete review process with planning commission and town council. Um so there's an op option for that. So what is that review

process that needs to be completed? So it starts with a pre-application. Um that is before the 90-day shot clock starts. So, you need to come in with an uh uh to have a meeting with the town planner and get a pre-application. Once you then submit, based off of that pre-application summary, uh the staff has an opportunity to review for completeness. Once the application is deemed complete, the applicant would get a letter saying you're complete. And that's the day that the 90-day shot clock starts at. Um, and so all of the reviews on any referrals and any public noticing and decision have to be made within that 90-day time frame. So because that is so quick, it's suggested that it be an administrative review process uh in order to meet that 90-day timeline. Um, the next slide. Um, we sip this one. Next one. So, um, this is also very important. If for some reason the application required multiple review steps, there's a 90-day shot clock for each of those review steps. So, um, each application type is subject to that. So, a land use review process would be subject to that 90-day shot clock. The subsequent building permit would be subject to a new 90-day shot clock. So that is an important piece to understand in terms of just like the breadth of how many applications are impacted, but you've got a couple of different times. You don't have to from the moment of land use submission, you don't have to issue a permit within 90 days. You've got the land use 90 days and then the permit 90 days. Um if an application were to uh applicant were to withdraw, you start a new 90-day shot clock. Um next slide. The other piece that is important is within the state statute, there's an opportunity for timeline extension. So, an applicant can request an extension of

that 90-day or a town can implement a 90-day extension. And that's a really important protection for the town to make sure that you're not getting bad applications. So, someone might come in with a complete application and as town staff is reviewing it, realize we need additional information. They haven't responded to the review criteria. you can essentially put a pause on that application and say we need you to rectify this. Um and so that is outlined in the code section as well as in the state statute. Um in addition um one of the pieces that we're talking about within the larger code update process is a option for expedited review thresholds for 100% deed restricted housing which I think we won't spend too much time about tonight and we'll come back to you um with the larger code process but review process is a really important tool in your toolbox to encourage deed restricted or affordable housing and so we want to be thinking not just the state is making us do do this in order to be eligible for money, but there are actually some structural changes that we can make to the land use code to really encourage the things that we want. And so we'll be continuing to have those conversations.

I think with that we're happy to answer any questions. Questions? I have some questions. Um, what is the process for adjusting the AMI floor? Yeah, I can answer that. Yeah.

Um, so just to uh I guess speak to Eric and Bob here. Um, this was a a little bit of a conversation at the the working group. Um, but the hope is to to start with the state suggested AMI uh levels and give staff a little bit of time to to see how the initial roll out of this this program goes. you know, whether we review that at the end of the summer um while still working through the land use code update or whether we see in um you know, 6 months or a year or two years that it's not having the intended effect of incentivizing local affordable housing development, we can come back and and bring a a code amendment that would then just address those AMI changes.

So, it's a code amendment to code amendment. Correct. Yeah, that was that was my that was you have that ability within state statute. Again, you're allowed to what they call exceed the baseline. And so if you were to increase the AMI, you can increase beyond those thresholds, you cannot decrease. Um so you couldn't go to a 40% AMI or something. You would have to go up up. But just to state it was, you know, both Ben and I are on this committee and it was our consensus that that was Oh, and you're there too. Um, sorry. It's okay. Um, but that we were we wanted to maintain those those those floors to start.

Yeah, I think we all agree where we are going as a community and the the reality of what people need. But, you know, in the interest of understanding staff as a resource and their time as a resource and the shot clock as uh a challenge, it was was our justification per staff's recommendation. Um, do you have any more questions? Oh, yes, I do. My next question is, it doesn't appear this way in looking at the draft language, but the ADU component of this is not part of this because you know my reservations were on that one issue does not include ADUs.

Okay, good. um because that has a broader discussion that I wanted to um and also as far as the uh the completeness review um I I see the efficacy of that and I agree with you know having that as as um a a backs stop to prevent junk applications or incomplete applications but also on the other hand community development and Aspen uses that as their planning hammer that completeness review where it could take a year to get your completeness when it used to take you a year to get through the planning department. Now it takes you a year just to get your completeness review. So it's still the same thing in that type of regime. I'm not saying that we'll do that, but it could happen. And um so I I think we have to guard against using that as um a a tool.

Yeah. And I I would agree with you. Um so through the through our uh drafted code language um we would uh have the ability to require pre-application and the hope would be that with good faith actors coming in for development applications that would qualify for the expedited review that we would have folks come in ready for a complete application when they submit. However, there would also be a requirement of uh 15 working day response for completeness review from staff. I guess what I'm saying is like to look at what Aspen does and not do that

Bill is well aligned for that. I understand. We we understand your concern and that's not you know that's that's not really our practice. I know it's not but it you know I just want to guard against that, you know, creeping evil. Um, that's all my questions. James needs a hammer. I don't need a hammer. Do you remember Do you remember the 1041 review that they used to do? They used to have a thing called the 1041 review. The 8040 Green Line Review. That's what they Oh, that too. Yeah.

Yeah. The 1041 was like an environmental review and the the planning staff at the time called it their planning hammer. So that's where that that word came from. Questions? Um if adopted, is it the 45,000 an automatic? Um are we an automatic recipient or is there a selection? I think it's just goes through the regular grant process through DOA and a selection through that.

Okay. We've been in some initial conversations with some folks from Dola um and they seem to think that we're where we need to be as far as the proof of affordable housing development meeting the the number and then we're following the state statute pretty much as closely as you can for the expedited review process. It's my understanding that that $45,000 if you can be creative what you have local planning needs for, you can you can get that $45,000 with no local match. Great. Understood. No more questions.

I I I have one more question. I have one more question. As far as the housing needs assessments, there have been housing needs assessments here before and um they they they prevent presented shocking numbers of housing that's needed up you from Glenwood to Aspen and there have been uh basalt electeds and town managers who call that number aspirational and so I want to know where what housing assessment we're using. So I can add a little bit of detail there. So the second round of targets that the state is setting can either come from a housing needs assessment that's been accepted by the state can also come from a percentage of approved building permits within your town. And that percentage I believe is 10 or 15%. But it's a there's some there's something of a negotiation between Dola and uh what would be the town of Basalt here to find that right number. Part of the the complexity is that you don't want to cherrypick a given year or a set of projects that has artificially inflated the number of building permits that's gone out. Um so there's a three-year you know um set of data or average that is taken and you take 15% I believe is what is out of that. Yeah.

So there's not a document right now that says Basalt needs this many housing, Glenwood needs this much housing. No, but we did the calculation based on the last uh couple years permit and and figured in that percentage. And so over the next three years, we calculated that it would be in the realm of 16 to 18 units of deed restricted housing. Yeah. Because the last housing needs assessment that I saw had the number in hundreds. Yeah. Well, I mean that's that's what our housing needs assessment our demand is, but for the DOA program, the Prop 123 program,

they have their own set of that's where that's where I was going with this. They have their own set of numbers of what their housing needs assessment is. Yeah, that's where I was going with that. And to meet that 18 units, that could be town built units. It can also be private sector built units as long as they again are deed restricted and meeting the AMI thresholds in the for the last three years from 2023 to 2026, our our requirement was five units and so we've more than met that. Yeah. When you have numbers that are in the hundreds, people's eyes glaze over and do nothing. Sure.

Do we How much has our affordable housing stock above that 3% level?

Um, our affordable housing stock over the last three years uh is probably in the realm with the projects getting finished right now. uh BCC the Emma Flats development uh we are more than the 18 units so it'd be more than that percentage that was um required by Dola for for the next three years because we have 17 units in BCC we've got uh four Still duplex units and we've got six units ultimately in Emma Flats that's finishing up. So

in the pipeline

uh two questions. Um this goes in line with any feature code amendments that the town may want to increase that level. Um, we didn't touch on this in the code work, but the vesting rights is a three-year period for a project. If a project is not active, but in that vested period, and the town chooses to adjust the AMI percentage in up or down, will those projects that are currently vested have to reapply? Is there any are they allowed to then go through the newest adoption? Are they grandfathered into the old requirement? If they try to seek a higher um affordability rate to make their performance better, how does that process work?

I can't go ahead. Well, I was just going to say that the town in the past when we've had situations where a project has vested rights and it's in their vested rights period and and there are code amendments done, we we've allowed them to take advantage of those code amendments. Um if they're beneficial, right? Yeah.

Because the shot clock's already gone through, right? They've already gone through that expedited process and taken care of that. No, I I I get that. But I just wanted to get clarity on on that portion of the vested rights. Um I would say similarly but on the con on the converse that you could not remove vested rights should the you know should the bar be raised. Absolutely. It's more of, you know, if we're setting the bar right now at 60 and then we bump it up to to 80 and someone's in that vested right period, can they take advantage of building 80% AMI rentals?

Um, the from the town's perspective, we did not talk about flood plane, flood plane management, and the 90-day shot clock. Does that concern staff at all? As a part of that review process, understanding we're going through a third party, understanding the complexities associated with norise modeling, lmers, the clers, and how we're going to deal with that.

That's a that's a good question. Um, we could specify in the code language that if you have to go through um an ESA flood plane review that you're not eligible for the 90-day. Does does that then also go through just any form of ESA where no, there might be wrecks or environmental hazards or something else that increases that shot clock. Right? The goal is to make you permitable or approvable and it's not up to you all as staff if we're bringing in a third party.

Yeah, it it's usually just the flood plane review aspect to it. Um the the other aspects of ESA review typically don't push out review timelines significantly, but I agree with the flood plane. If you have to do a lomar or a clomar, you're dead in the water. you're you're not going to make it. Even if you have to do norise modeling, I mean, it could be 90 days of back and forth to make sure that we're not affecting any insurable structures. And and that's also where the timeline extension potentially comes into play. Is it applicable in that sense?

So, I'll have to defer to to James and Carlton, but you can do a 90-day extension to allow a review period by an agency that requires review and approval by the project. So if it's if it's a required agency reviewing it, you can pause that shot clock and kind of get an extension. If it's a referral process, you can't. So does Matrix count as an agency or a referral process? No, they're they're a referral. So, so I I think that's a good comment and we probably should consider the potential to say if you have to go through a flood plane ESA review that you're you're not eligible for the the expedited process

and start the clock later on when the flood plane issues are absolved.

Yeah. Is is that is that in direct conflict with the the the state requirements? Yeah, I I think that if you meet the if you meet the requirements of the 50% of the units in the AMI, you go through this process regardless of if you're in a flood plane or not. What some communities, I think Golden has done this. Their completeness review also includes technical completeness and referral. So they've I think pushed up against the legal bounds of this state law to incorporate some additional things in their completeness review before the 90 days starts. So I think and we'd need to talk through with the uh town attorney.

Yep. For anything within a flood plane, we could add some language that says that no rise model has to happen. That makes a lot of sense that those technical components be part of the completeness and I'm sure whatever Golden because Golden has as severe similar issues as we do. I I just want to make sure we're we're capturing that line and I I I think it's absolutely appropriate if we're putting it, you know, no rise modeling, no insurable structures are affected as a part of your technical completeness as the only caveat to that 15-day hammer that we want to avoid. Right? has certain tension

and I think that's a very good point. Yeah, definitely good point. I know these are new standards. Have we had any private applications that would have met these criteria in the past several years? No. I I would say the only one maybe. Well, the only one I I can think of that probably would have potentially met the standards was the Roaring Fork Apartments. Yeah. So, yeah, because they were a Chaffa project and and so their AMI levels are much lower than the regular.

I know the idea is to jump start this. I was just wondering if we've seen it.

Other questions? So, this is a public hearing. I will open it up for public comments at 7:32. There's no one in the room. James, do we want to go through the online? I don't see anybody up there.

Uh, yeah. If you're online and would like to make comments, you can log in to the town's website and uh go to agenda packets and the PNZ packet for April 21st and log in to provide comments. Uh we'll give about a minute here to see if anybody jumps on. Stop watching the We used to have the Jeopardy. That's really help. That's real. It's acted like a school clock. School kids. They can't read that anymore.

No, I know. They don't know how to read that. I was talking to my kids about giving time in like quarter after quarter till. They have no idea. External. You have no idea. I think you're you're good to close. Uh, as there's no public comments, we will close the public hearing at 7:33. And are there any commissioner comments?

I I think this is a great thing and just if we as long as uh we guard against some of the points that you know, Ben brought up and um I I was bringing up about the completeness trap. Um I think and I'm sure we can do it. not the ethic of the town of Bault to do that, but um who knows where we go in the future. But as long as we're not there now, I I um I'm in full uh agreement with the entire uh draft language. No further comment. Motion to approve the draft language.

Second. James, you want roll call or just All in favor? Uh, all in favor for this one. All in favor? Motion carries. Five nothing. Okay, great work, ladies. Great. Good job. Thank you. Thank you very much. See you soon. Thank you. They're fun. Are you doing the wildlife resiliency, too? We're not. Okay. Get out of your hair.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh the next item then is a public hearing on code amendments to town code chapters 16 and 18 in regards to wildlife wildfire resiliency standards. Staff.

Yeah. Thank you. Um this is a public hearing as you noted on code amendments to the state wildlife I'm sorry wildfire urban interface code which is the WOOI. Um, as some background, the state Senate Bill 25142 uh was approved that required local jurisdictions to adopt code uh that meets or exceeds the state uh requirements uh in their adopted state uh wildfire code. And and this wildfire code was just adopted here in the last year by the state. Um it mainly addresses uh structure hardening and landscape buffers for wildfire protection. Um the town building official and town planning staff have spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out, you know, how to implement this. Um given that it's a state mandate, uh we've been in quite a few different uh kind of sessions with other jurisdictions that have been struggling with how to to implement it and mandate it. Um the town building official has provided kind of a a markup um that's included in your packet materials um that would require a state board uh variance approval. Um, and so he thinks that those amendments would be kind of more reasonable from a structure hardening standpoint, uh, in that materials would be more available under his kind of markedup regulations and and they'd be more consistent with what we currently have. Um however, because it would need a state uh board variance and we're under a timeline, um staff went to

town council uh with a work session in March and the council directed staff to bring forward amendments uh as were proposed and required by the state wildfire code uh without the building officials amendments. and they also directed staff to kind of concurrently uh put together an application for a state board variance for uh the building officials markups. Um so so staff is kind of carrying forward in those two tracks uh currently and and so the the code amendments that you have in front of you are basically the code amendments that the state adopted and are requiring local jurisdictions adopt. And as I noted, uh, they're identified on page 73 of your packet, but it's got the structure hardening requirements that are above and beyond the current requirements we have in the state or in the town code. Uh, and then there's these landscaping and site planning uh, requirements that relate to landscaping uh, buffers. So, you've got this uh ignition zone one, which is areas that are zero to five feet uh from a structure, and it it's got requirements related to removing plantings. Uh you can't do new trees in that area, and if you have uh certain mature trees, uh they might have to be removed. Um, and then you've got kind of a wider zone, which is this zone two, uh, which is 5 to 30 feet from a building. Um, and so you have to kind of remove dead materials. Uh, you have to prune, uh, branches and, uh, maintain tree spacing. And then you've kind of got this, uh, expanded zone, which is, uh, 30 to 100

feet from a building. Uh we've got limited lots in the town of Basalt that have that 30 to 100 feet. Some of the Aspen Junction stuff ha has the 3200, but so these these are what the state is mandating right now. Um we were supposed to have the code adopted by April 1st. Um and then there's a July 1 implementation deadline. Um so we're we're looking to meet that. Um but uh we're we're going to go this additional kind of concurrent route where we can see if we can get a state variance to basically go with the similar code to what we have now on wildfire mitigation. Um so this evening I'd be happy to answer any questions. Uh this is a public hearing because it's a code amendment uh review and so staff would uh suggest asking questions, taking public comments and then um discussing a recommendation to council

questions. So obviously this doesn't apply to existing structures but um is there are there is there a possibility of any ex incentives for existing structures to become compliant with this because it's pretty expensive to do this? What do you mean it doesn't if you lose a 100 square feet of your roof, you have to replace the entire roof. Yeah. I mean, there there are some if you're doing additions, if if you're um removing a certain amount of sighting, if if you're repairing, it said it specifically says repairing. Here's the Yeah.

Um structure, it says if you are Sorry, I was just looking at it. Yeah. So, it's it is pretty strict. Um, and that's, you know, one of the reasons we want to go this kind of concurrent process to try to get a state waiver. Um, and but we have to adopt this code w without the state waiver under the timelines. Um, and and we could come back if we got the state waiver to to go with alter or repair

less restrictive code. It would be nice if you if you did that to your house like to brought it bring it up to code. You could somehow communicate that to your insurance company, which would be totally disinterested in this. You're not going to give you a a a credit though. They're not going to lower your rates ever. No, my rates just doubled last year. And if you introduce all this stuff and you do all this work, they're not going to be like, "Great job. Here's it. Here's half." Yeah. They're not going to do that. No. No.

Yeah. And I think you know what we've heard is that insurance companies are actually going going to potentially require even more restrictive stuff than the state code. So it's it's you know steps in that direction unfortunately. But like some of these things like fire that's really expensive stuff. Yeah. Um, why did the town add in the from the roof coverings the additional the addition of 100 square feet of roof surface area to whichever is less 25% or 100 square feet?

Uh, I don't think we added that from the state code. Are are you looking at the the red line? I'm looking at the red lines. It's it's bolded. I just assume that bolded meant it was being added by by staff. No, I don't I don't think so in in this case. I think that's in there from the state code. Um you you might be looking at uh the last exhibit, which is Mitch's uh markup that we're trying to get the waiver on. That's what I'm looking at. Mitch's markup. So, I see I see crossed out lines. I see bolded text. I see underline and bolded text. Yeah. So, which one is Mitch's red lines? Uh it's the underline text.

Anything that's underlined. The items that are just bolded are not Mitches. They're not Mitches. It's the underlined text. The underlined. Yeah.

How How did the other jurisdictions adopt this? We we've been in discussions with kind of all the jurisdictions in the Eagle U Valley and some of them adopted the code as is. Some of them went through the uh variance process to do a a California uh building code that was tested. Um Mitch Mitch wasn't as excited about the California building code because it's kind of still at the same level of structure hardening and there's difficulty getting materials to to match that requirement. Um and and so that's why he would like to go through the variance process to try to get a more reasonable kind of structure hardening um program uh to be more similar to what we currently have in our in our fire mitigation requirements. Um,

has there been any discussion of applying this new code just to the wildlife urban interface or is this a blanket?

So, this is a discussion item for the town council. There there is a map that the state did and and basically the map identifies high, medium, and low um wildfire risk areas. And so, as you'd imagine, a lot of the Hill District is in the high fire district or fire risk area. But then there are big sections of town um that include kind of the downtown area, they include Southside, they include Willlets that aren't aren't shown as a risk. Um so it'd be a discussion item for the town council as to whether they only want to apply this up in the high risk area or if they would like to apply it townwide. our our current uh uh wildfire mitigation requirements are townwide. Um but you know it it might be logical to only apply these increased um requirements in the high risk area.

Okay. Did the town arborist um weigh in on the 10- in DBH? Yeah. requirement in the immediate zone and if so why did he not specify uh different tree types and different sizes associated

in in the markup that is attached for the waiver. Um he made some adjustments in there as well um that would be requested for a waiver from from the state board. Um I I think he generally believes we can work with the the current code that's from the state. Um but he he would would like a little more flexibility. So that's that's what we would ask as part of the state board waiver. Does the town have any plans to do some fire mitigation on kind of the urban um wildlife

interface interface? Yeah, we've we've had some programs actually going for the last couple years. Um and uh we we've got some funding for some additional projects that Chris Biser is working on. Um

um Yeah. So, um yeah, this fall we did a um fire mitigation and slash piles up on Basalt Mountain. Um so that that area right up there now has I don't even know how many slash piles they have, but um those have to wait two years before they can be dealt with. Um so that portion and then we did put some more yeah some mitigation on that hillside basically from the previous fire. So like the weebles that you see there um and some seeding to try and get some some things to grow there. Um and then we do have a partnership with the wildfire collaborative on addressing different areas of town. So there'll be some more opportunities this summer where we'll have some volunteer um groups come out and help us with some of that work. So

yeah. And so are those mitigation efforts will those be reflected in state mapping if say you wanted to choose to only do this in high areas? Does that work kind of affect that mapping or is that would that be a whole another step for the town to take on like its own mapping and develop a high Yeah, that would be another step for the town if we wanted to. Um the the state is going to revisit the map that they did in 3 years is my understanding. That's kind of the directive that they've got. Okay.

Um but but that doesn't mean that the town couldn't go through and have it mapped on our own. Um but but then the state has to accept your map, right? We do this. Could we post the maps that are applicable to Basalt on our website so people know where they are? Yes. And I think, you know, for where where I live, you know, I think for actually anybody if you were evacuated during Lake Christine, you're probably in the high risk. That would include me and probably you, Mike.

Yeah. I didn't live there during that time. I lived somewhere else where I got evacuated, but um yeah, I would imagine I'm in the high zone. While we're on this tangent, are there funds available to help people with the cost of removing trees? I I say that because I had friends in Sine County, they received funds to encouraging them that they could use or help pay for a certain amount of trees off their

Well, I don't know of any direct um like for a tree removal. We do have uh we are partnering with Eagle County um I think it's in June uh for a chipping program to happen so that people would be able to dispose of anything that's on their property and that would be costfree. Um Eagle's actually paying for that for the entire town of Assault, not just what's in Eagle County. And and the flyer is right behind you um that I'm staring at. We and you know we participate in the Eagle Valley uh wildfire collaborative and the Roaring Fork Valley Wildfire Collaboratives uh given that we're in both counties and and both jurisdictions and there's been discussion at the Eagle County Wildfire Collaborative that the state is potentially working on, you know, additional funding, but they're not there yet. I will say that the wildfire collaboratives are doing a assessment, a risk assessment for people. So they can go um to rfv wildfire.org to get that um risk assessment.

My perception is the bigger issue is is the what we currently have versus what's being built. areas such as Willlets where houses are very close to each other. It's now 20 plus years old and you know 20 feet from my house is a a spruce tree that's 50 ft high. Sure. And it's a matchick but it's not on my property. I can't buy it. Yeah. But this code tells you you can't have that. No, it it says you can have it because it's greater than 10 in DBH. Okay. Any wildfire expert will come in and give an assessment of hardening your neighborhood will tell you you need to cut that tree. Sure.

People don't want to do it not just because of cost. Yeah. What where that's where I think Any additional questions? As this is a public hearing, we'll open up at 7:52. If you're online, I will rever refer you back to James' comments from earlier. Uh, please let us know. We'll give you about 30 seconds to a minute.

It can be within 5t of like it can be touching your house, but if it's greater than 10 inch DBH, you technically can point to that as part of the code. Seeing as we have nobody making any comments, we'll close the public hearing at 7:53. I'll open it up for commissioner comments. As painful as it is to think about this, it is a good idea and it's expensive, but you know, being evacuated in Lake Christine, I I was just lucky my house didn't burn down. So, in reading this, I was contemplating, you know, doing this to my own house, which is really expensive.

So, I'm all in favor of it.

I can speak um very direct about what the insurance companies are doing. Um, and it is predatory. Um, how the town adopts this will have a direct effect on many of the HOAs and communities and their financial feasibility and requirements to even maintain uh insurance and therefore um property values. Um there there is true leverage that the insurance companies are using as a part of not only the state adoptions but our ability to point back to the local jurisdiction adoptions as as that last line of defense against their leverage in uh just dropping us as carriers.

Yeah, I agree with that. Also, I had a client who purchased a um outdoor hospitality property near Grant Lake and as part of the agreement to in order to get insurance, he had to cut 150 trees down. This was three or four years ago and those sorts of issues by insurance companies is only going to continue particularly facing a historic drought this summer. So this is sorely needed and personally I would like to see some initiatives to encourage homeowners to start taking action their homes not just through the landscaping but also through rooftops etc. If we could find financial incentives at the state or county level or something along those lines I think that would be very beneficial to our community.

Yeah. I mean, this this community especially is particularly vulnerable because we burned once already and it could very easily happen again. Mike, any comments?

Um, I agree that the risk is very real. I mean, the town has gone gone through it in the last 10 years and we've seen it. I think, you know, we just talked about trying to get affordable housing units and the cost of this if it's wide throughout the entire town and how that affects the possibility of making any of that pencil as a developer. You know, it's it's kind of they go against each other to a certain degree.

Um, I do think safety is obviously number one priority. Um, I think the town should consider adopting this only in certain locations, I guess, versus the entire community. Yeah, I agree with Mike. I think that's um delineating those boundaries is is important uh to provide the specificity for for where the real danger is versus where a you know good practice is. Yeah, I I agree with that too.

That being said, do we have a motion? Do we want to make that part of our motion or just as a recommendation for council to I think that's a good idea. Recommendation to approve to council with delineated boundaries within the town adoption. Second. All in favor? I.

Motion carries. Thank you very much. Last item then is commissioner comments and staff updates. Um, so your next meeting will be May 5th and we've got uh parcel 9 uh so Meadows final plan application that you'll be reviewing on that evening and then also another Eagle County referral on a more significant application than you saw this evening. Um the Fields application um it's back. Yeah, it's back. So

yeah, James, I won't be at the fifth. That's my kid's graduation from or from college. My my third third college graduation. One left.

One left. Um, other staff updates are uh tomorrow's Earth Day and uh so there'll be activities out in the park here and uh it'll be a full afternoon of of festivities. So we encourage anybody to check it out. Um and uh the other update is the Jadwin final plan application is uh been submitted and deemed complete. So you'll be seeing that come around again in month and a half or so.

Cool. The chipping program was already mentioned. Uh, additionally, yard waste collection uh is occurring at Arbony Park and also at Wildwood Park. Um, so bring your yard waste. We have posters around town. Also located information is located on the website. Um, if you need help about what is and is not accepted. Um, not a town of salt update, but uh, the city of Aspen at the Rio Grand Recycle Center is accepting skis. you're looking to properly dispose of and recycle skis, uh, you can do that right now at the Rio Grand Recycle Center.

In that vein, is the town going to do another big electronic cleanup recycle day that we did? That's the hope. I believe that's scheduled for June. Yeah, we haven't nailed down the date yet because they're resurfacing the um, B school parking lot and we're trying to work around that because that is really the best location. When you do get a date, let me know. I can let the environmental club know before we break for the summer if they want to volunteer and give you some help. Great. I I need to know that, too. I've got a whole pile. Yeah, fantastic. Last year, I have a vacuum I've been carrying around. Um I've got a 36 inch tube TV. Gosh.

See, Bill, this goes back to your comment about, you know, the vacuum cleaner repair place. If we had one, if we had one, we could get it around. Thanks. Um, we also have coffee with the mayor um at Mountain Hart this Thursday at 9:00 am to 11 a.m. So, if you want to go and meet with the mayor, I'll be there as well and the town manager. Awesome. If there are no more comments or updates, motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? I meeting is adjourned at 8:00 on the dot. Thank you guys.