P&z - Regular Meeting

Hi and welcome to the Town of Bault Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Tuesday, May 5th. May we have a roll call, please? Called to order. Uh, we need a pause for a second. restart.

Hi again. Welcome to the town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for May 5th. Uh do we have a call to order, please? Yes. Uh Eric Vosik here. Uh Cindy Hersfield here. Mike Corvth here. Bob Kaplan here. again. Ben Firestein here and Bill Marin, Kyle Obereter, and Rob Levit are absent today. You have a quorum. Excellent. Uh, our next item then is a public hearing on parcel 9, the Soprus Meadows final subdivision PUD and Associated Development Review requests. And I'll hand it over to you to get us going.

Yeah, thank you. Let me please share my screen here. Uh we have the design team here with us on the parcel 9. Uh we've got Sarah Tai, we've got Jay, the engineer, and we've got Scott McCale from Zgroup. Um so this is a public hearing on a final plan application submitted by the town. Uh and it's to construct 16 two-bedroom residential units on parcel nine of the SUS Meadows subdivision. Uh as background, uh the town is proposing to construct 16 two-bedroom deed restricted uh units on the vacant parcel uh known as parcel 9 of So Meadows. It's just south of the Willitz Rugby Field and just north of the Lakeside Town Homes. Uh the town received sketch and preliminary plan approvals uh for the development uh previously. Um the site as I've noted is uh a vacant parcel and uh it is adjacent to the Willlets Lake. Uh it's located in the urban growth boundary and is designated as community facility with an or affordable housing uh overlay in the future land use map. Uh the review process is a PUD process. It includes a sketch plan, a preliminary plan, and a final plan review, and entails the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission, uh PNZ and council review, uh the project at each level of review, and we're at the final plan review phase, and the sketch and preliminary were previously approved. Um the proposal uh is pretty consistent with the sketch and preliminary plan approvals. Uh the applicant uh application contains 16 two-bedroom

units. Uh they're proposed to be uh mix of categories 3, four, and five. And they're proposed to be for sale units. Um there are 39 off- streetet parking spaces that are proposed. uh and they consist of two for each unit and then there are four guest spaces and three ADA spaces on the site. Uh the building is proposed to be three stories as you saw in the elevations uh with a uh uh at grade parking garage on the first floor and then two floors of residential above uh similar to the sketch and preliminary plan phases. Um there was a minor adjustment uh between the preliminary plan and the final plan uh that was at the direction of the town council. Uh two of the parking spaces were moved from the south side uh to the north side uh to provide uh less impact on the adjacent Lakeside town homes. Uh in reviewing the application, uh staff identified discussion items that are in your memo. Uh they included consistency with the master plan, compatibility with the neighborhood, uh parking, consistency with the community housing guidelines, traffic, uh the green building SB and wildfire protection, and then the town's referral comments. uh in evaluating the application uh in terms of consistency with the master plan, the PNZ and council determined the program and designed to be consistent with the master plan at the preliminary plan phase uh in that it's in the urban growth boundary and it's consistent with the future land use map designations. Uh it also satisfies the goals of creating housing near

transit uh that are outlined in your staff memo and were discussed at the preliminary plan phase. Uh in terms of compatibility uh with the neighborhood, uh the PNZ determined the design to be compatible at the sketch and preliminary plan levels. Uh the height is consistent with the other multifamily development in the area, including the uh Lake Modern project on parcel 5. uh the Park Modern project uh on Evans Road uh as well as the Lakeside Town Homes. And it is also consistent in terms of form uh with the parking on the first floor with two uh levels of residential above uh to those other projects. Uh in terms of parking, as I noted, it meets code requirement of two spaces per unit. And uh it's noted that some of the parking displaces uh some of the parking in the Rugby Field lot. Um the town is uh looking at budgeting in the next couple years for the widening of a portion of Beast Valley Road to add some on street parking in the area uh to kind of help uh mitigate those spaces that are being lost. Uh other items include consistency with the community housing guidelines. Uh the design team can go over this in more detail. Uh but Bach reviewed the sketch plan and the preliminary plan and the final plan and found them all to be consistent with the livability requirements in the housing guidelines. uh and they also meet the requirements of having 50 square foot of deck uh to meet the private open space requirements uh in the town code. Uh other topics included traffic. Uh there was a report provided as part of the sketch in the preliminary plan and uh CDOT reviewed that report and confirmed that an access

permit is not required for the development uh in that much of the traffic was already in the prior traffic studies for SUS Meadows uh that was allocated for this property. Uh in terms of green building and wildfire protection, uh we've got conditions in the draft conditions that are in your memo. uh that would require uh compliance with those standards that are in place at the time of permit. Uh and that's important because the wildfire uh code is is changing here. Uh it's in the process of changing. Um other topics included referral comments. Uh the fire district required uh that the project meet the sprinkler requirements but that they felt the site layout uh met their u requirements and works for them. Uh public works also made comments. Their primary comments are that the shed and nursery that are on site for the parks offices uh will need to be replaced uh and that the trash area and ADA pad should be made of concrete. Uh so the design team and staff will look at that. Uh they thought that the uh pad should be concrete for lessening future maintenance uh requirements. And then uh fire and public works their comments are included in the draft conditions. Other conditions to highlight uh there is a requirement for the need for the utility easements for Mid Valley Metro uh to be adjusted prior to the building permit. Uh it also is required that the minor subdivision plat to adjust the lot line between this property and the park be recorded uh prior to permit and that the deed restrictions also be executed and required before permit. Um the conditions would grant uh three years of

vested rights which is the standard code requirement for vested rights uh and allows for the town to come back in the future if we need more time uh through the extension of vested rights uh process. So overall, staff this evening would recommend hearing some additional comments from design team in terms of details and and adjustments and then uh taking public comment and providing PNZ discussion and ultimately staff would recommend u the commission provide a recommendation of approval to the town council. So with that, I'll stop sharing my screen, turn it over to design team.

Scott is going to share his screen and James is always so thorough. Um, but we do have just a couple of things to elaborate on just some of the changes that we've made uh between preliminary and now. Um, all the changes that you're going to see, um, are pretty minor. And let's just skip and go over the context and go right to the site plan. So, and I borrow your mouse so I can point at things. Excellent. Oops. Nasty lag. Is there? Yeah. Okay. I won't zoom around like a maniac.

Bet. If you want to stay, just bring your name tag. Tag. Grab that. You have my name tag. Rob, don't forget your name tag. Unless you want to go by Rob. I mean, it's got carries weight in this town.

So, a couple of minor changes have been made since when you your team saw this last and now. um primarily related to giving additional space to our neighbors on the south for landscape screening. So when we were discussing this um with council, we were directed to look at providing additional space for landscape screening on the south, which we achieved by removing two of the parking spaces that were here, which had pushed the paving very close to this southern property boundary. Um, and instead of losing those parking spaces, we moved them to the north. So, the other change that came with that is that the the boundary of the lot line adjustment and therefore the square footages of the lots that are being adjusted are now different than when you saw them um at preliminary plan. So, we have additional the two additional parking spaces were moved here. this um necessitated the narrowing of this parking um parking island here. Um and then with those changes, we made a couple of other updates. So, we shifted the we cycle station um into this area, made some sidewalk connection adjustments, and so there there's just a few changes that kind of occurred on this north side. What this gained us is more space on the south side for green green space in between us and our neighbors. And we have a little bit of a planting plan that's easier to see that now all this that was parking basically directly to the property line now has space for um planting and screening. Um outside of that, the the remainder is is pretty much the same as you saw it at preliminary. So, just to kind of walk you back through what's happening, we

have um our main vehicular access goes straight through and under the building, comes out and connects to the existing parking area in the Rugby Field parking lot. We have primary outdoor gathering space for residents here on the south, which consists of um gathering spaces in a grill area. We have bicycle parking here on the north. And then we have lockable enclosed bicycle shed here also on the north. We have the trash recycling compost in the middle of those things. And then mail is here. And so we also have firetruck access coming off right here across um from East Valley Road. And that's what these two kind of tracks here are. And then this area is blocked out for obviously um dump truck access. Um that's the overall gist of the overall gist of the site plan that you you have seen before. So I don't want to belabor it too too much. Jay can add a little bit of um flavor and color to the things that we did on the north as well like in terms of kind of a sidewalk expansion and things like that.

Yeah. Um, I mean honestly it was really kind of satisfying to update that parking lot just because there it was kind of crooked and there was a lot of weird angles and you could it wasn't really maximizing the square footage. Um, so we were able to widen the parking the aisle the drive aisle so that it it's easier to drive through there and then we were also able to straighten out all the parking spaces so that uh they're just kind of nice transitions between uh throughout that parking lot. Um, and also you can kind of see on the north side here, we were able to make a connection. Um, because this actually didn't even connect to the bike path over here. So, we were able to put a crosswalk in here and then put a path with some steps that go up and tie into that. And then there's also a ADA ramp that wraps up further that way

right there. So, um, overall just circulation, uh, accessibility has been increased in that area as well. And there's a sign, this little that black thing, right? The signage. Yep. So, for the property,

one of the things that we we discussed potentially here and definitely with council was exploring a gate or creation of some kind of threshold to indicate that this area is for residents. This is resident parking, etc. A gate was not feasible. Um there was a lot of logistics and cars in and out and firet truck and etc etc. So what we discussed was at the point where that is narrowing with the two parking islands coming together. We would just uh create a sign that would and I I believe the development maybe even has a name. I feel like I saw a name on something. Yeah. We're trying to call it Pitch View. Pitch view. Pitch View. Yes.

Um so it would have you know a little kind of indicating that you're entering into a private, you know, kind of residential parking area in lie of a gate. Okay, I'm going to skip through any anything else on No, so in the in the packet you there's a lot of extra information in there. The lighting, we we don't have to run through it all. Um, but that's in there for everyone to see if you have questions. The civil drawings are very technical and in depth those look good everything look big screen

that's that's where the submitt goes it's just super technical on the landscape side u and then this is tree removal and mitigation plan in there and then we'll jump to the architectural side um so on the building itself very little has changed we're we're kind of massaging it as we're wrapping up we're in the design development phase so different than what was in the packet you guys saw right things are kind of transitioning so I figured I'd just put it in there this was the old plan that you saw before it's very similar but now with the new one um I can just show you that live tonight is this there have been a couple adjustments which only make it better which I'm we're very I'm excited I think these plans just keep getting better which is really cool I'm excited for everyone who's going to live here Um it's still the the two-bedroom setup that it was before. Um we've got a little bit of a bump out on the living room just to articulate the facade and make it more interesting. So that's we can see that, you know, across the street. Um yay, we got rid of the little mechanical PTAC in the corner. I am not a fan of those. So we are now going through different mechanical setup. Um we'll have rooftop units. Um, and then with, you know, the cassettes and heads in the units. So, we didn't lose that. If you saw before, we lost that square footage in the front of the living room. Um, which is very frustrating. Uh, so now we have more open square footage. Then also running through this. I can't believe Bill's not here. Uh, to run through, we had we went through and did all the Anie checkup check. There's only 16 units, so these are all type B units which can be convertible, but we don't have to put in grab bars. Um, but there there will be blocking. Everything's ready to go for accessibility. Um, but with that, there are a couple little changes. So, there was a water heater closet back where

this bathroom was. Um, and then with the clearance requirements, well, hey, the bathroom's better and bigger. So this bathroom has a shower, has the toilet, the sink, and then the washer and dryer in there because of reach and maneuverability. So this is a fully compliant bathroom. It's not ADA compliant, but it's it's per the Anie. Um entry is still the same, but you know, we can have some hooks. Um bedroom on this side with closet, same size as it was before. The kitchen's a little different. Um, with this arrangement and moving it around and with the little ad in the furniture, we're able to do a kitchen. Wanted to get an entry closet. So, we were able to make the kitchen a little bigger. We added an island um on the side. So, the dining area is a little smaller. Um, but I I think maneuverability or for a family, we have the bar plus you have a small dining table. Your livable living room is a little bit bigger actually. So, I think this works better. Um, we have, again, as you come in, you have a co coat closet, you have refrigerator, the range, cooktop, hood. Um, we're way over the minimum for counter space, which is great. We get a sink at the end, upper cabinets, and then the island with the dishwasher and more cabinetry there. So, much more storage and capacity in here um than we had before. So, I think the kitchen is 10 times better than it was before. Um, the other one was nice. It was nice and open, but just just has more storage, which is great. Um, going into the primary bedroom, same setup, but we took a little bit out of the primary closet um for the water heater. So, that will be in there for easy access. Um, and then the primary bath, very similar. Um, but we get a little linen closet, sink, toilet, tub, and then there's some, you know, the requirements for turning around and things like that for wheelchair access are in there. Um so that has helped make

the unit overall better inside I believe. Um and balcony as we said before 50 square feet. Um those are the square footages and then we can jump to the plans very similar as they were before kind of fine-tuning things again with fire sprinkler water entry room. We've got the storage units and a screen here. I think you saw that before but I'm not sure. So, we if you didn't, the the garage area is very much in kind of the entry area. So, we've got a little privacy screen wall to block those entries, make them feel more private from the garage. Um, and then the storage units next to them to kind of flank and help with that private privacy, give it a better sense of entry. Um, second level, uh, same as it was before. So, all the units kind of stack on top of each other. our egress, our storage units. Same thing on the third floor. Same as you saw before. Um, moving on to a little bit more detail on the elevations. We're just we're getting into more of the materiality of it. Um, with the new, we're anticipating the new fire codes. So, everything will be non-combustible on the outside. So, we'll be investigating cement board siding or possibly the metal siding that has wood grain. Um, we can play with different things, but the cement board siding and the metal sighting, metal's a little bit more expensive. So, again, we'll be we'll have to be going through budget numbers um with the contractor and figure out, you know, what's the most affordable thing. Privacy screen, the same thing. We can't use wood, so we'll be using um some sort of metal or composite um for those screen walls there. We've kind of gone through and, you know, manipulated the openings of those screen walls a little bit to make it um nicer and have more justification architecturally with alignments. Um the balconies um very

similar to what you saw across the street. So those are kind of um accessory aluminum balconies we have for each unit. Same thing the other elevations. No real updates on those, just materiality and fine-tuning all the details. And in DD, we'd, you know, get into what are the assemblies and insulation and all those little fine details, what materials we're using inside and outside. The height, same as before. And then the three the 3D views, these are the same, very similar to what you saw before. Maybe some fine tuning of colors and windows. Um but very much uh the same project but I think I feel it's actually getting better which is great.

That's it. Open to questions. Cool. Thank you. We will open it for questions. Start Bob. Um I don't believe I have any questions. Um we filled in pretty thoroughly in our last meeting. Um, looks like there's a pretty large recycle station. Is that in addition to all the existing we cycles in the area or is it going to kind of absorb one of like the one at Lakeside or is it all additional? This is intended to be additional, I believe.

Okay, that's all I got. A couple questions here. Um, how are you planning on uh satisfying the site triangle needs that public works director brought up in addition to Chris's discussion about tree um discontinuity? Do you uh let's go to the site plan and I don't have the public works comments like in front of me so if you want to elaborate. It's that tree the tree on the south side

tree on the south side and you have a new tree on that side there's looks like there's existing trees as well. Yes. So the like in terms of the site triangle here for that one got three trees clustered in that area. Yeah. So in terms of the site triangle here I believe what we discussed Jay was that this tree isn't con Oh my goodness stop touching. Um what we had discussed was that um you know as we looked into it more if we were hoping that we could potentially just trim the tree

um so that it would allow for adequate visibility um while still maintain the tree. But you know if it gets to that point then we would just replace the tree with in another location that allows for uh better visibility. We really didn't want to cut it down. It's a beautiful tree. It's making Chris really sad too. It's a beautiful tree. It is. And and so what we discussed is that, you know, because it has the ability to be trimmed up above the what is it? 6 feet or 8 ft or what do you need to keep it out of the visibility triangle? I believe it is 8t. Yeah, I think it's big enough that we can trim it up. Okay. Out of the eight. And so our hope is to keep it. Um,

are all the proposed trees also going to um fall color the way the East Valley Road does? That's a beautiful It really is. And you can see it from the highway. And I'll have to I have to Let me look at my It's a true character of this of this road. I'm just curious. Can't quite see your planting plan. It's really small on my screen. These these are maples. So, this is a maple and this is a maple. So, that will color up. Um got big shoes to fill. Sarah, I know, right? It is so beautiful. Yeah, we do have some maples in there. we were trying to get. So, one of the things that we didn't do and and we can talk about this is like right now all of this is a single species of tree

and we didn't replace it with that same single species of tree although we do have another you know another maple going in. Um we were trying to get a little bit more diversity in the canopy. Okay. Um but that is something that we can talk about because that is very distinctive going down that road especially in the fall. It's stunning. Um and you know so we can talk as a as a team about you know does the canopy does the biodiversity the canopy diversity come in a little deeper into the site and you know maintain that continuity. Okay.

Um and then no issues with the turning movement of the trash trucks. So, the trash trucks, it is um it's a little bit of a tricky scenario to where they would most likely be using the uh the existing parking lot access to the north. Uhhuh.

Um and kind of uh they're going to have to pull in there and then they're going to have to back out of there. It isn't it definitely isn't the most ideal um for the trash trucks. Uh that being said, you know, you hopefully when majority of the time when the trash trucks are running, those parking lots will be at least the one for the park will a lot of the time be emptier. So, you know, a lot of the time they should be able to hopefully turn around within within the footprint of that parking lot. Um if we are having issues then you know maybe they can uh we can look at giving them access to that fire truck uh pulloff uh to where they would be able to pull in that direction.

Okay. No further questions. I just have one and I I don't want you to spend too much time on this, but can you briefly explain again what architectural wizardry wizardry you use to um enlarge the bathroom and the kitchen and add an entrance hallway within the same space like the Doctor Who booth?

It's the same square footage, Cindy, but it just moves some things around. Um, and it's a different type of mechanical unit. Um, so in this in the living room, we had a mechanical closet, right, with a PTAC on it. So that takes away from the living room space. So by opening that up, um, it gives you the feeling that the room is bigger, so you have walls next to the doors. Um, easier to just manipulate some of that. And then also this water heater. Um, again, it's not necessarily losing or taking away, but the closet was over in this corner.

So, by moving it into the primary closet, which was very generous, um, it gave this corner to the bathroom. So, they gain that little corner area. So, now we have washer, dryer, shower, sink, and toilet um, in a little different configur. So, before it was kind of this, it was kind of jig jog. you know, you had the sink, the toilet, the washerdryer, and the shower, and they were kind of offset from each other. And with the accessibility requirements, we were able to kind of get those to push back, give more floor space in the middle for that accessibility, get a bigger door in, and then that that space feels bigger and more spacious, more usable.

Okay, I see. And it looks like the entry hallway was there all along. It just looks more visible in the second Yes. drawing. Yeah, we're just we're again it's all these little um h it it actually it finessed a little bit because there's a 18inch clearance on the pole side um and then another clearance on the push. So there's there's some little finessing there that makes it give it a little bit more spacious feel. And then again with that adding the pantry or sorry could be pantry but the coat closet next to it um also it just helps. And then the kitchen itself, it's more lineal footage um of cabinetry, which is more storage, you know, that I think most families need. Okay. Thanks. I was just curious.

Yeah. No, it's okay. I do not have any questions, so I will open it up for a public hearing at 6:35. I don't see anybody here. James, you want to do the online thing or move past that now? We can do that quickly. Um, if you are watching the u YouTube

uh and you would like to provide comments to the PNZ on this application, you can go on the town of B assult website and go to agendas and minutes and go to the May 5th PNZ agenda and you can jump on the Zoom link that's on that agenda and provide comments. Uh we'll give you 45 seconds. We don't have the Jeopardy. Yeah, exactly.

Like somebody should have a joke prepared for that 45 seconds like to just tell in the interim. I All of mine are off color. She works for Lionart. It all makes sense. Seeing as we have no comments, we will close the public hearing at 6:36 and I will open up for commissioner comments. We'll go opposite directions. Cindy, any comments? I do not have any additional comments.

A couple here. Um the first one is to the town. Um, in sketch plan review and preliminary review, I brought up the need for uh improvements to the bus pathing there at Lake Avenue at Mid Valley Medical Center. Sure.

Um, there is no receiving ramp on that side of the goat track. We are calling this to we are putting recycle stations in there and then we are asking our citizens to hop a curb. uh at one of the most dangerous bus intersections that we have in the Mid Valley. Um I think it behooves the town to fix that intersection and provide better uh pedestrian transportation um as a part of this project. That would be uh an important addition. Um lastly, thank you all for the effort here. It's it's a marvelous to see it grow uh and and develop. Uh Jay, if the contractor writes you a single RFI, I hope you create a very snide comment back because there's an incredible level of constructibility in these plans. Um so thank you for that. That should get the most accurate pricing for the town.

Um yeah, I think the movement of the parking spots is a positive. Um, I think it was close to the the adjacent neighbor there. So, I think that's a positive. Um, I would be curious on if we are able to kind of tuck the trash back a little bit and make that so they didn't have to back out. If there is some small adjustments that we can finagle um, as part of construction documents, I think that would be positive. But overall, I think it's a great project.

Um, I also feel it's a great project. um excited to see it come to fruition. U the whole lake lake area is coming closer to being completed with more of the park moderns being built. This has been an empty hole there for many years. Um I'm sure it will pass. I will be voting against the measure and it's a message to the town council that this should have been done in its original form of 14 units and I feel strongly that they should not have crammed in two more units. It's too much bulk for that space. It's too close to the neighbors and that's why you originally had 14 units and I think it's a precursor for what the town is going to try to do at Serpus Meadows 2E. And I've said, I actually told Michelle many months ago, we need to be careful to develop in a smart way that's not putting buildings that are too big for that envelope. I think what you have here is that and totally for affordable housing. I think we need a bunch, but we can't overlook our other needs and our long-term beauty of Willlets for getting a few more units here and there. So, I will be voting against it.

On the flip side, I thought you did a good job going from 14 to 16 and trying to make it where it wasn't overburdensome. Um, not to no I I I understand your point, just on the flip side, the little changes in the in the um in the apartments look great. I appreciate the fact when you were talking about the the trash and recycling you threw in composting um uh as collection. I would make sure that we include that as it's becoming more and more common in the valley. Um I think it's a great project. Thank you. On that note, how would we like to proceed? Motion to approve as staff has suggested. First through the second. Second.

Beat you to the punch. Yeah. Uh James, you want to roll call or Let's do a roll call. Okay. Um we will go with Ben. Yay. We will go with Mike. Yes. Uh Bob? No. Cindy? Yes. And Eric, yes. Motion passes four to one. Fantastic. Good luck. Well done, guys. Thank you so much. Appreciate all your comments and thoughts. Yeah, absolutely.

Always getting better. And as we adjust, the next item on our agenda then is the Eagle County referral on the fields development application at 554 Valley Road. We adjust Carlton, I think this is you, correct? The fields is just like a nightmare. Keeps coming back. Different though. It's different this time. Different this time. Okay. Just had to get that far project. Different with similar.

That's our urban sprawl corridor. Yeah.

All right. Good evening. planning and zoning. Carlton Henry planner 2 at the town of Basalt here to present uh referral application from Eagle County uh for the fields uh which is a four-part application for sketch and preliminary subdivision plan, a 1041 application, a zone district map amendment and variance from improvement standards. Uh the town of B assult has been given the opportunity to provide referral comments on this application as the application falls on a parcel within the town's three-mile planning area. Uh the proposal uh is for residential development of 41 residential units on 35 distinct lots on a parcel of approximately 19 acres in size. Uh the parcel is located southeast of the intersection of Highway 82 and Valley Road, south of Highway 82 and north of Valley Road. The subject property, as I mentioned, is slightly over 19 acres in size and is currently zoned rural residential per the Eagle County Land use regulations. Uh the Fields Development Group LLC, uh which will be further referred to as the applicant is proposing development of the site. um as I mentioned with 35 subdivided lots uh which are composed of 29 free market single family residences and 12 deed restricted duplexes. Um, I have included a vicinity map as part of the application here. Um, that was included in your packet, but as mentioned in a couple different ways, uh, the site is located north of Valley Road and south of 82 just to the west of the Summit Vista subdivision.

Um the comments that have been provided for your review um in the uh in your agenda item this evening uh have been separated out just for um ease of consideration into the four separate applications. the sketch and preliminary subdivision plan, the zone district map amendment, the 1041 application, uh, and then the variance from improvement standards. Uh, planning staff included comments related to three of the four applications, however, did not include comments related to the 1041 application. Uh, staff received referral comments from Basalt Police Department today, which will be included at the end of the week. um we did not receive those in time to include those as part of your packet. Additionally, the town engineer and public works staff uh are reviewing the 1041 application and variance from improvement standards application uh to provide additional technical comments related to those two applications. Um, as mentioned, staff provided ample comments related to the development as a whole, uh, and is seeking planning and zoning commission's uh, comments, questions, concerns, uh, and will be providing a the actual referral letter um, after moving on from its draft form as you see it currently by the end of the week. Um, also as a part of your agenda item, staff has provided several reference documents um, attached to the staff memo uh, including a vicinity map, an illustrative site plan, and this the applicant's narrative. Um, just a note on the review process. Decisions on this proposal will be made through a development review process

which includes review by county staff who will then provide a recommendation to the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission. Approving approval at a public hearing at both that planning commission and the Eagle County BOCC respectively will be required for this development proposal. Um, James, if you have any other historical detail or notes you'd like to add, offer that to you. Otherwise, we can accept questions.

I I would just add that uh, you know, there have been several applications on the fields property over time and the town has made comments on the fields applications in in the past. Um, this one does have less density than has been proposed in the past. Um, however, our our comments are still pretty similar to prior uh town comments. U mainly centered around the fact that it's outside the urban growth boundary and the town's master plan, you know, encourages um all suburban level development and urban level development to be in the town's urban growth boundary or or the Elabel urban growth boundary. and it's it's not in either in the the basalt master plan. So you'll see comments associated with that. Um in addition in in the past there have been uh comments related to uh traffic in the intersection there at Eljabel Road. Um they are Eagle County is making improvements to the intersection at Elabel Road. Um, however, it's the town's understanding that they're not actually increasing capacity at the intersection. So, um, you know, there's, uh, potential issues there. And there's a comment related to that in the draft memo. Um, we'd be happy to go over the rest of the comments if if you have questions on them or if you'd like us to. Uh, otherwise, we're we're happy to entertain comments.

Questions? Anybody? Keep it open.

I've got some questions. Um, reading through our draft letter, it reads like nimi keep basalt um rural language. Um I think if the applicant James as you have said has reduced density in this area the master plan sections that we are using to push back on them feel punitive in nature. Um, if I look at the area, again, I'm not familiar with the this applicant at all. Uh, I am familiar with the area. Um, and I am familiar with the challenges that surround this area, namely its proximity to forest service land and therefore its inability to construct the necessary infrastructure along East Valley Road to allow the achievable points that we are stating within our letter to the applicant. the rightway the the at the edge of valley road is forest service land and the forest service will US forest service federals will not allow us to not allow any development along that whole southside whether it's um this applicant or any other applicant and obviously all the other development of the housing communities along Summit and and uh in that neighborhood prevent th those private lots prevent any development on the north side Um, from an infrastructure standpoint,

uh, if I look at this lot in relation to its adjacent lots, I see single family homes at a 3/4 to a or a third to a half acre as well. Um, if I look across the street, I see the same thing in Blue Lake. Mhm.

Um I don't necessarily think that the development as it is proposed here, variances aside, requests aside, is is not in the character of the adjacent areas and especially after hearing that this applicant has provided density in this area and been pushed back on density in this area. Now they are coming back with something that is more akin to its neighbors and and we're still using the same our language actually says we want density as I as I read how we've pulled from the master plan uh that we are encouraging those things um

not in those locations however but not in those locations but we're also not encouraging any development in those locations be it single family homes or or inventory at Um, and I think that those things are in tension with with each other.

I can I can respond to that. I think um, comment nine particularly um, which is labeled as page three in the memo at the bottom of page three in the memo kind of addresses some of this balance. Um I think I would note that the application is proposing high resource highly resource intense low density suburban sprawling development which is physically disconnected from the rest of the infrastructure in in the town's urban growth boundary. Okay.

And you know while there are balances in you know encouraging development or directing development in a place such as this valley where we have a mix of you know urban or clustered development and rural development. Some of those things do come into conflict sometimes. And I would just note that staff has done um our best to balance the directives in the master plan in both of those directions. And I think that there are conflicts that exist on this site. Uh should development be proposed on this site, which is in line with Eagle County's rural residential district and in line with the town's urban grow growth boundary that the town staff may have drafted some different comments um with regard to the proposed development. Um, if there was additional density, I think the town would have the direction for Eagle County staff and for the applicant to have the appropriate infrastructure to support that and negotiation over things like the VIS application, I think could be a little bit more directed um on what's possible and what's not. Um, with regard to your comments, I think there are questions. I think they're well taken. And I would just ask if there were individual um, objectives that you object to including

three 31F strong physical connection between neighborhoods, schools, and commercial centers. I mean, where adjacent, you know, houses are adjacent to houses. Um, quality community that meets or exceeds the plan's policies does not meet the financial burden or many. I mean, This discourages affordable housing. They there's affordable housing in this. It meets their standards. So I would say 2G was included because discourage affordable housing projects that are not connected to the transit system or which do not have a well-lighted safe protected pedestrian access to and from transit stops

there. It's not possible to put a multi-use path in there. So to our point then should development just not exist like is is that is that the response here is that because we can't create a multi-modal path because it either goes through private property of all the adjacent residential houses or it's asking the feds for an easement which the feds aren't going to grant. Is this just not developable? I would say that it's incompatible with our comprehensive planning. I I would say you know this is really a discussion for the P&Z. So if if PNZ agrees with some of your points then then you know there could be consideration.

Say questions now comments so we don't get too far down the discussion side of it to clarify and then we can come back to to the point making um because their VIS application is asking for variances on all of the infrastructure that I'm talking about.

Right. Right. And correct and I would say that the town's engineer and public works um uh staff are going to provide more detailed comments to those effect. The uh town planning staff has tried our best to respond to the VIS application strictly on planning on a planning basis with you know the information that we have available um without opining too much in the technical details that are outside of our purview and realize we will not get a crack at this from a planning perspective. We get a plan a perspective of this is for the town of Basalt from a planning perspective of what we would like them to include in when they look at this.

Correct. And town council doesn't get a crack at this either. Right. No. No. It's only us as as the voice of the of the town. Correct. Um and and I will say, you know, our comments are kind of grounded in our master plan, which is typically the case. Um you know, generally we as the town are supposed to be providing our referral comments. based on what our master plan says and not not Eagle counties. So, has there been any discussion between Eagle County and the town of Balt as it relates to this parcel or this applicant?

Yeah, in the past there there's a lot of history to it. Um, you know, it goes all the way back to when they were, uh, Eagle County was doing the, uh, Mid Valley Community Plan, something like that. Um, and you know, there was discussion at the regional planning commission uh, when they were talking about their future land use map and and this is probably 10 years ago or more. When was that meeting we have with them? Eight years ago, something like that. So, I've got two dates for you guys. The initial appears to be in 2012 and then an update in 2018.

Yeah. So, back in 2012 when they were doing the um Mid Valley Area Community Plan, uh the Regional Planning Commission was discussing the future land use uh designation for this property. And it was originally um identified as a low density residential and and the regional planning commission uh against the town's uh referral and and comments chose to um make it a higher density uh designation in their master plan. and and so ever since we've had these applications with higher density than you know was permitted in the town's master plan because of the town's urban growth boundary. So that's just history. Um and and obviously it's caused uh um comments from the town in the past to kind of be negative in terms of having density on a site that's outside the urban growth boundary. And and so that's you know just some background

I can note um just in response to the the question about uh adjacent densities. Um Summit Vista has the same long range um designation of moderate density residential. Uh however Summit Vista is also located outside of the town's urban growth. But it's it's a lot older. Yeah. I'm not saying it's not a lot older, but it it's funny how the map lines go around as to what has been or hasn't been developed.

And and part of the discussion at that point with the regional planning commission was that, you know, you don't really have traffic capacity there. So, I don't disagree. I I could write a dissertation on that left onto 82. Um, right. And we have the Aspen One development north of that's on the other side of the road. I I we can again let's focus questions first. We can have this disc we're going to have this discussion but if we get too far down the track then we lose track of getting the questions and further questions. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah, I don't have any questions. Questions gentlemen. Um do we know if the applicants approach forest service about an easement for a multimodal path on any level?

I do not know that. I I do. What's the answer? The answer is they have and the Forest Service said no. The Forest Service doesn't even pick up a phone. The Forest Service has been gutted there in the White Riverside. Um yeah. Okay. I have no questions. If just for do you know the answer if it stays as rural residential as zoned how many parcels or how many units they can put on believe it's one unit per two acres if I'm remembering correctly

it's rural residential yeah so that would be nine okay maybe 10 in rounding clarification versus 41 units as proposed yeah The um moderate density residential is uh allows up to seven units per acre. So they're significantly beneath their permitted. This is not public hearing, right? This is just us as a referral. Correct. So I don't have to open up. Correct. Yeah. So coming back to the discussion then.

Yeah. Um, you know, um, Ben, obviously you've got some issues with how the letter is drafted, and I don't want I don't want to push back on that, but I do know, you know, other history from the side of of PNZ is every development, every thing that has been proposed through Eagle County, we make referral comments and our comments get nothing. Yeah. And so on the flip side of it and having gone been on P&Z with the master planning, I actually think the letter is very strong and very clear and what the town has said this is what we want for Basalt.

Mhm. Um, so, so it might sound like nimism, but we said in the master plan, we want things in the urban growth growth boundary connected to our, you know, our transportation systems, our communities as they're developed with less development on the periphery. Um, so yes, you're right. This development proposal seems to fit more with what's around it than the past one, which was 150 units. Correct. Um, I agree with you completely, but it still doesn't match what we want for as a town or what we've voted on. So, I would push back a little bit about the nimism saying this is what we want.

And and what did the town or does the town want as part that we want connection? We want the infrastructure in place. We want the safety from traffic. We want is that is that the ultimate want? That's what I'm trying to get at here. I'm not trying to say this is this is bad for us. I'm just trying to get at if the applicant is currently attempting to zone at seven units per acre and they're going in at two units per acre essentially or or almost approximately. Yeah. Um can I add something? Mhm.

Um I don't see it as meeting all those requirements as being a goal of this recommendation or the letter. I think to me the spirit of it is that this is just not the right place anymore for this kind of thing and here are some concrete reasons why. Um but in general I didn't take the tone of the letter to be negative. It is it is firmly worded and I think to me it's a positive for the town to take a stand because this piece of property has been controversial over the last however many years it's been since proposals. And I think people I mean frankly people are pissed about this. You know I don't think anybody wants to see a big development go in here. I think it would be kind of a breaking point in the valley. I think we're we're just at this point now where people are really getting tired of seeing development after development and the traffic increasing and um yeah I mean I don't know what will happen with Eagles County side of this but I think this will also just like um what was the one down valley that everyone just spoke out the harvest. Yeah. I mean, sure, they have the right to build there and everything, but I think I my my sense in the valley is people are at the point of thinking enough is enough. So, I don't have a problem with the town taking a stand on that.

Would it be then this I can just toss this out here. Would it be beneficial for us to go section by section on these comments, walk through or maybe we can hear the rest of his comments and Bob, Mike, anything to throw in? Go ahead, Bob. I agree, particularly since we have a history of Eagle County not listening to us,

that we continue to be ardent and strident in our position and perhaps they'll hear some of it and they will, you know, be more conservative in what they do allow there. And it clearly does not fit our master plan. Absolutely. There clearly is not multimodal transportation there. It's clearly is a far distance to the nearest well it's relatively close to the bus station but and it adds so much more traffic to that intersection which already you know is is busy and is going to get worse. So well it's sorry

for all those reasons it's not ideal. It's not within what we want but we don't have much power. So we should at least tell them what we really want and see what we get. see how much they listen to us. Um, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think it's a fine line of it's a referral comment and Yep. It's tough. I think we should hold our stance. I think I lived in Missouri Heights for seven years in that intersection. It's terrible. And we just keep and Eagle County continues to just develop around that intersection, the Wils intersection. And there's never public improvement to any of it. Yeah.

Ever seemingly. And I don't know when what level of service it has to get to for them to even think about that. Already had F.

Exactly. And so it's just how does the town manage that and for its existing residents? I I get we need housing and there's competing interests here. I think it probably should be smaller than what is proposed. Personally, I think as it ramps, it should kind of ramp up from half a unit per acre, you know, to two. And maybe it's more in the range of one to one and a half on this. And so it kind of ramps up because you see Summit Vista, then you see the Sko housing and there's a clear growth into that stuff. Um I just I have a hard time supporting just endless subdivision development without supporting infrastructure.

And that's not again I think we need housing, but like Bob said in the last one, there's a responsible way to develop. Mhm. I don't think this fits that mold.

Completely agree with everything you're saying there. Like that we need the infrastructure improvements. They continue to put all of the the weight here on Elabel. I'm not at all advocating that we continue to obuscate and defer defer maintenance throughout Valley Road. It is an atrocity. I through my connections with the park know that they have been in touch with the Forest Service and attempted to make those improvements and have been rebuffed. And the north side obviously has private land and those owners, you know, are are challenging as well, which just creates a a a quagmire and and Valley Road on the south side. And Bob, to your point, the stuff on the north side of the road is is coming. The intersection at, you know, Valley Road and Blue Lake is one of the most dangerous in our in our Mid Valley, and it sees way too much traffic as it is. And

that wholeheartedly needs to be improved. Um, so I completely agree that even the VIS application that they're they're asking for doesn't even give a consent uh um um what's the word I'm looking for?

Consideration. consideration or or an alternate um option. It just says we can't do it. We can't do it. We can't do it. We can't do it. Uh and in understanding the potential conversations that have been happening in the background, they are trying to make some improvements elsewhere, but it's not it's not here in Valley Road, which is the one thing that's circulating all of the flow and the connection and and all of that. I completely agree. Um, you know, all those folks are literally just going south into a gravel path along Crown Mountain Park to get to the TOD. Yeah.

So, Ben, you brought up that you thought the letter was worded a little strongly. What would you suggest differently because it sounds like we have kind of a consensus that

we completely have a consensus. I I I just wanted to understand the the is is us as planning and zoning or us as the town more frustrated with Mike your comments in saying that another subdivision is coming without creating any infrastructure improvements or is our view in planning and zoning we don't like development in here period regardless of this the steps that you are taking to reduce your footprint of use.

I think I could take that twofold. I think one would be you know we have an urban growth boundary and you know if the applicant proposed coming to the town and you know meeting our master plan and you know changing that to make this a part of you know the the larger basalt community and then was making those infrastructure improvements I think would meet our you know staff and planning and zonings directive. to responsible growth and smart growth. Um, so I think that would be one piece of it and then the other would be we'd be looking at it different if this was a different application with regard to density for the site itself. You know, meeting Eagle County's um long range planning and their their zoning their their land use designation on the site. So, you know, ultimately we're not designing the site and like I have ideas for, you know, what could go there, but um you know, ultimately that's not really our our job here.

And and I think you know there there is proposed development in the town that is going to use that access as as their or that intersection as access. And you know what we've been constrained to in the past is um redevelopment that doesn't increase the the traffic generation at that intersection.

And and so you're going to have some conversations on future applications soon about that. and and it's kind of been the town's direction to those applicants to, you know, u keep keep your development within your your current traffic generation on the site. Um and and so this is kind of a a different scenario than kind of what the town's direction has been to our applicants because this site is viewed as rural residential, right, from the IT. Okay. Can staff touch on the improvements, proposed improvements at Elabel Road?

Yeah, I can I can touch on that a little bit. I got into that as part of this review, um, which I found to be quite interesting. It's our understanding that the level of service at the Elgabel Road intersection with Highway 82 is restricted there due to some uh conversations or negotiations between Eagle County and CD dot. C do DOT is not willing to change the signalization to increase the cross traffic in the left turn movement both up and down valley at that intersection by reducing the um the words escaping me here but the time for the light the signal timing for the light

therefore you're long it's automatically level F because you've been waiting there for so long so service is determined by timing of you sitting there. Yeah. And C do DOT's not going to uh change that timing to make 82 have a longer weight on, you know, the primary corridor. Yeah. So, the improvement is primarily to improve the movement of the right turn by providing a slip lane there at that intersection on the south side of 82 to reduce queuing backing up. Correct. and ideally improve the level of service there. Yes.

So, it's also our understanding through this application and the materials provided as well as what we could find through Eagle County that the additional density and vehicle trips proposed as part of this development were included in the access control permit application for Eagle County. Um, say that again. So you're saying that they put this proposed density as within the access control plan for that's what the applicant has shared. Yeah. In in their materials. So

aren't we also talking about two different intersections? There are two intersections and um I can touch on the valley road intersection as well and it's my understanding that that intersection additionally can't improve the level of service because C dot will not approve a signal there and will not signalize it. So for the same re you know similar reasons different infrastructure that left movement at valley road can't be improved because it can't be signalized. So, so long as there's rush hour traffic and you have to shoot a gap across,

you're going to be at a lower level of service there, so long as you're making safe driving decisions to get across. So, is this development application thinking that the whatever you call the intersection by Wendy's elder that would be the main access to it? Um they've proposed access closer to the other one access from both. Okay. um as part of their traffic uh impact study um and are claiming through their VIS application that they can't improve the level of service at either intersection due to constraints outside of okay

and no discussion I I know Pton County is doing a lot of this right now but the the Michigan left what's um it is a U-turn essentially you would block off the valley road and make you block off the ability to make a left at Valley Road and you force everyone to go right in, right out. So, right out and then U-turn back around for So, you'd have to go, I guess, down to Catherine, Catherine Road, right? Well, they put in they'd put in some a new new turn and acceleration lane. Got it. It would also restrict the movement from Blue Lake, but that's that's it would also restrict the movement from Blue Lake, but yeah, the left turn out Blue Lake solutions

when when the um intersection design at uh the Elabel Road intersection was being designed, you know, it there's been many kind of options that have been looked at over time between Eagle County and the town and U C dot was part of those conversations and and you know they they did look at that at one point um and and you know it it wasn't chosen as kind of the improvement to be to be made there but it was evaluated. Okay. Yeah.

Does the Eagle County project improve capacity the queuing capacity at that light on the south side? It improves queuing capacity but it does not improve the level of service. That's my understanding at least for the service for the failing movements. Right. Yeah. Correct. I think the only level of service that it seeks to improve is the right turn through the slip lane. And you're talking about, excuse me, the construction that's like about to correct that they're staging for right now. So coming back to our letter,

um I'm going to put it to you. Uh, Ben, do you want to change the letter? Do you want to suggest any changes? Because if not, I'm going to see if we have a motion to accept what is written. I'm uh I'm here at support of the board. I just wanted to have the conversation as to ultimately what you know what steps the applicant is making and what constraints exist there. I completely agree. We cannot do um more development without infrastructure improvements.

I and I wish I could speak to some of the the questions uh for the applicant uh staff did invite the applicant team to join um and they did not feel compelled so to tonight. Yeah.

Okay. I I I think the one point that I think is the biggest uh piece that jumps out is one M in.3 encourage projects that would promote density so as to conserve other natural lands and open space and recreation of other uses to preserve the existing character. That is what I think jumped off the page to me is we are arguing that this is too dense even though they are reducing their density to what is maximally allowed and yet we use the sense that would promote density. Can you see again which one you're looking at? Uh three on page two Roman three.

Uh no number three and then down below 1. and encourage projects that would promote density as to conserve other natural lands and open space, recreation, or other uses to preserve existing character. I agree with every single other part in that point except for the word promote density. I think that could be remedied by just adding within the town's urban growth. That's not what it says in the master plan. I would directly from the master plan. I know one is directly from master plan, but the word promote density and us saying that it's also too dense. Well, we could put it in square bracket to indicate, but we're not saying the project's too dense. We're saying if you know, as per the, you know, where this development is is not compatible because this density is not where we want density to be.

It's not inside the urban growth boundary. It's too dense at that location. Yeah. But I understand what you're saying in that, Ben, in that particular sentence. So that's what I think if you want to just I'd be happy to strike add add the little note in the boundary because they're not they don't know off off the top of their head like oh that's a quote from the I I think if there's anything that reads nimiism it's it's that the word promote density when the the rest of the letter is talking about not promoting density. I think Ben's got a good point there and and I I don't know that we should adjust it because it is directly from the master plan and we're citing but we could strike one M from the letter itself and just not include Right. Right.

I would suggest striking it before amending it. Do we then have a motion? Yeah. Motion to approve striking 1N from number three. Second. Well, can we just approve a motion to approve Yes. Do you have a motion to approve the letter with one end on it? We have a first. We have a second. You want to Yeah, roll or you want us to just vote? Yeah, we'll call roll. Okay. Uh, we'll go with uh Ben. Yes. We'll go with Bob. Yes.

Uh, we'll go with Mike. Yes. And Cindy? Yes. And Eric, yes. Motion guys passes. And the last item on our agenda then is commissioner comments and staff updates.

Yes. Uh staff updates. Uh your next meeting will be May 19th and we'll be considering uh formal adoption of the Midland Avenue design guidelines. Um, says our meeting has ended after 40 minutes of idle time. That's interesting. Let me see if we can get that back real quick here to finish. Sorry for talking too much. Recording in progress. We're right on time. No,

we're back up. Um, and uh other uh comments uh from staff? uh the Homestead shed that is on Homestead as you're moving towards the barberh shop over there

uh on the north side. You you guys may know it. Um it is in serious disrepair and um town staff has had some structural engineers look at it um and the building official look at it. they're they're thinking um we should remove it. So, we we wanted to give PNZ members a heads up in case you get comments. Uh it's an old uh building, but it's very dilapidated and uh just kind of falling apart. Um it's not designated historic and it's in in the town's right of way. Um so, we we just wanted to give you the heads up in case you get questions or comments out there. Uh, not the barber shop, right?

No, no, not the barber shop. The the shed. It's the shed. You're looking at the barber shop a little left. And there's a little 2x4 trying to hold it up right now. I walk past it like every day. I like I'll step out on the road. I don't I don't trust this. There wasn't tin hanging out, but we got that out of it. Started looking at the whole shed in it.

Yeah, there's some lean to it for sure. And then uh other comments uh include that it's Christmas in May here. Um the town had purchased gift certificates at the end of last year and they didn't get handed out for the board members. So we're here to hand them out here in May. You know what? You just wait until July. Yeah. Christmas in July. Um Yeah. Okay. That looks pretty good there. Yeah. buy it on your way home. It's 2021, so gravity is doing its job.

And and so we've got gift certificates for you. We've got choice of Heathers, art base, uh or bristle cone. So we'll hand those out here at the end of the meeting to you. Cool. We appreciate all your service. I've got a couple updates.

Carlton's got a couple. Um uh this past Saturday we hosted our second open house for the Cliffs Hillside Park renovation project. Gloria came by uh you know just improving Mike's backyard, but um we had great turnout uh and several generations of Basalt residents come by um and got some direction on our initial sketches for that park renovation. Um we'll be proceeding with uh one of those sketch options and taking that to post next week. But the hope is to uh do that renovation this summer. So both demolition of the existing structures and uh installation of some some new structures uh giving that park a facelift. Um we continue to move forward with our land use code updates particularly the prop 123 uh language. Um, I know you guys saw that. The hope is to bring that to town council at the end of the month. Um, so just keep an eye out for that. Uh, and if you guys feel so, uh, compelled to come and speak to that, uh, it's always appreciated. Um, other updates?

I I have one more. Um so we do have our police and public works building um that we are trying to construct and we have a survey out right now on let's talk basalt um to get the appetite of the community if if a uh half cent tax could help pay for that building. So wanted to get that on your radars. If you haven't taken the survey yet I would encourage you to do so.

One more item. Um the Basalt summer concert series, both the local vocals uh nights and the Wednesday night concert series uh have been announced. Local vocals, we've added a few nights this summer. Um those start on June 5th over in Triangle Park. Uh several of the nights include multiple artists as well, so expanding that offering. Um, so come on by before your date night or going out to eat in Willlets or just if you're around looking for something to do for a little bit. Um, got some great local acts. And then the summer concert series are uh a little bit abbreviated this summer, but those are starting on June 17th. Um, so block out your Wednesdays, come on down.

Put a plug in for my former student Tristan Trano. If you don't know him, great local talent. Oh, awesome. Can you give us an update on what happened to your leg or your foot? I I can do that after the after the meeting adjourns. We want to call the driver. Darn. Bad at skiing. Start there. All right. Uh, no more comments. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion. Second. Anybody? Second. Seconds. All in favor? It is adjourned at 7:26.