P&z - Regular Meeting

Thank you. and our benefit to the community.

think i will leave it there i could keep going but i know that there's a lot of people that i'm sure want to speak thank you very much for hearing our presentation i'm happy to address some questions out of the gate about any items you've seen in the packet but i don't want to i don't want to keep going and take up too much time so we'll do commissioner questions for you and then we'll open the floor to perfect thank you

Mike?

Have you pulled any occupancy rates of existing hotels to see the demand of this hotel within the salt?

Yes, there's an average 74% occupancy rate for comparable hotels. That's over an annual period hotels, a good strong hotel market would be anything in the seventies because of course that means like, as you think about what season you're probably going to have a little bit less staff, mostly with people who are doing service industry. Um, and then we did pull up a couple of rates that I thought were interesting, um, for hotels between the salt and Aspen average rate on a trailing 12 basis was, uh, $593. As you can imagine, that's an exceptionally high rate. It's not a rate that we're going to average at this hotel.

Do you have an average rate that you'd pursue?

We're projecting to be in the $200s. What was that? In the $200s.

No other questions at this time to come back to you.

If anything comes in, take the low hanging fruit one.

Yeah, my question would be if you have the capacity or ability there to to add more than two employee housing units.

I think that the financial viability of the project is going to be stressed by adding additional units, and we've done our best to meet the code. We actually conservatively estimated the employee counts that we've got for the project, and I can just skip ahead here and show you this table. We're anticipating to generate 16 additional employees at the project. We estimated 20 in the analysis we did where we came up with the two units. And then in addition, there were many more associates than four working at Movie Land, but we went ahead and did the full-time equivalent by dividing all those hours and added that into our calculation. Even if you take that out, we rounded up from basically the 1.34 unit requirement to two. If you take all of that out, the requirement for the code is 1.6. And we talked through this at length with Bach. And Look, my frank response taking some of the developer hat off a little bit is that Forcing employees to live in the hotel is probably not the best execution for them. And that's why we all came to the conclusion that we're going to put the units where we are and we're going to put the signs where we are because someone is going to leave work here and then they're going to be in the exact same building that they're working. I think we've done a very good job at mitigating that with our two units, but I'm not extremely excited about putting more of our people in the same building.

Do we have elements within Basalt? Do we know how many units they provided? Zero. That might be a question for James.

They were part of a larger PUD amendment for Willettstown Center. And so there was a total of 50 affordable housing units provided, but it was for more than just the element at that point.

I don't think that any of those are in the hotel, correct? That's correct. There's no.

Exhibit to be as your variance requests. But the height is not in here.

I can respond to that. The height request is through a PUD amendment. It would not be asking for a variance from the underlying zoning as the zoning is currently PUD, if that makes sense. They're not asking for a variance from the C3 zone district requirements. They're asking to amend the PUD agreement.

But the C3 has a 35-foot height limit, right?

That's correct.

And we're going to 46 here.

That's what's requested for a max roof line. The building height that's being requested is 36 feet.

So the variance to the tent, so to get the additional tent is not a variance?

The request is for a PUD amendment. So going through a private document instead of a request to change the zoning or variance from the underlying zoning, which is C3.

So, Kyle, it is proposed to be higher than the underlying C3 zoning through a PUD amendment. So it's not a hardship variance. It's establishing the height through a PUD. Does it still require our approval? It still requires approval. Correct.

How about with the FAR? I was a little confused with how it was explained.

So the FAR request is essentially abandoning the FAR that was prescriptively established for the movie theater through the planned unit development agreement. and the annexation agreement and abandoning that and instead choosing to use the FAR as established by the underlying zoning, which is C3. And then I would just note there was a note of it in the staff memo. The permitted FAR would be two. The proposed FAR would be .74. So significantly under what would be allowed by C3.

So I was going back to the height then. Did you guys what occurs if this stays at the current zoning levels?

Good question. So it's a 35 foot height limit and 33 feet to the top of floor, but three floor building. Right. So I think that then as as we see it, The intent of a three-story building is not actually really easy to capture in 35 feet, right? And so if we go to a lower floor, we would lose a floor, right? Now we've done everything we can to create an economically viable hotel. So we're talking, let me actually show you this. It's an 11-foot floor-to-floor in the lobby, which is not extremely high. And it is an eight-foot floor-to-floor in the guest rooms, keeping the building at a three-story building. This would be the lowest that we've done in our development space. And then we've done everything we can in terms of the structure to try and compress the structure to allow for the lowest height possible. I do just want to note the 46 feet, I understand it's high. It's a very slim percentage of the building. We really, that is, if I go back to these renderings, that's the awnings, right? And we did that to create some architectural interests similar to some of the buildings downtown here. You know, We're open to thinking through other paths of that architectural interest, but it's really not the majority of the building that's there to try and create a good-looking building.

So the south side of this building is backed up to the neighborhood, correct?

Yep, that's correct.

Which would also be 46 feet, basically about the same as the far side.

That's correct. And so, you know, if the guidance we got tonight was, we think you should just take those off the back building. We did do some shadow studies to try and make sure that we weren't impacting the neighborhood. We can go through those, but we have no objection to taking those off. We're trying to do what we think is going to be a better looking building, but the backside for us of the building, if we want to pull those down, I mean, I think that that's a a very fair comment because it is closest to the neighborhood.

Yeah, the shadow stories are not in our comments, I believe. Do you have those available?

Yeah, I could show you here. So here's winter solstice, fall and spring equinox, and then this is summer solstice. The red is 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. only during the summer solstice. So the majority of these shadows are over city market.

Grant, I don't remember seeing sight lines looking back towards the building. Was that in the packet? We haven't done this. Could we get for the next time you're here? Sight lines? Well, so what it's going to look like from the summit, this is the neighborhood, and maybe what it's going to look like from Highway 82.

Three dimensional. Yeah, I think so. Sure. Absolutely. I'm looking at my partner. He's more of the construction brains of the operation and I'm more of the operations brains.

I think it would be helpful to see the impact of the neighborhood in particular, also from the highway. Sure.

my last question is there's the commercial building across from you guys has a bunch of parking that would be theirs according to the survey that is actually kind of directly across from your entrance pretty much i'm on page yeah i'll just leave it there yeah this parking here yep has there been thoughts about how you would control that parking to ensure guests aren't parking there

I think we can sign it. It would just be signage? Signage will work. I mean, we will tow people if people aren't parking in the right spot. And that's just a guest check-in. process right making sure people know where they're supposed to park appropriately signing it and saying this isn't allowed to be parked in and look i we're not in the business of trying to tow our guests we certainly don't want to do that but if someone parks in a restricted parking spot i think it's sort of well within our right and it's similar to how we'll control the housing parking which we've we're going to place closest to the employee units in the building

OK. That's all my questions for now. Thank you.

OK.

Thank you.

I just want to check back with that FAR, Carlton. Is that something that we are also going to have to approve, or we don't because it's going to fall back

request would be to remove the stipulation so it'd be part of the PUD language change so it'd be removing the FAR as PUD which is currently trumping the underlying zoning right and then that language would just be stricken from the PUD and then would default to the underlying so that's something that we would vote on and do that would be part of the proposal as seen Ben

couple questions. Uh, first one, are there any residential units in the existing movie land theater or spaces above?

No. And there is no mitigation for the movie land use either offsite.

Uh, Are there any changes to the other side of Orchard Plaza as it relates to what we are modifying here today?

Are you referring to the condo building? Correct. The commercial condos? Yes. I'll defer to the applicant. No proposals there right now.

To modify that building?

Not to modify any other changes in ECR or shared agreements

No, we'll leave them as is. The only, the one that, the most notable one is the parking easement that remains in place.

And then, James, as a part of the Willits PUD amendment, was the square footage calculation and the housing mitigation credit based on retail as the requirement that generated the 55 units based on square footage?

It was a mix of retail and hotels. The hotel did a employee generation scenario as well. The element did.

Do we have copies of those applications?

Yeah, we can get those for you.

Thank you. No further questions.

First of all, I've got to say, I think probably everyone agrees with me here, that I'm really sorry to see the movie land go. It was great having a theater in town, and I understand that it didn't work, but it was a nice run while we had it. Did you guys consider, and what we expected, at least what I expected to see, would have been a mixed use commercial condo building?

Do you want me to step up to the mic? Yes, please, one of them. We did talk about that, but we looked ultimately at what is allowable in the zoning, and the practical reality of commercial space there, outside of this use, retail or other things, is that everything you could want exists next door, and so there's really no considerable demand for I can't think of what we would put there in a retail space. There's certainly not office demand. We did consider it, but we couldn't come up with anything that we thought there was demand for. That's why I asked. We did also engage in about a year-long effort to lease the Movie Land building to a different use. We got... zero takers. And we hired a regional broker to do that, not just somebody local. So we've scoured a significant number of uses. There was literally no interest whatsoever.

I do think the indoor shooting range would have been a really good idea, especially in this dry summer. But that's a different conversation. Bach talked about sound mitigation. Was that just windows or insulation on the

Yeah, I can respond to that and then pass it off to Grant. The conversation at Box surrounded what that livability would be like for residents in the hotel. As Grant mentioned, there was discussion surrounding livability for residents who are living in the same place that they're working. And I don't think that it should be discounted in its presentation to PNZ. One of the items that came out of that discussion was discussion regarding sound transmission, what the standards are for multifamily, and then what the standard is for the hotel. And they just asked that the town look at our standards. that we apply to multifamily construction and that the applicant come back with what their standard would be for construction. The town standard is not governed by any planning documents, but differs to the building regulation, which for multifamily is 50, an STC score of 50.

So is that for the whole building or just for the affordable units?

That would be for multifamily residential. That's the minimum. You can obviously exceed that.

And on the hotel side, going back to Marriott and standards and making sure that we're building a higher quality product, you can't build less than 55 and be a Marriott hotel. So by default, the hotel requirements are going to make the multifamily, the housing requirements higher than what is required by COVID.

Well, let's move on to our public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you to the public for all showing up tonight. It's great to see a room full of people here. We're going to ask that when you take the podium, tell us your name and your address. And we ask that you try to limit your comments to about three minutes.

Hi, my name is John Chan, and I live at 199 Arapahoe. And I guess before I even say what I wrote, it's actually the president expected, so that's good to know. But I'll still read it because I know how things go. Given the multiple new demands this hotel, in any form and size, will put on local roads and available water, I want to say that, at minimum, that it be offered no variances in size, height, scale, or exterior lighting. This is not something the local community has been looking for, and the project, as has been further described today, doesn't seem to offer any public amenities. I don't think it should be allowed beyond any scope that the existing zoning allows. I do not believe this is our community's responsibility to offer variances to a developer to simply simply for their profit margin or even for project viability. And then the other issue, if it moves forward, and sorry, it's a little harsh, but it's how I felt earlier. A particular concern of mine and my neighbors in Soper's Village is the exterior lighting. The applicant over the years seems to have shown no respect for his neighbors despite multiple appeals from them regarding the drastic extent to which the applicant's exterior lighting extends beyond his property line into homes, parks, and the sky. If this application moves forward, I do hope and implore that the town of Basalt holds them to the letter of the lighting code. Even better, would be if the applicant would be a good neighbor and simply choose to adopt even stricter dark sky lighting than the code asked for. Thank you.

Thank you, Chuck.

Hi. I'm Ann Austin Clapper. I live at 11 Walter Road, which is Hooks Lane. So I'm actually on Incorporated Eagle County, but I go to Crown Mountain Park all the time. I want to throw a monkey wrench in this and say no hotel. We don't need it. And I have a much better suggestion. The town of Basalt has been talking about putting in a rec center. over by Willits and Lewis Lane with employee housing, a center for kids to play basketball and other activities. And we could use the existing movie land theater to do that, not have to scrape another building, create more pollution, trash, whatever. It's got the parking. It's got the bus line there. It's got the underpass at the highway. The majority of kids in the area live in El Jebel and Blue Lake. And the kids from Basalt can ride the bus for free from Basalt to El Jebel. So there would be much less impact on traffic. And I think it would be a much better community service. And maybe the town and Eagle County can get involved in doing this. Thank you. Thank you Ann.

Hi there. My name's Greg Sugars, and I live on Aspen Junction and Hillcrest Drive. I want to echo what Ann just said and maybe expand on it a little bit. I think what we have here is we have a situation where what the developer wants and what the community needs don't match. What the developer wants is they want a hotel that will make money on that site. I get that. But the greater need is what the community has to have. And what the community is lacking is housing, and the community is lacking daycare. Sort of what she said. Currently, the town has been fussing about the property across from Takal to try to put housing and some form of daycare recreation center in there. If this proposal were different and said, we're going to put The daycare recreation for the young kids in this particular spot. Then that spot across from to call could be totally dedicated strictly to housing, which would make more sense. She's right. This is a great spot. It's near the bus stop with grocery shopping, parking, Crown Mountain. We also make it a great spot to have kids coming and going and so forth. because all the amenities are there. And the other thing you have to think about as well is if a hotel does really well, I think Ritz-Carlton will do really well if it can get 70% occupancy during the course of the year. Housing, we're going to get 100% occupancy the course of the year. They can't match it. They can't beat it. So we have to decide, once again, what comes first here? Are we here to represent the greater interests of the community and represent the individual interests of the developers? Nothing against the developer, but when they don't jive, we have to make a decision and take care of our community. And that's what this is all about. And lastly, you know, we have the Hoffman Hotel. We have the element. Do we really... Is there anybody clamoring for a third hotel in that area? Nope. They are clamoring for daycare. And they are clamoring for employee housing. And if we can't do those two things, then we don't have a community anymore.

Thank you, Greg.

Hello, my name is Heather, and I live in Soper's Village. And I'm concerned that it sounds like this hotel is going to go, but I want to know how is it going to impact the Soper's Village homeowners and our way of living? Sorry, I'm cold. I said the park is owned and maintained by our residents, and it's intended for the exclusive use of the homeowners. And I would like to know what measures would be taken to prevent hotel guests from inadvertently using or accessing our private amenities. I'm also concerned about the increased foot traffic parking litter security and liability issues that could affect homeowners. Our enjoyment of our beautiful neighborhood like is is there anything that you might do that are there going to be any barriers or can the developer please express how they're going to address these concerns and what commitments they're willing to make to protect the residents private space. So thank you Heather.

I'm Susan Chisholm. I live at 126 Kiowa. And I was wondering if the applicant and or the town planners could address two items for everyone in the room to understand better. Could you please explain the emergency access from the parking lot of Soper's Village Drive to everyone? And if you could please explain further that if the annexation agreement was revised, and the square footage limitation was removed that in the future a project could on this property build up to 137 000 square feet of building as opposed to what is limited now to 16 800. i can address both of those after public comment

My name is Brian Epona. I live on Cheyenne Avenue and I oppose the proposed, uh, site plan, uh, working with the community. Unfortunately, the hotel is going to overlook, um, many backyards and into, you know, bedrooms. So I propose that you, if we're going to go forward, have the parking lot as a parking lot and Orchard Plaza would be the location of the hotel. And in terms of the screening for the parking, you already have those trees lined up by City Market. We could do another line of trees, you know, to have screening or fencing for additional parking. And then in the event we go higher, Like, I agree with past comments about light pollution. Right now, I've had meetings with James Lint about the current bow tie cinema, how their lighting is just broadcast out and about, and it's into our yards and affecting everybody. Plus the noise, what we have to do to mitigate for the numerous guests staying at the hotel. And then for security and safety, always a concern as well. And if we are going to continue with the landscaping, hopefully the town of Basalt or Bowtie can improve that sidewalk that goes to the back of Sopa's Village all the way through. That has never been maintained by the town of Basalt as it was supposed to be during the city market expansion. I think that was it.

Thank you. Thanks, Brian.

Good afternoon, Councilman. Good evening. My name's Doug Crawford. I live at 200 Arapahoe. Very excited to join in the process. I have only a couple of comments. I won't take my whole three minutes. But as Councilman, designing and putting together the future of Basalt, was this the visual entrance you envisioned for the strip mall of Highway 82 that is now the town of Basalt. And I only bring that up because I drove into Basalt tonight. And when you come downtown to Basalt, it's a lovely little community. But when you're traveling Highway 82, and I came cross traffic, the traffic really was backed up from the El Jebel lights all the way to the Basalt lights. It's a traffic thing for me and things. For my neighbors, it's a big thing because this is adjacent to our neighborhood, a high development property, high occupancy property next to an affordable housing community of Silvers Village. The third comment I have for you all, more work for consideration. As a ski hotel, is transportation a factor? What consideration by the town is there, is the town doing for regional transportation system that's already maxed out during peak hours? I like to ride the bus. It says fast, fun, and frequent on it. But I don't like getting on the bus and being jostled by people, by all the ski equipment, because Basalt is a ski town, and we're all going skiing through the winter. And lastly, just while we're sitting here ever so calmly, a quick search on Google Hotels, without any dates in mind, shows the average rate for the two hotels in Basalt at $319 and $340 for tomorrow night, midweek, off-season. It's a great project. It's going to be a huge moneymaker. I don't think $200 a night is going to be the ADR. You can get a lot more, and you will get a lot more. I just want everybody to be aware of what's gonna take place. Thank you.

Thanks, Doug.

My name is Michael Miners. I live at 111 Kiowa in Sulpress Village. And I have a number of concerns about this project. First and primary is our water supply. We have a private water system. Our primary well is probably 300, 350 feet from the parking lot in 2014. When the town of Basalt and Rafta agreed to build the park and ride, we had a government agreement between the Sopas Village Homeowners Association and the town of Basalt to help pay for a monitor well and monitor our water for five years. I'd like you to consider that as a condition of approval, since there is now going to be so much more parking and greater drainage off of the building into an area that's close to our primary water supply. You know I'm also very concerned about the parking as it's proposed. They're already six spaces short, but they did not make it clear if that was including the 15.2% reduction in size that they're also asking for. So if it does, then they're much more short on parking than six spaces. And the issue I have with that is that the park and ride is already overused by Crown Mountain and everybody else. So once they have limited parking there, Taxpayers have paid for the park and ride and they're going to expand it the overflow from the hotel will naturally go into the park and ride Therefore reducing that much more space already paid for by taxpayers So I'm really concerned about that. I'd also like to be sure that there are Steps taken so there's no overnight parking Enforcement is an issue with the park and ride There's often overnight parking there, sometimes for days, and RAFTA doesn't patrol it. They don't do anything about it. So, again, you may have people that are staying at the hotel, but they may also have other vehicles that there's overnight parking. Vehicle access from the parking into Soper's Village, Movie Land used to do that to us and Eagle County wouldn't enforce it or barely enforced it. There's no parking on the roadways in Soper's Village. So I would request that as part of any approval conditions be that there is no access from the parking lot of the hotel onto Soper's Village Drive. And furthermore, that there is no parking on Sopris Village Drive. And also that there would be no construction traffic through Sopris Village to accommodate that. And as mentioned by some of the others here, our park is already overused, abused even by people from Crown Mountain Park. And I would request that the applicant look into some form of fencing around their property to not only designate their space, but to limit people from wanting to gravitate into our park. And as John mentioned the night sky is really important to us and between City market movie land park and ride in the community center. They all have different fixtures They all have different illumination It's just kind of silly that you know Hopefully there would be some type of coordination through not just the park and ride community center, but city market and this new development Thank you Thank You mark

Hi, my name is Emily Suter, and I live up in Missouri Heights. So I'm not a neighbor, but I use that intersection daily. And I really have a question about your traffic path. Doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see why you say there's only three more cars a day that are going to go to that hotel that currently go there now. For one, El Jebel movie land has not been that busy, so there's not been that many cars. If you do a 76% occupancy rate, we all know we can't do anything but drive to that hotel if you're coming from Denver or wherever you're, or an airport. That calculates to 65 cars. So at 76% rate, you've got 65 cars. At 100% rate, you've got 92 cars. That's a lot more cars, and they're coming and going, not just at night to go to a movie. So that concerns me a lot. I do request that Basalt does a more aggressive traffic analysis. I thought I read in the paper that that wasn't deemed necessary. I disagree. The other piece that I can't remember who mentioned, but the community outreach piece is a real concern for me. There is no tangible benefit to our community. If you're hiring or employing 20 people, that's not very many. You're housing two very small units, so maybe two people or four people in that unit. That's not the kind of units that we need for affordable housing. We need family housing. We need housing that people who are growing a family and also working in the valley can use. And finally, and this is kind of touchy, But while I appreciate you saying you're family-owned and you've been in the Valley a long time and you want to stay here and own this, I hate to say it, but we've heard that song two times before and we've been bitten in the back two times with Gorsuch and H. Lane. Both of them are long-term people who we've all loved and have huge respect for. Both of them sold out before the buildings were built. And so everything changed magically. And so just know who you're talking to and know that that's sort of maybe an unsung comment or something that people are carrying with them. But it's a very sore subject. Just going to make that clear. So I hope that Basalt, you know, as a town, you can find a way to mitigate that kind of backstabbing that we've felt in the past. Thank you.

Thank you, Emily.

Hi, I'm Eric. I'm a teacher at the middle school. I'm familiar with a lot of the students here. On the way here, I saw the same group of students like twice, riding bikes, someone at a pool. Yesterday, I saw them at the library. Just based on my familiarity with them, there is a demand for a rec center. They're extremely active. I see them at all the time. But then I also hear them saying, we have nothing to do. They're trying to do things. They don't know where to go to do that. Yesterday, I went to the library. They just wanted a place to talk. They got told they're being too loud for the library, which is fine. They need a place that's appropriate for what they're trying to do. And then beyond that, the school's also being used as a kind of improvised rec center a lot of the time. I'll go after school, and they're having Spanish classes there. There's other sporting events for people that aren't affiliated with the school. There's adults using it as a sporting center. I feel like the rec center would allow us to actually localize and center a lot of these events, and also provide a hub for things like the RFOV, community events, places where they're trying to figure out, where are we going to do this? We'll do it at the school, this random spot where they won't take us out. Beyond that, for the appeal to adults, there's a gym. The gyms here aren't super competitive. They're charging $90 from Maryland. I got something like maybe three times the amount of services. It wouldn't be that hard to compete with them and convince adults to pay $90 a month for just basic offerings, which is what they're doing, and also sending me passive aggressive messages for things I didn't do like other gym members. I feel like there's a pretty easy appeal for a rec center for both adults and children here. Thank you, Eric.

Hello. My name's Janine Gunning, and I'm the president of the Sopras Village homeowners. And I just wanted to point out, I would Highly recommend Bowtie Partners. But I would point out that our water line goes through the project. So our water line is 55 inches down. They've just exposed it from the algae bell. Intersection and it's super brittle. So having this go across. We've had this problem before as Mike Myers knows when Shadow Rock went in. I think it needs to be a consideration and we need to be protected somehow over the water line. Which is why I'm here. I also think they should abide by the parking.

Sorry, what was the last what was the last thing you said by by the parking?

Thank you He did say that you could put six people to a room and if you're putting six people to a room they're driving here They're not flying in. So I think that that is a little bit short on the parking. But otherwise We just want to make sure our water lines protected

Anybody else for public comment?

My name is Ted Guy. I live here in Old Town, Swinging Bridge Lane. One thing I think that you guys need to do when you're looking at the changes, you need to treat the existing PUD as the Bible. That's what they're changing. Not going to the FAR of two. They're asking for a 20% parking reduction. You should say no. They're asking for a 33% increase in height. You should say no. That entire neighborhood is one and two stories. All the houses next door are one and two stories. This should be a two-story building. Why do we need a third hotel? To meet Aspen's need. The intersection is already at service level F morning and night. As somebody said, it's backed up from Basalt all the way to Algebel, from Catherine's door all the way to Algebel in the morning. It's broken. We don't need 94 keys to add to our traffic. And I think too that moving Hotel to where movie land is right now would be a much better view for half the rooms Otherwise, they're looking at the roof of City Market Thanks

Ryan Bradley, 60 Arapahoe. Just looking at this, their hotel in Durango, I was looking at booking it. It's $290 a night. Basalt's a more expensive place than Durango. I think the reality is once this hotel comes in and we have the cost of labor, the cost of doing business in this town, it's quickly in the $300 range. And then it's basically the Hoffman and the Element. And I know we were quoted as 74% occupancy rate, but have we looked at the occupancy rate of the Hoffman and the Element and the hotels here in Basalt, just Basalt? Because we're not Snowmass, we're not Aspen, and I just feel like this hotel is really redundant. And I feel bad for my neighbors who live close enough to it. They're going to be out barbecuing with their families, looking up at people looking down on them from balconies. You know, it just seems like it's not in character with the development in that area. When you go over by Willits, there's a lot of high buildings and stuff. But when you come over to the city market side, things are a lot lower. And I feel like, you know, it's going to be just a big impact on our neighborhood, our traffic, our park that we're going to have to deal with. And I think that, yeah, that no variances should be given for parking or for the height of the building. Thank you.

That's Ryan.

Anybody else have some on line. Rob if you'd like to go to the online comments. OK. Can you click them on. Sure. All right. The first one we have is Casey Schlossberg Casey if you'd like to unmute to provide comments to PNZ.

Thank you very much. My husband and I are a small business owned and we're in the Orchard Plaza. We own the UPS store. When we put up a new sign for the UPS store, we had, I would say, between 50 and 60 letters written to us from locals about the light pollution just from our little sign that says UPS store. We've since worked with Orchard Plaza to reduce the light pollution in the wintertime when it gets dark earlier. But the amount of residents in the neighborhoods across 82 and Shadow Rock and on the other side from us complained tremendously. Like I said, we probably got between 50 and 60 handwritten notes from locals complaining about our sign light pollution. So I can only imagine about the amount of light pollution that's going to be emitted from a hotel of 94 doors. I also, being a local business that would be adjacent to this, would also like to ask if there's no variance in a reduction of parking. The parking situation in and out of our little store is a cluster as is. And I know that, well, I feel that the overflow from the parking situation of a busy hotel will greatly impact our small businesses that are located in Orchard Plaza.

Thanks, Casey.

Thank you.

If you're online and would like to speak to the PNZ, please raise your hand. Looks like nobody else is raising their hand online.

Anybody else like to speak? Then we.

I brought a copy of this agreement between the town of Assault and Rafta and Sulphur's Village in regard to the monitor well and the testing. It's not a signed copy. This town of Assault has that.

I'm sorry.

I brought a copy of the agreement between the town of Basalt, RAFTA, and the Sopers Village Homeowners Association in regard to the monitor well that was installed in 2014. I'd like to give that to you so that you have reference to it. I know it's on file. James, do you have that? We do. We've got the signed one. But you have this one? Yeah. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. OK.

Excuse me. 729 will close the public comment and open to commissioner discussions.

OK.

Certainly.

The PUD amendment request is to, as it sits now, the only thing that could be done to this property is to knock that down and build the same exact thing, a movie theater.

Correct.

The amendment then would just put the C3 zoning on the PUD.

Currently, the PUD and annexation agreements have a prescriptive use for the site. This would then open it to commercial uses as permitted in the zone district. That's correct. Lodging and hotel use are permitted by right in the C3 zone district. However, as discussed this evening, there are also dimensional requests that are addressed through a mix of underlying zoning and through the PUD amendment requests.

So by agreeing to the PUD amendment, we would then be opening up to all sorts of different uses that they could use or

sell and then we could end up with a much bigger project theoretically under because it's now just the c3 zoning theoretically yes okay and carlton to clarify one of the comments here and and your response to that comment Should we go ahead and approve and move forward with the application as presented, any future development opportunity would be able to take advantage of that full 2.0 FAR?

I'm going to let the applicant respond to that at this time. For FAR, that is currently the way the application has been presented.

That's correct in terms of the way that the application has been presented. Obviously, there's a lot of limits to the project in terms of what we would be able to do because of parking and everything else that could come with it. We're open to limiting the FAR to say half that, one, right? And making sure that you understand we're not going to be in a place where then, although it would be highly unlikely because it's expensive to build in the mountains, demolishing the hotel and then trying to rebuild another commercial facility. So that would probably be our best proposal and that significantly limit what ends up happening in correlation to what we're proposing for square footage too.

I would just note that, I know Rob asked earlier, but just for everybody's, so it's top of mind for everybody, as presented the current FAR in this proposal is 0.74, would be permitted at two, proposal is 0.74.

As far as the vesting rights of this entitlement process, should the developer choose not to move forward with construction, is the property vested in these modified PUD amendments, no matter if the property moves forward with construction or not? My understanding would be.

We haven't drafted conditions yet, but kind of going back to your last couple questions, the floor area is typically limited to what the applicant is proposing in a PUD, so they wouldn't have the allowance to get two to one FAR of the underlying zoning.

But the PUD amendment is separate from any building permit application?

Yes, it is. And so in draft conditions, you would likely have the allowances that are established in the approvals specific to the dimensional requirements to be specific to a hotel on the site I mean that could be part of the discussion but that's that's usually how a PUD is but the prescriptive protections that are currently plotted on this lot would be removed should the entitlements

be provided by this board and town council. Yes, correct.

And is there a way, if this ends up as a C3, to limit it to 0.76 or one going forward?

Yeah, through the PUD approvals, you could limit the floor area, because the PUD is a site-specific development plan. And so that would run with the land? Yeah. OK. That's a good question.

Lots of people parking.

I would like to respond to one comment that staff can address right now. I know a lot of the comments are related to potential redesign or may need to be addressed by the applicant team. Staff can currently address what an emergency vehicle access would consist of. Emergency vehicle access would be restricted for access to emergency vehicles. would use something like a Knox box and a gate. Bollards are also considered. The applicant has proposed a drivable or mountable curb, and then also the access would need to be clear of snow and debris in the wintertime. So RFFR has provided draft comments related to the emergency vehicle access, but traffic or standard vehicle access could not be taken onto Sopras Village Drive. It is standard to have a minimum of two vehicle accesses for development projects, whether that's multi-family or commercial redevelopment, and that would be a requirement of this development or redevelopment, whatever that may be, should this property be redeveloped.

Is that emergency access already there on Circus Village? I don't think so. Where is the emergency access for this?

I think it's just in and out the same way. It's 35 years ago. I've seen vehicles drive over that.

Sure.

Yeah, go for it. My name is John Walsh with Wall Street Park. We've had many meetings with the fire department. They actually wanted us to add a road that connected us to the back neighborhood, and that was something we were very against, creating additional traffic to something that you aren't experiencing now. So we went through a couple things with the fire department to try to get them across the line. Per code, you only need one. There is over certain square footage of building that there is the requirement by the fire department they have the option to add a second access which is driving the second access to the back road. They wanted a curb cut. We asked if we could do more of a green scape and a zero line curb and try to make it so you wouldn't as a standard patron on the sidewalk know that it's like clearly a curb cut. So it looked appropriate for the neighborhood and we saw the grass growing and it seemed more fitting for the neighborhood. And then we'll have the lockable gate in the setting to restrict any vehicles from using it. Only a fire department. So that's where we landed and it is at the just pointed out corner that green patch that area over there is our 25 24 foot second access point.

Thank you. I'd like to point out that the current intersection relocation project, Silver Stills Drive is going to come to a four-way stop and take a right turn and go directly behind the moving land buildings as they exist now. So when you are talking about emergency access up there, you need to incorporate whatever those current plans are because it's not as shown on your drawing.

Do we want to get in?

We understand, and we will make sure that's incorporated. We did provide these plans for referral to CDOT as well, and they've reviewed them to ensure that it's in compliance, and I understand.

Let's come back to our commissioner discussion.

One other question. Sorry. On the employee housing, it's like 1.3 and they're up to two, but by the way, the code reads, you have to round up anyways, right? Correct. They're not giving anything additional.

I did think those units were really small.

I was surprised Bach was so open to them.

It's my understanding that Bach at one point did not have a quorum during the meeting and several members were missing. So I don't know how relevant that meeting was to the full depth of Bach.

I would say that we did have a quorum and we had a quorum through voting on this item.

Okay. I mean, if you guys feel strongly, we can probably get our comments back to them when they see it again, right?

yeah staff was suggesting that we treat today's meeting as kind of an introduction meeting to all the comments all the application the discussion items and then ultimately you can continue at the public hearing and if you have you know requests of Bach to review specific items we could put it back to them for certain

many more times does this come back to us if this does if we do approve it today or we're not or this is just we're just oh yeah you don't even have the we're just listening

You don't have conditions this evening. You know, it kind of depends on direction you provide and how many adjustments need to be made. You know, there would be conditions provided at a future meeting, whether that be the next meeting or a following meeting. That probably depends on kind of PNZ comments. Good.

It's a couple comments. First of all, where have you all been? It's great to see everybody come out tonight, but you should know that we have been asked to approve and will be asked to approve other projects that have just as big an impact as this potentially has in terms of traffic in terms of what I would consider inadequate employee housing and all kinds of other infrastructure things. So I would urge you if this project concerns you to stay abreast and look at the agenda for our meetings and see what projects are being brought to the table because it can get lonely up here trying to advocate for more things or less things or whatever. I also appreciate when people come up with out of the box thinking and try to think of things or community needs and maybe there's another place for it. So I know several people had suggested the idea of a recreation center and I suspect that that doesn't slot as easily into the old movie land space as we might think. but I think it's worth not to take too much time on it, but maybe we could just spend a few minutes. Is that a feasible idea hearing from the applicants or why not?

I can go ahead and take that. I guess it's a hard question to answer. I should prefer standing if that's okay.

I feel like my back is to too many people.

It's a hard question to answer because I don't know what that would look like. But the reality is that the land is privately owned and there is, barring I assume it being just donated to the city, I'm not sure how that would really work. And look, the goal has always been to make sure that this land stays in the family that's developed it for 40 years. And so I think that that would be a hard endeavor. I might take this opportunity to just show, if I could, some revenue projections for the hotel. We're expecting to generate some pretty significant taxes to the town. $600,000 to RAFTA, $200,000 to the Childhood District, millions of dollars to the school district. Hotels, you all approved a lodging tax increase recently, which was smart. I'm not here to say, we're hoteliers, right? You're asking the people who are coming here and putting a burden on your town to pay for this, right? And you all approved it, and that's exactly what they're going to do. They're going to help fund these things. And so, you know, I'd almost turn this to say, use these taxes and build the rec center. There's $4.3 million of revenue over 10 years coming from this hotel. The 6% lodging tax, it's great.

Thanks.

Sure. I'll just go through my list at this point. I think the traffic study doesn't reflect reality. I think you telling us that Movie Land's creating 1,500 average daily trips is a falsehood. Maybe it did 10 years ago. I doubt it. I wasn't here 10 years ago. I can't speak to it. But I think you representing that you are lowering the traffic to that lot isn't fair to this community and what what is going on in that reality. You're talking about people staying for longer stays, nurses, construction workers, and we need those types of people and places to house those people, I agree. Those people are leaving at 7 a.m. Those people are coming home at 5 p.m. They're in the traffic that was described by these neighbors. And so I don't think your comparison of peak hour is really fair. I think a peak hour of a movie theater isn't during peak hours of a hotel, especially one that is gearing towards longer stay folks. So I think diving a little more and being a little more realistic with some of those traffic counts and comparisons would be helpful for us to look at. I think the level of housing is minimal, and I would love to see that increased. I think the height is troublesome to me.

I think, you know, yes, in Wilts, there are taller buildings.

It's a slow ramp up. I personally would like to see this as a two story building. You know, I do hear the community's concerns about impacts and parking and all of those things, I think. you know, impacts that private park is something that needs to be negotiated and a little more information at the next presentation would be nice. How are you separating this development with screening? And so it's not overshadowing Sobers Village Drive. So it just fits into the neighborhood a little more than a stout three-story building. I agree the concept of agreement with a monitoring well and the protection of the existing utilities is obviously key. I mean, I don't think that's really negotiable. And I think limiting the FAR by removing the existing PUD is something that we should have a discussion around and figure out a number for. That's what I wrote down.

That's great. I just had an idea while you were speaking that I used to travel with the dog. You stay in a hotel, you see a park, you take the dog to the park. It's what you do. So maybe the solution is to have you guys contribute to the maintenance of the park instead of trying to bar your patrons from going there. Just a thought.

Will it be pet friendly?

Anybody else?

Yeah, I've got a list here as well. One of my biggest concerns. Excuse me. One of my biggest concerns is the protection of that water line that runs through your property. You've got a drainage facility immediately adjacent just outside of the easement. As I look on the survey, That water line has not, is my understanding, been respected in past developments and the concern for that water line and the amount of houses it serves as a private water line not on the municipal system is substantial. I think this development is doing an injustice to really the poor traffic movements that are already at this lot with a movie theater that is not currently operating. I myself have a post office box at UPS and trying to make that left right immediately in while other cars are trying to pull out is abhorrent in this current condition with no parking vehicles in the lot. this site plan does not change that traffic movement at all and continues to make it worse because we are going to have more vehicles within the lot as it is. I think there's a lot of trying to depress the bad in this application and prop up the good, you know, to take your own words at face value. You said you're not taking homes out of our inventory, but you're intentionally saying that you can't financially support an additional unit to help support inventory within our community. um the the lack of community room space those items are all being brought in here to intentionally reduce the traffic counts and parking i understand that but it also then provides no benefit to an area that has a tremendous amount of tod opportunity here that does support all of the adjacency and ability for us pedestrians to travel into and through um more so you know as as we look at um the excuse me here um As we look at traffic, I think that's another great example. We're using an 11th edition ITE manual, not the 12th from 2025, because it doesn't account for the limitations of traffic generated by a post-COVID movie theater world. And you're using that popped up traffic number against the hotel system that is naturally lower. I would agree that a movie theater in its heyday generated more traffic than a hotel, but it's not the movie theater industry that we have today. Checking in with the Hoffman, they have 113 beds and 82 units, excuse me, they have 122 beds and 82 employees. And the element has 113 beds and 30 employees. So I also think that the numbers that we're showing here from a employee count are also not relevant to the actuals that are surrounding, just right here in Basalt. Those are the items that I wanted to bring up.

Certainly Hoffman has food and wine. Hoffman absolutely has food and wine.

I'm not saying they've got a vent center. They have some community benefit that is above and beyond this. But just as an anecdote to, I think the element is a perfect comp. 113 beds, 113 units, and 30 employees, that would make their 94 right around 25 employees. Mm-hmm.

When we see you guys again, which I assume that we will, I think that some of the pertinent points that we need to address is the parking is going to be an issue. I don't know if this is going to get approved or not, but I know that that's going to be a sticking point. So you guys are going to want to address that. And I think the lighting is a pretty easy one to address, but we want to make the people comfortable with what's going to happen if it happens. Kyle, you want to take us home?

Yeah, I guess with any PD amendment, it becomes kind of an association between the town and you guys. Right now, there's a lot of asks with nothing giving back. I don't think I've seen many applications personally work for a developer. I don't think I've ever submitted one without a bunch of variance requests with nothing that the town benefit housing being told you can't afford to put more housing in. So I think overall that's going to be very hard to accept. I would say that as a community we should be a bit careful if we approve a C3 zoning that does open up a lot of different uses and we could get something way different that people may like even less. And so overall A hotel may not be what everyone wants, but private land, you guys can do what you want with it. But I think you've got a lot to overcome here. Really, the height, I think you need to look at. Understand getting a three-story flat building isn't pretty either. And I'm not saying it's what you need to do, but thinking about how we're affecting the neighbors, the houses, kind of all that. So I know you've got some work to do, but I think we've got a lot to think about too. So thank you.

Yeah. York, if it were a two-story building, it would probably get a lot of thumbs up. I've been kind of balancing that architectural interest, which is nice, but with also scale and scope of the surroundings. So it's a tough one. With that, do I need a motion to continue? Yes, please. Unless anybody has any more comments, but otherwise, I would entertain that.

I do. A motion to continue to July 6th, is that right? July 7th. July 7th, okay. Yes.

second all in favor and see you guys on july 7th thank you very much thank you anybody need a break or can we keep going

Take care sir, you please stop sharing agenda

OK. Amy, are we back on? Great, public hearing for 739 Hillcrest Drive PUD amendment for the purpose of considering an application submitted by Glennon Laura Yeager for PUD amendment to establish the allowable total floor area for the property at 739 Hillcrest Drive at 5,474 square feet to accommodate upgraded first floor living facilities to accommodate individuals living with a disability under the Fair Housing Act accommodations.

Yeah, thank you. This is a public hearing to consider a PUD amendment. We have the applicant here this evening. We've got Glen Yeager. It's a request for a PUD amendment submitted by Glen and Laura Yeager to increase the allowable total floor area on the property at 739 Hillcrest above the town-wide maximum of 5,000 total square feet. to a proposed 5,474 total square feet. And it's in order to accommodate an expansion to the first floor of the residence by 605 square feet. And you've got the plans in your packet. And let me... There you go. So it's an expansion to add a first floor bedroom and bathroom that would be accessible for the applicant's mother that has recently become wheelchair bound. The application discusses that the applicant believes that the additional square footage is a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. In reviewing the request, Staff consulted with the town attorney and the town attorney provided a memo that's attached as Exhibit B in your packet materials. It outlines reasonable accommodations to be qualified by three factors. The factors are whether the accommodation would undermine the legitimate purpose of the zoning regulations. The second one is whether consideration of the benefits that the accommodation would provide the handicapped individual. And the third would be whether alternatives exist to accomplish the benefits of the accommodation more efficiently. And so as some additional background, staff offered the applicant the potential to decommission some of the upstairs space so as not to exceed the 5,000 square foot limit. And that would be by removing some ducting to existing space and then filling existing space to be decommissioned with blown insulation so it couldn't be used in the future. So that it would stay under the 5,000 square foot And that's how staff has worked with prior floor area issues at building permit with applicants Staff doesn't question the benefits of allowing the first floor to become accessible living space and for the applicant's mother, but staff notes that if it were not a Fair Housing Act scenario, that staff would not support such an amendment to add additional square footage beyond what's allowed. In this case, staff feels that decommissioning approximately 470 square foot is a potentially reasonable alternative to granting the 500 square foot over the town-wide maximum however you know staff recognizes that this is a difficult application to navigate because of the fair housing act considerations so this evening staff would suggest taking applicant comments taking public comments and having pnz discussion and making a recommendation to council on the request If P&Z is inclined to support the amendment, staff has included some draft conditions that P&Z could recommend.

James, this is just the first reading for us or the only reading for us?

No, this is probably the only reading. You know, if you're comfortable making a recommendation, if you have questions or need additional information, you could continue it to a future date. But staff thinks this is one we should be able to handle in one meeting.

Does this go to council for approval? It does.

Glenn, do you have any comments?

I do.

Is this the time, James?

Yeah, let me share your slide here. Just please speak into the mic.

Will do.

Is this the slide you would like?

One more. One more slide. This is good. The Eagle County Roadmap to Aging Well was presented to council last month. I don't know if you had an opportunity to see any of that. But one of the takeaways from that study was the ability to age well in place. And their comment was that this is one of the most talked about and important issues facing our aging demographics in this community. And they've come up with some solutions in the near term, in the midterm, and in the long term, but one of them is to have a more expedited process to request variances look at existing homes you know maybe some of the zoning that was passed in the past didn't consider the needs of these aging people and we're running into that in my home right now We are requesting a minor putt amendment to allow first floor accessible bedroom and bathroom additions so that my mother can safely age with our family. My mother's wheelchair bound after a serious stroke and has no ability to navigate stairs, bathroom or bedrooms. She requires a ground floor bedroom and bathroom specifically configured for safe transfers using an R Joe Sarah plus sit to stand lift. Staff position is they believe decommissioning upstairs bedroom space to stay under the 5,000 square foot limit combined with building the first floor addition is preferable. I respectfully disagree that this is the best and most reasonable solution. Decommissioning current space at significant cost, complexity, disruption to the existing home, limits accommodations for caregivers and places a higher emphasis on total square footage than creating a cost-effective efficient process to accommodate my mother's medical necessity the modest 475 square foot variance is the most efficient and medically appropriate approach the town attorney noted three things that need to be considered as James pointed out. Number one, whether the accommodation would undermine the legitimate purposes and effects of the existing zoning regulations. Per HUD-DOJ joint statements on reasonable accommodations in 2004, a requested change constitutes a fundamental alteration only when it alters the essential nature of the zoning program. This site-specific, disability-driven adjustment does not change the single-family residential character, impose an underburden on the town, or undermine the purpose of the first floor area limit. The second consideration. The benefits of the accommodation would provide the handicapped individual. It's clear, and staff has even acknowledged that. And number three. whether alternatives exist to accomplish the benefits more efficiently. And this is where James and I disagree. In examining the factors outlined by the town attorney, staff believes that the benefits to the handicapped individual of additional square footage requested in the order to make the first floor livable to the individual in the wheelchair are positive. That said, staff believes that the alternatives exist to increase the allowable square footage by decommissioning space on the upper floor. This cannot be considered more efficient or cost effective than what we're proposing. James also brought up the fact of an unwanted precedent being set. Approving this request would not set a precedent for other homeowners to exceed the 5,000 square feet. This is a site-specific, reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act for a documented disability. Each FHA request must be evaluated individually based on medical need. This is not a general zoning change. It is a narrow exception required by federal law. We are willing to consider minor adjustments to the toilet area if the commission feels they are necessary, provided they do not compromise the safety and functionality of the lift-assisted design. This modest increase has minimal neighbor impact, keeps lot coverage very low, 11%. We have 0.88 acres on our site. So the allowable far is 30%. We're only at 11%. It allows my mother to safely age in place with her family rather than face institutional care. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions?

How does your mom get around the house now?

Wheelchair and the lift. She's in Chicago.

Oh, so she doesn't live here now. Okay, when you said the aging in place, it confused me.

She is in Chicago. My dad is the primary caregiver, but he's just been diagnosed with kidney cancer. So his ability to care for her long term is in question.

Yeah, I'm sorry for your parents' health challenges. I think it's something we all, many people I know now are going through at this age.

James, there was a letter in the packet from CARP attorney? Yeah. Is that our attorney or is that the applicant's? That's our attorney, CARP New Hanlon. So they addressed it not being a precedent-setting event, right? Yes. Okay.

Mm-hmm.

that was a high consideration of mine so um the question put a motion out to approve or we just to i have a question that we have to do some public comment oh this is public do you have hoa approvals um we do not have an active hoa oh

They're in Pinion Pines, so not the Aspen Junction HOA Pinion Pines. So there's no HOA, so there's no HOA approval required? Yeah.

Interesting. So we are going to ask questions, then take public comment, and then we can entertain a motion.

How long have you owned the property?

Six years.

and looking at the the plan provided we are projecting the addition outside of the current footprint of the home correct and what will the setback be to that side yard

But it's it's shifting South East it's greater than the 10 foot that's required.

I'm great and it's important or we should is that is the is the addition going to this to the. West or the South.

A little bit to the West and a little bit of the West and a little bit of the South.

It's like an angle. I can go back to the plan. Taking up sort of the flagstone patio. Correct. That you have down there. I'm looking at your home on aerial. Are you demoing the decks, the exterior decks as a part of this?

Yes.

So there is a deck area reduction, or are you maintaining the same deck area?

We will be removing kind of the interior deck that is right off the back of the kitchen right now.

Yep.

But we will be expanding the deck to more align with the back of the home then.

Okay. Taking into consideration the slope. No further questions.

Mike, Cindy? Questions of staff or applicant? We'll do that after. I know we had one gentleman here that also wanted to make comments. Well, Greg, as well.

Yeah, the other gentleman was there, and I don't know where he went.

Yeah, and Greg, you have comments? Please step up to the mic.

Here you go.

My comments or more questions.

Would you just for the record name and address?

Sure. Greg Sugars, 640 Hillcrest Drive, Aspen Junction. Where Glenn and Laura live is what in Pinion Pines is like a donut hole that's in the middle of Aspen Junction. So they're surrounded by Aspen Junction, but they're not part of it. So he doesn't have any HOA. Oh, interesting. I did not know that. Okay. Yeah. So the questions I have is that initially it was said that the home is 4,400 square feet. It's bigger. The square footage. 4870.

Oh, 4870.

It's 4870. Okay. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense. So that's why I need the variance because it was 4,400 square feet. You were getting 600. You don't need it. The only, it's not my decision, but my only question is that there are five bedrooms on the second floor. I'm familiar with the house. I know the people used to live there before. Five bedrooms on the second floor, none on the first floor. And I guess you did the math, but it would seem like there's plenty of space to convert a bedroom in the existing downstairs and not have to decommission anything upstairs and wouldn't that be more cost effective and just as efficient i'm not doing the math but i'm just it just seems like this is you're going through a big process and this concept of decommissioning part of the upstairs seems pretty abhorrent to me uh and i wouldn't do that unless i had to but i don't think that even have to go anywhere near there if there's you can go online there's plenty of pictures of the house downstairs there's It's a very open downstairs area that wouldn't be... We did some work on my house with my leg. It would not be that difficult to create a bedroom situation downstairs. But if this is what you want to do and it's okay, fine. But I hate the thought of taking a portion of the upstairs and saying, well, we have to get rid of that in order to make this work downstairs. It doesn't seem to... I don't know, jive very well.

So you're okay with the addition and the extra FAR, but you don't agree with decommissioning the space?

It's not my position. But you have an opinion. You can tell us what you think. My opinion is that I've had disability in my family, not just myself. I have a tremendous amount of empathy for this. If you don't live it, you can't imagine what it's like. it's a, it's a, it's a totally different world all the time. And, um, so, you know, you have to, you have to make adjustments. I was just thinking that, um, I'm wondering if there weren't even better options associated with this. And if the only other concern I would have is if they were violating some kind of town setback rules, because in our neighborhood, I know of three homes that have violated the setbacks. And once one person did, it was like open season. So I just want to make sure that whatever they do here, they don't violate whatever that setback is. Our setbacks might be more strict than what they are in this little subdivision he's in. It's called Pinion Pines. I don't know the answer to that. Sounds like it's not an issue. It doesn't sound like it's an issue. Not an issue with setbacks, no. And I will also say where he's doing it would have no impact on any of the neighbors that's off the back of his house. I'm not talking like you're not here. It's Glenn, right? Yes, sir. It's off the back of Glenn's house. It's not going to impact anybody in that regard. The only thing I would think is that you're going to need a ramp. You need to have some place to have a ramp because you don't have one right now, unless you think you can get through the garage and not need one. But I'd keep that in mind. But it's fine. And I don't think it could possibly... long as everybody dots the i's and crosses the t's it cannot possibly set a precedent for somebody else because this is a very legitimate situation that is happening more frequently as people you know are aging and living a lot longer so there you have it and i'm so sorry for what happened to your mom thank you greg yeah i really am any other public comment uh if you're online and would like to make public comment on this item please raise your hand

Looks like we don't have any. Okay, let's close public comment at 8.15.

Commissioner, discussion, anything to talk about?

I'll just say quickly I do I do have a little concern about the precedent setting I mean not that it's gonna make me vote against it but just the fact that one of one of your rationales for it is that several homes in Pinion Pines already exceed 5,000 square feet that just you know that's you trying to use the precedent of those other homes to justify yours so yeah i i guess i don't i don't i don't buy the not precedent setting but i don't think that's enough to turn it down in this case we also have the comments from our attorney in the packet that said it was not president yeah i know i saw that too but i just think yeah i think maybe that line should just be struck if you're trying to run that by other people you're calling me out gentlemen

I think the fire department clarified the variance request that they were willing to give as far as the fire suppression system.

I thought that if anybody needed a fire suppression system, it's somebody that's mobility challenged. So I thought maybe just in the new area, but I know it's a huge cost and we listened to the fire department.

I wouldn't disagree. I also think increasing the footprint of the home is a little iffy, but I think decommissioning interior spaces is not something that we should do.

Yeah. And how would you enforce that? I mean, it's very realistic.

I've had to do it on a project and it feels really bad.

um kyle do you have a motion earlier in mind yeah motion to approve any conditions no conditions i'll second uh all in favor hi hi there you go glenn thank you unanimous approval thank you kyle can i please clarify something are you recommending it with the conditions that we had in the staff memo

Didn't he submit just though with for the full square footage?

Yeah, and the conditions allow for the full square footage, but there's some certain administrative items that you have to do like record an amendment to the beauty control document. So that's kind of the crux of the conditions.

James I could barely hear that so I didn't quite follow.

So I was asking Kyle whether he accepts the conditions that are in the staff memo that that go along with approving the variance and you know the most specific one is administratively you have to do an amendment to the PUD control document to reflect that in the legal I recorded documents and so you know that's one of the provisions, but it's just that one that individual lot not for the subdivision of that that administrative approval does that mean has to come back now that's administrative it's administrative. But it's it's something that has to be done. You know to Rick recorded in the public record for future knowledge of owners that it was specifically approved.

Glenn, do you have an issue with that?

It sounds like something I would be doing with my attorney to move the process along, right? So Kyle, will you bend your- I think what James had outlined in his presentation was if there were two options, with decommissioning or approving, which you just did. And then he laid out, okay, there's four things that need to happen after approval, which seemed to me to be all administrative.

Yeah, they're all administrative items, but they're important administrative items. So staff would just like to clarify that that's part of your part of your motion.

I take no issue with the administrative.

So yeah, then your question, my answer then is yes to your question of that.

OK. Thanks. That's all I needed.

We'll include those in our motion.

Yeah. OK. Just needed that clarity. Thank you.

The applicant still has to apply with all the tree removal permits, all the fire hardening, all of the building permit requirements for good quality construction. Yes. Correct. Yeah.

All right. You've been approved. Thank you.

And I think our next applicants are out in the hallway.

Should I get started or wait for them to join us?

We are getting going, Eric.

Nice to see you, Greg. Take care.

It's been a while.

Thanks, Grace.

James, they're coming? What'd you say? They're coming?

Yeah. Should I wait or can I get started? We can get going.

Okay, for a public hearing introduction to Jadwin Black Mountain final plan application. For the purpose of considering an application submitted by Jadwin Park LLC for PUD final plat environmentally sensitive area reach to floodplain review. Annexation and associated development review actions necessary to develop 64 residential dwelling units, 12 commercial lodging cabins, and associated infrastructure on the property located at 431 Emma Road.

Thank you. We have the applicants here this evening. We've got Bridger Smith and Michael Forrest and additional team members that they can introduce. As Rob indicated, this is a public hearing on the Jadwin final plan application to construct 64 dwelling units and 12 short-term rental cabins at 431 Emmer Road. and the property is just down valley of the post office. The P&Z saw the application at both the sketch and the preliminary plan levels. And the property subject of the application is nine acres. It currently contains a single family house as well as a mobile home. And as noted, the applicant received sketch and preliminary plan approvals. PNZ, as I noted, recommended approval at both the sketch and the preliminary plan levels. The final plan review is primarily to ensure compliance and consistency with the preliminary plan approvals as well as to work on any kind of hanging details as I noted the proposal is for 64 residential units in the area that's shown in yellow they're proposed to be a mix of multifamily and townhome units and then 12 short-term rental cabins that are in the area shown in purple on the map here The glamping that was in the sketch plan application was removed at the sketch plan application level by the council. So that's no longer under consideration. And so the applicant has proposed a total of 32 deed restricted units in the project So that 50% of the total units would be deed restricted 24 of those are proposed as category units and 8 RRO units in addition at the sketch plan level of The applicant had proposed a daycare corn shell on what is called the dog leg, which is this area that runs off down valley. And the council did not want to have the daycare be outside the urban growth boundary. So in lieu of that, the applicant provided a contribution of $700,000. towards community benefits in lieu of having the daycare. And so also as part of the sketch plan review, The council was looking for additional community benefit, so the applicant created what's called the first tracks units, where they've proposed that 20 of the free market units in the project would essentially be advertised for locals for the first 90 days of advertisement when a unit comes available. And so that was seen as additional community benefit. I won't go through all of the project aspects since we're running late and we'll let the applicant go into that as part of their application review. Staff did identify a series of discussion items. They're similar to the discussion items that you had at the sketch and the preliminary plan levels. They included master plan compliance, the unit mix and unit size. the affordable housing livability requirements as well as the occupancy priorities. On the affordable housing aspects, the BOC committee commission reviewed the elements and supported the proposed housing mix as well as the size of the units and the livability aspects of the units. On the transportation improvement side of things, the applicant is required to provide a dedicated right turn lane at the intersection of Midland Avenue and Emmer Road by the post office for down valley traffic. And then also as part of the sketch and preliminary plan approvals, The applicant is required to make improvements to the slip lane intersection within the road to provide better turning radius by the post office area as well. From a parks and open space and trails scenario, the applicant is proposing to dedicate open space on the north edge of the property, about four acres of it. The applicant is proposing consistent with the preliminary plan to have a public trail to the river And as part of that public trail, it would be field fit so that it wouldn't impact the native flowers that are on the property in the wetland area. In addition, other discussion items included the water rights at the preliminary plan phase. The applicants requested a reduction or a waiver of water tap fees. The council was not supportive of that at the preliminary plan, and the applicants are doing some more work on that as they're going through the process. But ultimately, the water tap fee waiver is a council discussion item. In terms of wildfire mitigation, the town just adopted the new state wildfire code. And so the applicants have a couple of adjustments to make to their landscaping plan to comply with those new code requirements. And the applicants are working on that. And then in terms of the sustainable building regulations, staff anticipates conditions that they meet the SBR requirements that are in place at the time of permit, which is a typical requirement of the town. With the dogleg parcel, this is really the main adjustment from the preliminary plan. This is the dogleg parcel right here that's also under the same ownership. The applicant is now proposing to annex this piece for the construction of a single-family house to replace the existing residence on the site. This is primarily a function of the fact that In Picking County, if they were to annex the rest of this property, this would create a non-conforming lot. And so Picking County has supported annexing this property for a single family purpose. into the town, even though it's outside the town's urban growth boundary. In the master plan, the urban growth boundary is identified as a strict urban growth boundary where urban level development is not encouraged outside the urban growth boundary. And so, you know, it's a discussion of whether this is urban level development to allow for a single family house, but that's a discussion item for consideration. Other topics for discussion include the phasing invested rights. The applicant has proposed to require that the plats all be recorded for the individual buildings within seven years of the approvals. and that would give them three years once the plat is recorded in order to build and start construction on the units so that is generally consistent with the park modern and lake modern projects that you've seen in terms of vested rights but it's a greater period than is required by the code the code has a standard three years of vested rights so that's that's for consideration but this is consistent with what was approved at the preliminary plan phase so this evening given that we're behind staff has identified this meeting as an introduction meeting to the final plan application and introduction meeting to discussion items and then ultimately after you take public comments and applicant comments, staff would suggest providing some initial P&Z comments and then continuing the public hearing to July 7th and identifying if you need additional information at a future meeting to make a recommendation. So with that, I'll stop sharing my screen and turn it over to the applicants to go into more detail on the application.

Hey, thank you. Hi, everybody. We have Ramsey Fulton on family vacation, but available via Zoom. He's our architect. And Ramsey, you want to kick it off here if you could?

Yeah, sure. I'll just jump right in. Thanks, guys. Sorry, not there in person. Obviously, with how long this project has been going on, and we're eager to kind of keep the ball rolling and not push it off because of personal obligations. So let me start this slideshow here. Can everyone see my screen?

Yes.

Okay, great. Well, thanks, James. And so to start off, just for the benefit of PNZ members who might not have been following this project through the years, I want to briefly run you through the intentional process that has landed us here today, starting with an idea that came about during the 2020 visioning of the, or sorry, during the community visioning of the 2019, that took place in 2019 and 2020 for the master plan. In mid 2020, the new owners of this project started master planning and development with our team after seeing the roadmap of community interest taking shape with the feedback and work sessions behind the 2020 master plan. The then draft master plan showed this property in conjunction with the neighboring Stotts parcel and how it could be incorporated into the town. as a key parcel to support the community's growth, vitality, and need for housing that stabilize community members at risk of displacement, including density recommendations, open space allocations, and appropriate land use designations within the property. Initial analysis proved that the largest challenge to realizing these goals was the limitations of the site constraints, including wetlands, floodplains, and utility easements. In December of that year, we prepared our first master planning package for staff to review and consider. This spawned into two more years of analysis, design studies, staff feedback, neighbor communications, utility, county, CDOT, fire department, and engineering feedback ahead of preparing for an annexation application. Jumping forward to the culmination of planning and outreach to neighbors and referral agencies, we arrived at our first formal planning application. Shown here for engagement in public hearings and public committee feedback, this opening opportunity included 68 residential units, 35% as affordable housing above the code required 20%, as well as 12 fishing cabins as hospitality offerings, and seven glamping sites, plus amenities and recreational elements provided in the extensive open space north of the housing. plus land dedication of the dog leg for childcare and community benefit. During sketch plan approvals, many topics of consideration were weighed and accommodations made from improvements to fire access, police management concerns, traffic issues, architectural response, project density, and of course the amount of affordable housing. Some of the most noteworthy accommodations at the request of the public P&Z and council include the following. A move to 64 residential units and 50% as affordable housing. Above the code required 20% and the initial offering of 35, including the introduction of the first tracks housing priority for locals program. At this time, we also removed all seven glamping sites as well as mostly all improvements other than trail access to the open space. We further agreed to a $700,000 gift to the town where the community benefit as a better contribution to benefit the community than the land donation previously proposed. These items along with the plan improvements to Emma and Midland Avenue resulted in sketch plan approval in February of 2024. Last summer, we once again engaged with BOC, PNZ and council for further discussion, consideration and feedback. After illustrating refinements related to our traffic intersection design improvements on Emma Road, additional composting and trash area refinements, as well as a clarity on ADA compliant units and accessible design, just to mention a few, resulted in approval to continue our work in refining the design proposal and annexation of the Jadwin parcel into the town of Basalt. Bring us to today's final application. Current updates to the application reflect technical refinements and resolutions to previously open topics as requested by staff, as well as further vetting and development of the civil, landscape, and architectural designs with an intention to not make material changes to the prior approvals. Our proposal summary once again illustrates the development of four multifamily residential buildings with two two-story structures and two three-story structures. with one two-story and one three-story building designed as a de-restricted community housing building shown in orange here, as well as 12 single standing and duplex town homes, 12 short-term rental cabin structures operating as a single hotel with onsite management, as well as an extensive dedication area of open space, lightly touched river access and per the direction of post wildlife and ecological consultants and river hydrologists. Our final approval design includes a consistent land use, zoning, and density model as previously proposed, and a consistency in our response to the Black Mountain, or the Basalt Master Plan and subsequent feedback. It also includes a consistency in our approach to the neighboring parcels, open space, public frontage, and Emma Road. architectural designs and character remain the same and consistent with prior approvals, which are a result of sketch and preliminary review feedback with consideration to the importance of a parent scale and materiality reflective of the site's context and community interests. A further detailed and refined and defined community housing offering and clearly defined public benefits include 81% deed restricted housing, which includes the 50% category units and the 31% fast first tracks units. four acres of open space and trail, a $700,000 gift to the town for community benefit, Emma Road and Midland Avenue improvements, betterment of public access to the river, provided vitality as envisioned in the master plan through the river cabin hospitality, and as well as pedestrian connection to the old town. As a final note, before we turn this over back to staff, we are excited to announce that with the remapping of the floodplains that was officially adopted on June 5th, we are now clear to proceed with our final approvals and prepare for construction to begin. Last week, we met with Bach and after great discussion on affordable products, units and categories, we received unanimous approval. We also met with the Talent Technical Review Committee in discussion of final approval comments and are preparing a letter in response to that after discussion. Now we would like to turn it back over to you for questions and discussion. And thank you for listening to the presentation.

Yeah, and staff would suggest we're open to questions from P&Z at this point. Questions?

Are there any pedestrian improvements?

We are proposing an eight-foot wide pedestrian trail from the existing trail by the post office south along our property line to the end of our property that can They'll get back on the road and go to the existing trail.

I'm more referring to the actual intersection. You're proposing a larger slip lane, right turn lane through there. Is there any additional pedestrian safety that you're implementing at that intersection?

The right turn lane at the slip lane, there's no pedestrian access across that intersection. But at the right turn lane at Midland Avenue, we'll have a pedestrian connection from the east side of Emma Road across to the library with two different handicap ramps.

Okay. So basically from the post office to that other corner.

Yes.

There will be a connection.

Yes. Which there is not right now that I believe.

I think there's maybe one ramp. There's a ramp on the post office side and not on the other side. So as part of this realignment of that sidewalk, there would be an ADA ramp on that corner.

We'll have one at that point. No further questions.

I had a couple of follow ups because I was not here for the second appearance of this. I remember we had some discussion about whether 90 days was long enough for somebody to bid on and get a loan approval and all that. Was that ever?

For the first tracks? Yeah, for the first tracks. Yeah, sorry. From 30 to 90 days.

It was 30 originally?

I think so. It was.

Oh, wow. Okay. Okay. So 90 days seems like. And is that program something that you are going to administer yourselves?

The town of Assal will administer it.

Okay. Okay. Good. I was going to, yeah, just for transparency. And then with the deed restricted units, I saw that. The waiver from the traditional categories in the town is still the case, but I remember like there were already like 12 units that were spoken for supposedly by these other groups. Has that gone away? Is it just now going to go on order of priority or are we still looking at 12 or so units that are pretty much out of the pool for the rest of us?

yeah the the letters of intent that we had you know originally at sketch plan with the fire department the school district and aspen valley ski club are still intact okay right now how many units is that isn't it like 12 10 10. yeah okay all right and then the other thing we did was we um we added the fire, you know, the forest service to the preferential, um, James, the first occupancy priority in the town code, um, which is basically essential employees in assault.

Okay. Yeah. All right. That's it.

And that was reviewed with BOC in great detail last week. And we kind of batted back and forth, and they kind of felt that for this one project, that it was acceptable to have a couple of additions to Tier 1 because of the letters of interest and how they expressed interest in this project early on.

Understood.

Just a question about the dogleg. There's one existing single-family home there?

So if you look at the – our lot includes the dogleg, right? But when the urban growth line was drawn, it didn't take into account our lot. It just kind of drew a straight line. So the dogleg right now, there is a family living there. in a home, and part of our conditions to approval at Sketch Plan was that they would get priority for one of the deed-restricted units if something went on on the dogleg, which originally, as you know, was potentially a daycare center, then it didn't. What basically happened here you know, as we've progressed this and in discussions with, you know, James and staff and the county after the annexation, the dog like parcel would kind of just be like, you know, this like left kind of nonconforming and there really be nothing you could do essentially ever on that parcel with a non-conforming kind of very old, you know, single family home right now that is going to need to be replaced. So we wanted to essentially legalize that now so that we could replace that home at some point. So you're taking now one single family home and building a new single family home? That's it.

And it's going to be free market?

Yes.

Okay. Yeah.

I just wanted to clarify that it was one for one. I couldn't quite tell it was on the parcel.

And then I just noticed in the renderings, they showed a nice line of trees screening the buildings from their highway. I'm hoping that those weren't just for the drawings and that they will actually be a nice line of trees there.

Yes. It's certainly important to us having some screening from the highway. As you know, if you've been to the site, it's particularly close. We've been working with our landscape architect, which is Connect One. you know, and CDOT and everybody else to do what's possible to screen as best as we can. And these renderings obviously take, you know, a balance between showing mature trees and not mature trees. So we're really trying to show kind of a middle ground of where the project should look, you know, within a few years.

That's all I got. And that's in compliance with the new Wii codes that we are trying to do? Or is that some of the modifications that you are going to need to make?

That's some of the modifications that Christine with Connected One is working on currently. There's also a set of boulder walls to add more privacy to those lower level units from the highway. Should help. You know, three or four feet tall. Create more privacy.

I'm sure it's in the packet somewhere, and it's a large packet, haven't found it yet. How much of the free market can the applicant build before deed restriction has to go up?

The way it is set up in the preliminary plan approvals and likely would be carried over into the final plan conditions is that the affordable housing has to come on proportionally with the free market housing. So if they're building a building of free market, they have to build a building of affordable, basically.

And that's different than the park modern development then?

It is different than Lake Modern. Lake Modern was allowed to build two free market buildings, and then with the third free market building, the first affordable housing building has to come on. And then the second affordable housing building comes with, I think, the fifth free market building.

Is there a reason we're not matching. I mean this is more restrictive than that. Is that just because this is what they originally proposed or we pushed back on something more lenient.

You know it's generally how we require it with annexations. This is an annexation whereas parcel five of Soper's Meadows was not an annexation. So we can have flexibility to look at more community benefit. So this is one of those items that was negotiated with the review.

Thank you.

Timing.

I remember during preliminary plan, we had county lines running through the centers of some of the town homes. Is that still the case? Or is that part of the modification?

You want to speak to it? The county line now has been adjusted on the plan. The county line hasn't moved, but the plan changed to allow for it to not go through two of the five units that it originally went through. And now the three units that it still goes through, it goes through the wall, so it doesn't...

it separates the deck from the unit but it doesn't go through the middle of the units so there's no domain issues or if someone steps out on their deck then there becomes they go into a different county when they step out of their deck on three units exciting but it's but it's it's not at least it's not in the middle of a room okay kind of like there's a defining line there's a defining line okay which is the department will know this is what you know they'll they'll know that

And so it was an issue at the preliminary plan review. The town attorney worked with the prosecutors of the two counties to get a better understanding of how prosecuting crimes would would work across two jurisdictions. And apparently it happens all the time. So cool. The concern went away to a great extent. Okay.

Have you guys ever asked Title if that's an issue when you sell these by any means?

No, it's, like James said, it's quite frequent and, yeah, it's just, I mean, it's taxed. They figure it out from the assessors, figure it out, kind of everybody just kind of figures it out.

That sounds toxic. Tax, paying two different taxes, two different, oh, wow. Yeah. As it relates to the water table dewatering and our downstream residences, what steps is the town taking to protect those wells that are potentially adjacent during site disturbance and some potential contamination opportunities, dewatering activities, et cetera?

Well, I think one, we're going to require best management practices in their construction management plan in terms of necessary silt fencing, necessary kind of separation between the improvements in grading and the wetland area itself.

Is there any monitoring discussions that town staff, engineering, public works has had related to the water supply of those adjacent neighbors?

We haven't really had those discussions, but maybe Stephanie, you have some thoughts on that?

The state requires you to have a stormwater discharge permit, and so we monitor it through that. I don't know if you were here when we were doing the sewer line down Midland Avenue and dewatering. We had this big giant balloon out on the park where the water went into that. It settled, and then we discharged the water after it was clean. So that's tested when we're going through the construction process. It's pretty well monitored through the state.

Great.

This is a public hearing. Are we taking public comment?

Yes, please.

Do we have anybody that would like to comment? Is there anybody online?

If you're online and would like to make comments on this application to the PNZ, please raise your hand.

Okay, let the record show we opened public comment at 8.50 p.m. and we closed it at 8.50 p.m. So we either have more discussion or a motion would just be to continue, correct?

Be to continue, yeah. And at a future meeting, staff will bring back draft conditions for consideration.

Can I make one comment to the applicant? Sure.

My only concern, in a good way, is it's almost too good to be true of how much you're offering. and you're locking yourself in, and obviously you started this six years ago now, prices, interest rates, and there's no way for you guys to get out of this if rates keep climbing, if prices, and you'd have to come back again. We're at the final stage. You probably wouldn't want to do it, but if there's anything you'd want to add that gives yourself ways to bump up categories or something, if it's tied to a price index or something. I'm just concerned that we approve this, but it never can happen because financially it just doesn't bounce with all the deed restriction. So I appreciate what you're giving. You got an opportunity to give yourself a little bit of leeway, maybe, with where costs have gone. Well-

I will. I'll add a comment to that real quick. You know, we did ask for some waiver of fees in order to make this model more financially viable. And even though those were not accepted the last round, if PNZ had a position where they wanted to recommend to council that that they're reconsidered to waive some of those fees, that's going to help this project get built And make sure it doesn't have a fate like you were thinking. It could be a possibility. So just throw that out there. That's something we can talk about next time we're in session. But I'll leave it at that.

I do want to clarify, though, that the town was supportive of waiving the parkland fees through the open space dedication. Which was how much? It's considerable. It's like $10,000 a unit. How many units?

64. Okay.

It was just the water tap fees that the council wasn't supportive of.

And this is on the salt sanitation as well? Yes.

Look, I appreciate you bringing that up, Kyle, because it's not often part of the discussion throughout the process. I think where we've spent a lot of time underwriting as well, Because it definitely keeps us up at night. I mean, the last thing we'd want to do is over promise and under deliver. And, you know, James and, you know, some of the people here have been there. You know, we've been doing this together now for many, many years. And I'd hate to have all that work done and not, you know, succeed. I think where, you know, we do have some flexibility after the fact and which kind of keeps us up at night is. And this is something maybe existentially that from a planning perspective, maybe you give developers a little bit more leeway is locking in the unit categories attached to a unit gets tricky because we have to decide now how many two bedrooms at this. income level, at this category level, this one's an RO, this one's not an RO. And you're guessing, quite frankly, right now where the demand is going to be. And throughout our discussions with some of these affordable housing partners that want to buy these units, they've actually warned us because they've been in situations where they thought there was going to be demand here and it wasn't. there um we do have some flexibility with the town we can come back you know later if we're having problems let's say renting or selling a category 2 studio but we have the fire department that wants it but they want to put a category 4 person in it you know there is a mechanism to come back to council and maybe it comes back to pnz or bach where we could come back and kind of play with that tetris um But that's why we're sort of pushing for some of these waivers of fees. And if there's other ideas that you guys have, we'd certainly be open to them to make sure that this project is feasible.

Have you checked in with the Western Regional Housing? Because I feel like they do a pretty good job of tracking what size of units people are really looking for.

Yeah, we have.

And I found it kind of surprising, actually, what they're, like, it's not necessarily what you would expect.

Yeah, I mean, I think some of that, you know, what we don't expect, like, for example, on some of the larger units, you know, family units, people, I think, you know, in the Valley, families still want that, you know, home with a white picket fence. And being in an apartment-style living, per se, is, you know, maybe, you know... not ideal for some people, but we have consulted with them. We've met with them and we plan to work with them more once we get final approval. A lot of this is a little bit of chicken and egg, like these groups don't really want to talk to you until you know what you have and you sort of don't know what you have until you're done with the process. You know, and it's like, which do you plan? You know, you kind of have to set it and then go back to them and say, OK, now we've got approval. you know um we tried to bake them into the process from day one which we did all these groups and and talking to them and there was direction also from the town of basalt during the master plan they identified areas that they saw need for certain size units and things like that which is that the western group might help take some of the risk out yeah deciding which ones it's a good idea too yeah any other comments discussion

would just say waiving fees soft cost is such a small percentage of an overall project that yeah it helps but once you're in it and built like you've done all the work and it's it's trying to get out of it right and if you're stuck with certain things so I get like thank you for bringing this totally appreciate it I just I hope you guys can pull it off I mean it's thank you we hope we can too yeah that's one of the reasons for the best thing you know

because they're going to get cheaper though right but you know a lot of that planning and and getting partners as you know together to do it, you know there are You know, there are companies in the valley, both, you know, essential sort of service companies and private companies that have budgets to purchase units to, you know, to bridge that gap and help us bridge that gap. And we're talking to them as well. So, you know, once the project's approved is like the next step is to build that. you know kind of capital stack if you will you know which which will begin as soon as we really know we have something locked in and people can actually rely on what we're telling them so the sooner we get approval the better with that we can entertain the motion motion to continue all in favor you guys were continued thank you

Thanks, guys.

Thanks for waiting.

I thought we were going to have several people still here. Oh, oh, that from that side.

Night and day. This is like the old council days.

Are you still going? You got one more for us? One more for you. Okay. This is a public hearing.

I don't think I can do it.

For 20526 Highway 82 initial town zoning for the purpose of considering an application submitted by the town of Basalt to provide the town's police public works parcel at 20526 Highway 82 with initial town zoning upon annexation into Basalt. The zoning proposed for the property is P.

approved thank you I'll be quick on this I promise this is a request of the town to zone the 20526 highway to property that the town purchased a couple years ago with an initial town zoning of I am I'm sorry public P public in association with the annexation and The town is currently in the process of developing a program for the site for the Police Department and Public Works Joint Facility. Staff believes that the Pea Public Zone District is the appropriate zoning to provide the property upon annexation, and it allows for establishment of the development program. through a P public zone district site plan review so staff because it is a town property doesn't have to jump through all the typical annexation hoops that a private development has to go through per the state statutes so staff is supportive of this initial zoning of the property to be public. And so staff this evening would recommend you take public comments and then provide commission discussion. And if you're comfortable, you could recommend that council zone the property as be public upon annexation. And staff would be happy to answer questions as well.

So are there any concerns about it? I'm not really sure what we're valuating.

Well, there's not too much to it. Staff doesn't have any concerns. can't show you a development program yet because it's in the process of being established with the town's consultants and they're working with the town engineer as well as the public works department and the police department and we've got several council members that are also sitting kind of in that board directing how the program gets established upon annexation and zoning, you would see a development program once it's been generated. And you'll see it for review.

Does P-Public have any limitations to the project at all related to residential units inside of the buildings for staff? Are there any limitations for that programming of the use of a public service building in the P public zone district?

No, P public allows for normal public use uses including PD and public works, but it also allows for accessory resident dwellings. Yeah.

Yeah. Are there any other zoning options?

mean the other zoning option could be you know industrial pud um but staff felt that p public fits what the town wants to do for the site it's currently industrial right it's currently not in the town so it doesn't have a town zone but the adjacent property is industrial properties industrial yeah and how much affordable housing would be providing that's still up for yeah consideration as part of the establishment of the development program um any other questions comments it's pretty straightforward right yep

Do you want a motion? If we could please do the public hearing.

Public hearing.

Okay, let's open up the public hearing at 9.03. Anybody online? We don't have anybody online. Then let's close the public hearing at 9.03. And now we can either advocate. You okay?

Discussion or take a motion.

motion to approve second all in favor aye thank you zone P it is for party and so you know in terms of staff comments your next meeting will be July 7th and we'll have likely the continuation of Jadwin and the continuation of the hotel

Will there be any other applications that I should set apart the entire night? I don't believe so.

Why the hotel two weeks? Do you think that much is going to change? Right? It's two weeks. It's just fast, I feel like, to see them again. And that's just because they're asking for that? Or do we have to come up with what we're trying to propose?

We'll come up with draft conditions and come back with a draft ordinance. It's a large application, as you guys saw. And we had a lot to talk through today. So the hope is to get an introduction to hear some of the neighbor comments and to be able to begin that discussion you know hearing it from the horse's mouth if you will for the applicant that gives them a little bit better idea of what they really need to address and you know a willingness to come back to you know address some of those things so hopefully exterior lighting traffic we will be meeting with the applicant you know to download this meeting and to discuss kind of next steps for them um you know they could they could come to that meeting and say hey we need more time or they could come to that and be willing to include those as conditions which then we we move forward you know whether or not we schedule Town Council meeting

we have to provide a date certain and and so you know if they're not ready or staff is not ready at that meeting then it could be continued forward i was going to ask do you think you all will be ready based on the questions that we requested of you i i think we could be but you know i i think it it's really up to the applicants whether they need more time okay

When you meet with them, I think that Kyle really had the impression point where they're asking for a lot and they're not offering much. And I want to make sure that got conveyed to them.

Yeah, I think staff might be able to offer some context at a later date on that.

Show them the application we just saw.

They've seen it.

Staff said some conversations outside of the scope of the application regarding that. So they're aware.

What is the status of the Myers Steel property? Did that get approved by council? And how come it didn't come back to us first?

No, it hasn't been approved by the council. The council went before council and so council had some concerns. They primarily had concerns about the residential not being integrated with the storage. They were concerned about the storage itself, and there were concerns about traffic still and associated improvements. And so the applicant is looking at adjustments to the application, but they're not going back to council next week. They're continuing further.

Okay, so we're going to get to see it again, too, because we've only seen it once, I think.

Well, no, it's one round of review with P&Z and Council on their development actions that they require because they're in a PUD already. So it wouldn't come back to P&Z unless Council directed it to go back to P&Z. which could be a possibility, but...

I felt like we don't usually see everything twice, kind of as a matter of course.

If you're establishing a new PUD or an annexation, a new PUD goes through three rounds of review with PNZ and Council?

Okay. And they're, I mean, they are asking for variances as I recall that that doesn't.

They're going through an amendment to their current PUD.

So we might not see it again.

Similar to what Kyle's question was earlier.

Yeah. Okay. Right. So what about, sorry to belabor it, but what about with the hotel? I mean, we'll obviously see it again because we didn't vote on anything. But then once we do, because it's not a new PUD. Would we see it again or now? Did we just see it once?

It's one round of review at PNZ Council.

Thanks for clarifying that.

One set of applications, one vote at PNZ and two at Council.

If we vote to deny its approval, do they get to appeal to Town Council?

Your vote is a recommendation to Council, so Council could still see it, yes, but it's a recommendation.

They can overturn us.

That is the only comments that I had.

I think I owed you all an explanation on the community development position. And so we have opened up. We are going to be restructuring a little bit over there and we have opened up the planning director internally and that is going to be due on this Friday. So The planning director has been kind of revamped as a position over there. As far as the, so the community development director also oversaw Brent, I'm sorry, our arts and events manager, and I'm currently overseeing him. and the town engineer as well as our sustainability projects. So I'm taking that on for right now and reevaluating once we get our planning director in place.

So what happens on Friday?

That is when the position closes.

Gotcha. And you'll be then overseeing town engineer and public works as well?

Yes, I do. I already oversee them. You already oversee them.

Okay.

Do you have applicants right now in that?

Yeah, so it's been opened up internally.

Oh, it's just, okay, you said that, yeah.

Anything else and we can I have a couple staff updates for you guys the cliff still side Park has Advanced we reviewed 90% set at post committee So hoping to start construction on that and start ordering play equipment imminently so that'll we're looking at construction probably starting mid-july on that beginning with the demo of the existing play structure there and So that's exciting. Looking at launching a survey on the land use code updates. So getting that back in front of you guys, that will likely launch the beginning of next week, but we'll be sure to post that all over the place. And you guys will hear about that at your next meeting when that goes live. We'll be doing a public outreach event at the library on the 8th of July. So we'll be sure to mention that on the 7th at our next planning and zoning meeting. And for fun things, the Basalt Summer Concert Series begins tomorrow evening in the park with Palmyra and Sweet Jessup and the Dirty Buckets. So come on down. Any other fun stuff?

You know, it's late. I think we can let them go. Okay. Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Aye.

We'll call unanimous.