Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to our Salt Town Council meeting. Today is Tuesday, July 14th, 2026. We're going to start with an executive session. But first, I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. And I pray, will you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Let's begin with Angela Anderson. Here. So if someone wants to make the executive session motion, I would appreciate it.

Mayor, I move that the Town Council enter executive session for the purpose of discussing, A, the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interest in accordance with CRS 24-6-4024, and B, determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators pursuant to CRS 24-6-4024.

dash six dash dash six dash four two four e more specifically related to potential open space property acquisition so this is actually a special meeting so after we get done with the executive session i will adjourn the special meeting and then we will start at six o'clock with the regular council meeting so after watching the recording click on that link all right all right thanks nice

we have a second second okay all those in favor okay

Thank you.

you Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening and welcome back to our regular salt town Council meeting today is Tuesday July 14th. I apologize for the delay we had some technical difficulties, but we're back up and running so called me to order in a family please call the roll.

Absolutely let's begin with on Georgia paper chart here.

Here David Knight here Elise huddle president Angela Anderson.

here she's staying here did you hear her no we can't hear her okay thanks angela i understand we can hear you some people can hear you rick stevens here and hannah berman is absent thank you

Great. Next up, we have our consent agenda, which consists of items 2A, minutes from May 12, 2026, item 2B, minutes from June 23, 2026, and 2C, which are the minutes from March 24, 2026, which should only be voted on by myself

and Angela so how should we do that we just do this could do a you could do a motion to approve minutes 2a and 2b separately from 2c hold on real quick on 2a there's at least one amendment to the minutes I had some draft language here this was the follow-up from it was item 7c at that council meeting it was that the ramp exemption request and so this is just to amend the minutes to reflect the to accurately state the legal effect of the town council's motion and so i don't know great did anyone else have any other amendments to the minutes

I found a few issues with the minutes.

And we can certainly pull that and Greg and I can work on them and put them back on, table them to the next meeting.

Let's do that because I would like to review whatever.

Yeah, and just so you're all aware of what I found is basically like other council members being attributed for things that I would have said or that, so like review what it says that you said and maybe you didn't say it.

And that's because we're using A.I. and we're learning. Thank you.

All right. So which which minutes are going to be amended? There could be a motion to.

I found issued a vote to A and to B.

So how about may I move that town council pull the minutes from to A and to B so that there can be further review and further amended and approved at a later date?

Second.

Perfect, thank you.

All those in favor? Aye.

And approving the minutes for 2C. If there's no issues with the minutes from March 24, Rick, David, or Angela can make a motion to approve those. So moved. Second.

Between the three of us here, all those in favor? Aye.

I heard Angela. That's good.

Okay, next up we have our call to the public. Just a reminder, three minutes. Address your comments directly to me. Identify yourself by name and address and sign in in the back of the room. And comments should be courteous, simple, and constructive.

And we will make no decision or take action. One more point.

If you're going to speak on one of the topics in the agenda where there is a public hearing, I would recommend you wait until that specific public hearing so that your comments will be reflected as part of the record for that specific item. Otherwise, it's not part of that record. But the floor is open if anyone would like to come up. Ted.

My name is Ted Guy. I live at 167 Sweeney Ridge Lane in LaSalle. I have noticed lately that very little information is getting to us through the newspapers about upcoming land uses both the motel and today's one of today's topics as well and I don't blame the town for that because I think it's the newspaper's fault that they're not covering upcoming land use things but I want to suggest that perhaps the town now require any Applicant who comes in that will require public hearings before P&Z or the Board of County Commissioners, the Town Council, that they have to do a half-page ad the Friday before their public hearing so that the public is informed. We don't have to look at the legal notices in the back of the paper. I think that that would be very, very helpful, and they would pay for it. Secondly, I have noticed there's people just running stop signs left, right. At 7-Eleven, you know, it's like every other car. It doesn't even bother to stop. And I'm not sure what the police can do about that. But they need to do something because somebody's going to get hurt or killed because people aren't even slowing down. And then I think last is just a question. All the work that's been done over there by 7-Eleven for the bridge, they tore out all the asphalt this morning and relayed it. Why? Thank you.

Thank you for the comments. Who would like to go next? If not, I will go ahead and move on. Anybody online else? I'll move on to Mayor and Council reports and comments. Oh, yeah, come on up. Yeah. Let's see if you raised your hand.

My name is Chris Lentz. I live at 75 River Oaks Lane, which is near Valley Lumber, in case you don't know. I'm back here. I was here 5 years ago with the same problem and that's encroachment in my subdivision of the riparian area by the homeowners. We went through a pretty lengthy thing five years ago. And with the town, James was involved and helped. He's helping me again. But I wanted to come up here and ask all of you to get behind him and the city attorney to enforce the environmentally sensitive area requirements. There's a new patio that was put in sometime in October last fall. by one of the new residents who feels very entitled that the rules don't belong to him, they belong to everybody else or pertain to everybody else. I just want to make sure, five years ago, the town refused to enforce anything about the encroachments. They grandfathered them in. and made an open promise that it would never happen again. Well, here we are. So if you guys don't make a move on this and make this guy remove this, you might as well burn the ordinance because obviously it's just going to let the next guy and the next guy do the same thing. You guys have precedence for having enforced things like this in the past. You've done it on Riverside Drive. You've done it over here where the little footbridge goes across the roaring fork. So I don't think there should be any problem of being able to enforce it again. And I just, I didn't want to come up here and say you have to do this. I just want to ask you all to get behind it and make sure it happens this time. and honor what didn't get done last time or the agreement that was made last time that's pretty much it thank you i'll be back in two weeks to complain about the bicycles on willett's lane okay thanks thank you anyone else and you're welcome just to come up i don't need to call on any you actually come up

OK. We'll move on to mayor and council reports and comments. So the floor is open.

None of those people in line wanted to speak. I don't think so. Just double checking.

Y'all have anything? I don't have anything.

I actually am curious. I had the same question that Ted had about the Confluence Park paving. Do you know what happened there?

I don't have that information, but I do see someone that would have that information.

Yeah, there was a drainage issue when they paved the first time, and that created some ponding, and so they had to rip it out and try again. And now it's fixed as of an hour ago. Are you sure? I am. Thank you.

Thanks, Catherine. I walked past it too.

And we are still waiting on our planters to be fabricated. So that's the hold up on the finishing the project. You read my mind.

All right. We'll go on to town manager.

Sure. Yeah. So I wanted to bring something to your attention. One of the public benefits from the town's annexation of the Roaring Fort Club was the club's offer to sponsor a golf tournament each year to raise money for basalt local charities. And so part of that is that annexation agreement requires an official application and review process for its charity events. So we facilitate that process. currently they it is for one year so that charity is awarded for that one year and staff is recommending that we extend that to three years for consistency it is a big event and we've heard from the the recipient of those chair that runs that charity event and this is a request that has come from them if they could do it over three years and be awarded that over three years. So with your blessing, I would change that to be three years rather than more.

just to comment over time one of the issues that nonprofits have run into is finding enough people to help support the tournament yeah so i think that that needs to be pretty explicit because it was a tremendous benefit the community game because we get three events there i think and one has been the basalt education foundation but they've managed to staff it with their group and i think that's what happened to a couple of non-profits is they just couldn't pull it off so it i don't know that it happened there was a few years it didn't happen at all i think so that would just be a note to suggest to them that they got to come up with a staffing plan because it was pretty popular for a long time who's the beneficiary i don't even know last year it was uh response response has actually been part of it for the last three years i believe last year they teamed up with

Mountain Valley Health.

That's I think that's a good way to collaborate to get nonprofits with a similar mission to go in together on it, not individual.

And nobody else is clamoring for that.

We've had some applications, you know, and we would put it back out for application for the next three years if council is OK with the three year scenario. It would still be the selection process, but it would happen every three years instead of everyone.

And I guess I'm still not following. Why do they want three years?

Just to create that consistency it's a big event and basically the first year you're learning how to do it and then the second year you're kind of getting your feet under you and third year you've got it so just just to create that consistency for for that organization to be successful at running the event.

Does it historically raise quite a bit of money for The nonprofit?

I think it depends on how it's run by the specific nonprofit. I think the ones that run it well, they make part of it.

Because I can also see the benefit of consistency from a budgeting process and standpoint for that organization. You get better at running it, you raise more money, and then you can also plan on those funds for three years instead of saying, well, we have this this year, but what about next year? Yeah. So they can do a little bit more long-term planning.

And the participation cost has been kind of a problem too, I think, for some people. To participate in the actual tournament is, you know, it takes some bucks.

That's true anywhere.

Yeah, I mean, that's kind of the reality of the Mid-Valley is.

So, Gloria, are you looking for a motion from council to authorize advertising the Roaring Fork Club golf tournament selection for a three-year term?

Yes.

So moved.

Second. Pam, will you please call the roll? Sure. We have to do a voice vote. We can do a voice vote. OK. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thanks, Angela. Thanks, everybody.

And then next Monday, July 20th, we will have an open house at 20526 Highway 82, the future public services facility site on Original Road from 5 to 7. We're inviting the public and targeting neighbors to come by and learn more about the project.

So hope to see you there.

Thanks. All right. Next up, we will move on to presentations. Item 6A, public services facility fund. This is Doug's topic.

all right thank you mr mayor and for our viewers at home here you won't be able to see my red marker here but i'll be doing that for james as a cue to toggle over where i'm speaking so we're starting off here with a summary of the readers that the town has in place of for the transfer of properties And you'll see here there's Roaring Fork. There's a Rita over Willits. There's a Rita to Willits. There's one at Sopers Meadows, Stotts Mill. The Salt River Park is listed here twice because there's two different pieces of it as the money comes in where it can be. Actually, it has three pieces to it. Lake Modern has two, and then the most recently scheduled to be completed property here is across the street, the Basalt Center Circle, also known as the Midland Residences. So those are all the regions right now. So the purpose of this schedule is to illustrate for instance, Roaring Fort Club, the RIDA balance can be used for four different purposes, affordable housing, a public structure, a post, or for non-for-profits. And we just had our audit sign off on this last meeting. So we had audited numbers through 1231. I've updated them through 331. And the plan going forward will be to actually just update this quarterly. We do a quarterly report. This would be a presentation that would be part and parcel with that information. So the council has four different choices on how the Roaring Fork Club can be used. Rita has the Rita over in Willis. There's three different choices. Willis two, there's three. Sopers Meadows, all arts. So since we're talking about the public services facility in Pitchview, which is also known as Parcel 9, the rugby field, a lot of different names for it, which we'll get to. I'm not showing an illustration of how that money is to be used. Stats Mill has four different choices. Now, this is where the choices of the council ends. We get the Basalt River Park. It's very prescriptive. The read is very prescriptive on how the money can be used. So for instance, Basalt River Park, 75% of the money is tagged for affordable housing. 12 and a half percent is for green initiatives. Another 12 and a half is arts. Likewise, Lake Modern, Very prescriptive 75% of the Rita is allocated for affordable housing and a quarter is allocated for public transportation. That by the way is how we're funding some of the extension of services to purpose salt. Um, connect and you'll see here at the salt center circle, this is going to be all affordable housing. So what I did in conjunction with consultation with Gloria and other colleagues, is what we ended up doing is we ran the numbers through 331 and we're making a recommendation, not a declaration, a recommendation on how the redos of monies should be or how they could be deployed. And you'll see here the public service facility is bringing up $2.5 million of Rita money. Pitchview is running in $1.9 million. There's nothing traded yet at the Midland. I'm anticipating through Bolinski's preliminary numbers that we could potentially receive up to $500,000 of Rita money in the first year of trading. But things don't happen until they happen. So I'm putting zero up on the board right now.

so can i ask a clarifying question of course the column that's labeled the midland yes is that the six units that we're purchasing correct okay yes yep it's it's all the it's all the there's more than how many units are subject to 64 all 65 are subject to that rita so it would trigger that rita payment

Well, no, I'm not asking what would trigger the Rita. I'm asking what the middle what the Midland.

Oh, what the project is. Yeah.

Would be benefiting from the Rita. Yeah. So that would be the six affordable units that we're purchasing or potentially purchasing.

But we are purchasing.

We are purchasing.

Yeah. Okay. Let's go to page two. So now this is where it gets a little dense. A lot of information here we're trying to wrangle here. So in this scenario here, there's only two things that could happen. Either we get the ballot initiative that passes or it doesn't. So what I laid out here was if the ballot initiative, wait, we have to turn the lights down. Like a movie theater. So the 2.4 million is available to the town. whether the ballot initiative is passing or whether it fails. You'll look here at what our general funds are. Now this is an audited number at 12-31-2025. We have uncommitted general fund reserves of a little over $7.1 million. We also have an escrow deposit on the actual purchase of these units across the street. Elise was talking about these six units of 595. The actual, just for clarity, this is not the total reserves of the general fund, the general fund reserves are like 13.3 million, but remember we have a reserve policy, we're embargling money for rainy day, Tabor Reserve, there's some monies against that. This is unencumbered money. And that's available to us whether the ballot initiative passes or fails. Now, if the ballot initiative passes, which we're asking for a half a penny, half a penny is going to yield, in my approximation, annually $1.5 million of additional revenue. And how I got that is that the taxes collected from the state, sales tax collected from the state, is $9 million. That's a 3% rate. So 1% would be 3 million, half a percent would be one and a half. Now we had laid that out. We went to, um, to borrow and we were, um, uh, to amortize a note, uh, over 20 years and we can get 5% of a, of a rate, which is all those remain to be seen. We could that present value of, of. of that payment, annual payment, would yield 18, just a little over 18 and a half million dollars in a borrowing amount today. So we would have that as a source available to the town to actually build out the public service facility. Which all that adds up to 28 nine. Now if this fails, which can happen, what do we do? So we have, we bought some land over at Original Road, we issued a COP for the purchase of the property, and we were servicing that lease by an annual payment around $400,000. It's a little bit higher than that, but let's just call it $400,000. And in the current year, current budget of 2025, that lease has been paid off, so it's all, we own that land free and clear. But we've been using that $400,000 that heretofore was for the servicing of the COP obligation as payment for the WOLD team on designing this building that we've been working on. So we've embargoed that money. So the plan would be, if the ballot initiative fails, that we would further embargo $400,000. and that we would use that as currency to borrow under the same terms. This would be a 20-year term, 5%. And that would yield just under $5 million. So that gets us to 15. 15 isn't 28, but it's 15. So as we work through the possible, you know, what can happen, what can happen, we're looking to build a public service facility which would house the Police Department of Public Works. And the full Monty would be, I think we're targeting 25 million or so. Now, if we're not successful, somebody's going to be odd man out would be what we had to decide. And I'm not making that recommendation out, but we'd only have $15 million to build the facility. So you with me on that so far? Yep. All right. So now we turn to the big project here is Parcel 9. It has lots of names. Sopris Meadows, Pitchview. This is the extraction we got from the developer when Sopris Meadows was developed. And we have this million nine comes from my reader summary from the previous page. So we have a million dollars unembargoed money. We have unspent bond money. And we have, and let's just for fun, let's just go to the next page just for a second. Share I'm getting these numbers. This is an audited number of the net equity number of fund 41. Fund 41 is our construction fund that housed and administered are tax exempt and taxable bonds that were issued towards the end of 2021. to see that money coming in here, 2022. That was the money that came in that was used to pay for Midland and also paid for there was eight. It was eight million. The offering was eight million one thirty five. And we had been targeting six million for affordable housing and two million for green. That was how the taxable money was split up. The tax exempt money of nine and a half million was Midland. And that went all into the streetscape project. So I went through the ledger for all of these years And so where is the money popping out at? Okay, what was it tagged for? And this is an equity number, so it's a full accrual equity number of what that bond money represents as of 12-31-2025. So that's where that number comes from. Now, related to this, and the reason I'm making this up, or bringing this up, is that the bond offering, and I had sent the language of the ballot initiative to counsel and to Jeff and looked at the actual bond offering that the investors were buying these bonds and there was no there was no allocation of this act as taxable bond of eight million dollars there was no delineation as to what was green and what was affordable housing it was very broad okay I can only find it in the recitals of some of the resolutions that were authorizing disbursements of funds So I don't know the real history of how that came about other than it's somehow made it way into a recital. I don't know if that has any bearing on anything. But the reason I bring it up is that if it doesn't, that gives us more flexibility on what we can do with the green money because we're still short on the affordable housing. And if we're bound by that, which is affect 25% green, 75% affordable housing. If we're bound by that, fine. Then that's what we'll play by. But I had asked Jeff to look at that language. You don't have to apply it right now, but Jeff is looking and see whether or not that it gives us more flexibility. Okay.

And then we also discussed the green money, you know how it can be incorporated into an affordable housing project like through PV through solar on the roof or heat pumps you know things that would fit within the authorized purpose of the ballot language as well so just we're you know just working together on to ensure that that money is appropriately spent okay

So we're not making any conclusions now. This is just a stack we're putting together. So let's go back to the second page. All right, so let's finish this off. So that's the net equity of the fund. I would pull basically the draw down on what we have for 2026. We're completing the second duplex or the two plexes over at Stotts Mill. So we got we got money burning out our area Nelson for that. We also have some money still tagged for Group Z that stood the entitlements for parcel nine. We had done that deed restriction buy-down over on Lakeside Drive, I believe it was 412 Lakeside. We did that, and that was use of this money. And we still have some money tagged for Parcel 2E, very little. All right, so I just basically took the budget. And so we do all that, and then I said, okay, what am I missing? All right, well, in November, the town passed a 2% lodging tax. as an addition to the 4% lodging tax on short-term rentals. Actually, it was on rentals, right? So, we don't know, it's only June, what the annual rate is going to yield in the way of additional tax, but it seems likely I'm looking at the run rate, that that's going to assume about $200,000 of additional revenue. Now, we have a lot of discretion. The council has a lot of discretion on how that money is used. So like with the $400,000, like with the additional sales tax, we could use that currency as borrowing power to service debt. So if we took that $200,000 and we wanted to borrow against it, I would take a shorter term. I wouldn't go 20 years. I'd take 10 years. I wouldn't want to go out too long on that. And a 5% rate gets you about $1.5 million. So we're building a stack here for- And that would be for a COP, correct?

These would be COPs. What would be the against?

The COP would be $1.5 million and be secured by the lodging tax of the rental. So we're about a five million stack. Now, these things, they're 16 units, and it's about a million dollars a pop to build these things. We're looking at getting a sharper number on what that is. But directionally, let's just say it's a million. We're limited on what we can sell them for, categories three, four, and five. We're limited by CHFA rates on what maximum sales prices can be. We don't know for sure when these things are actually going to be done, when those numbers are going to be three, four, or five years out. But it's probably safe to say it's probably going to be more than $500,000. So I've just been directionally working with, OK, we're going to maybe get, if we sell these things, as affordable housing, deed restricted, three, four, or five. and they get $500,000 and we're gonna put a million in it, we're gonna be upside down 500,000. 500,000 times 16 units is eight million. So we're basically still three million in the hole. If we sell. If we sold them. Now if we didn't sell them, we'd be 16 million in the hole, that's five. We'd be 11 million in the hole. Because we'd have to pay for all the construction costs.

What about Renningham, what is that?

That's a whole other analysis we haven't done. That's the gating question, frankly, on parcel nine. whether or not we need to, whether we own them or whether we rent them. That is the gating question, frankly. Now, we have the town. I keep saying we. The town will own once the duplex over at Stotts Mill is two additional units. When that's complete and we add six units to the inventory over here across the street, the town is going to own 24 units of housing. And if you add 16 to that, that's 40. So the question is, how much is enough? Or how much is too much? And then what does that mean for the, I mean, these are, and I'm not making a recommendation, I'm not thinking this as a conclusion. What I'm trying to do is elicit all of these various things, because there's more things here to go over. How we want to allocate capital and how we want to set priorities. And that's really the direction that the council needs to set as far as the next steps.

So you with me, Arnett? With you, yeah. I think that gating the question, I totally agree, but we kind of need the analysis on . Yeah, we're working on that right now. We have that. We have that.

And also, at some point, I'd like clarification on what CHAPA's requirements are.

30%, well.

I mean, are we doing tax credits? Is that why CHFA is involved?

No, we're just using what the maximum sales price would be based on basically AMI on categories 3, 4, and 5 and 30% of income.

Oh, okay. You're referring to the AMI as the CHFA thing. Correct. Okay. I misunderstood.

We're not taking tax credits to do this. So thanks for the question. Now, what's not in here? that needs to be in here and how I've been thinking about this. All right, so first thing is that we have the police station that we're at now, we own. All right, so there's two units over there that we could sell. We also have an annex up on, I guess it's Humpstead, that we could sell as well. That's where we house some of our public works equipment. Now, or... If this, I think about, okay, well, if things don't work out and town says no, no tax increase, then what do you do then? We could repurpose that police station for the public works facility. Again, these are just options we're throwing out, not conclusions, but just kind of options. What's not included in here is any sort of revenue kicker we'd have in space on the speed cameras. Okay, now whether that's a panacea for additional revenue, we'll see. I don't count my chickens over their hatch, so we'll see how that pans out. Gloria has been working with CDS, that's- Congressional Directed Spending. Congressional Directed Spending. So we're in contact with our representatives, and there's some opportunities for grants in the fall of 2026. um it's not included stats mills we're going to be completing that duplex do we keep do we keep that do we sell it we can rent do we just have it to rent for additional uh included in our inventory these are all options that we have um then we have um what is this impact piece Oh, yeah, the impact fees. Okay. All right. Here. We know, or at least I have been sitting here listening to a lot of the concerns residents have of a few south side, one way in, one way out. Do we want to do a roundabout? Do we want to make some investments in infrastructure? And if we do that, then we're going to be taking it from the general fund. And, you know, I think the idea for infrastructure is to be on the back of development. And we have impact fees over on the south side and for development. But I think that probably the way to categorize it is they're end of life fees because they were determined years ago when construction costs were not what they are now. So we have impact fees that aren't covering the cost of what we're planning and doing. So one of our initiatives, and I'll say ours because it's the finance department working with Gloria, we'll be reviewing some of our impact fees, not for things currently under contemplation, but for new developments, future annexations, if there are any, to see whether or not those impact fees would actually then help pave the way for some of the infrastructures needed to happen. And there was a decision out in California, the Sheets decision, that was just that it has to have nexus, our impact fees have to have nexus, it's gonna have some sort of, you can't charge for,

parking if you're if you're not using parking or some example if you wanted to go more I mean generally impact fees there has to be a nexus between the development and the impact fee that it's designed to offset and there has to be a rough proportionality between the fee and the development and she's decision basically said even for legislatively enacted impact fees there has to be that analysis and so there needs to be some proportionality that nexus and proportionality even on legislatively enacted impact fees. So in that case, it had to do with a road impact fee for a development that was triggered that had not any, there was a determination, I think, that there was not any nexus or proper proportionality for that road impact fee. Thanks.

So that would be what we, you know, what would be mindful of when we look at these things going forward, you know, like that South side roundabout, you know, I've heard a number, um, that could be as much as $3 million in improvements and putting a mini roundabout there, improving the flow and the number of stops that intersection can handle and actually improving the flow of things. So 3 million coming off the top there at 28, nine becomes 25, nine, um, still doable, but again, allocation of capital and how we want to go ahead and spend our money. And then last but not least is that once this building gets built one way or the other, I have not quantified, beginning to, quantified the cost to carry. we don't have property taxes to worry with but we have insurance we have op ex we'll have utilities so we're working with holy cross on quantifying electricity costs uh i'm working with sursa i've already gotten up some numbers from sursa which is our insurance broker if you will call it that and our opex as well as maintenance so working with facilities on that so we're working on all of these things but The idea here was just to show you the two things that are number one, as we understand it, to be higher priority. This all lays into the budget. It doesn't contemplate what we'll be talking about later tonight is the reimbursement provision on a resolution that would allow for some recoupment of another COP, which we'll talk about, not tonight, but later this month, which I alluded to last meeting. And that doesn't contemplate, will likely lever up the balance sheet of the water fund to pay for our meter project. So there's a lot of things coming down the pike. And the good news about our financial position is that this year, we're making our final payment on the Albany Park COP. So that'll be out of the way. And going into 2027, gosh, 2027, the only COP we'll have outstanding is the ones we issued for the Tabor refunds. And that burn is like $200,000. It runs out in 2029. Interest rate's 2.2%. So there's no way you'd pay that off. It's a cheap debt. And it's not actually a debt. It's a lease. So I think the town's in good shape. I just think we want to be careful and mindful and strategic.

about how we okay some of these things so we don't we don't get too far levered on particular transactions so that's kind of the update appreciate it yeah i think this is this is great info and i think it's going to really help it's going to have a to prime our brains for the prioritization exercise going into the budget that we're going to be doing here later this month So I mean, there's a lot to discuss. I think we should, because we're at about 25 minutes already. But it's good info, but we need to move on. But if anybody has any quick questions, go ahead and ask them.

But I would just to comment, I think the way you distributed the retreat coming up, the distribution of the reader to me is really important to understand. And that we've kind of been asking around what those are all about. i think what you've done by identifying what you identified is great and you know i think that part of selling this idea of a half cent sales tax is going to depend on a solid foundation of where we are financially and how we're going to pull it off so you kind of you're every meeting there's another discovery you've made on how we can finance this project and make continue to make it a priority so i thank you very much um this is this is great information and i think uh you know we found out a meeting or two ago that we have a hundred million dollars in public assets of assault and that they book value Yeah. Yeah. It's not market, right? Right. But that's a lot to protect and preserve and maintain. So thank you very much.

I'd like to make one comment, and that is that I 100% cannot get behind using the green fund for anything but green initiatives. And I say that from the perspective that I was on council when we went to the public and we asked for that. And my integrity is on the line if we do not give the public what we told them we were going to do with that money. So I am not behind that at all. If you can... work it into the affordable housing project and it makes sense i understand that but like if we're adding solar just so that we can take from that fund that's not okay right well we did do the green project we did spend about a million seven with mckinstry on the solar roofs for the schools and so we did we did already spend money on uh green projects just so you know i know we spent money on green projects i'm just saying like if we take the rest of it and throw it into something else then i don't feel like that i can stand up here and represent the community and say that you know i did what you asked of us that because we went and basically marketed this you know initiative to the public we asked for them to support it via vote so

He's just presenting potential options. We have to.

I know and I just want to be clear that this is how I feel and I will not change my opinion on that one.

Understood.

All right. Thanks, Doug. Next up, we have our council action. So first up is 7A, continued public hearing and first reading of ordinance number 18 series of 2026 in the ordinance of the town council of the town of Basalt, Colorado, granting special review, site plan review, a PUD amendment, and associated development review actions to develop a mixed use development at 555 Basalt Avenue, Basalt, Colorado. James, you have this one.

Yes, thank you and let me go. Yes, you're right. So thank you. Let me please share my screen here. This is a continued public hearing and first reading of an ordinance on an application by MREH LLC requesting the approvals to construct commercial storage, multifamily residential, and live workspaces at 555 Basalta Avenue. which is the Myers and Company property in Southside. As has been noted for the last couple meetings, the process for review requires land use requests that include review by the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Town Council. and would require a subsequent subdivision review by the town council if the development approvals were granted. The applicant is in their fourth meeting with the council. The applicant has adjusted the application since the last meeting. And so they've amended it as is shown in the addendum that's in your application materials and your packet materials. that was shown on June 9th. And specifically the addendum in the application packet proposes 30 residential units, 12 live work units, 42 commercial storage units, And it is based on the site plan that was seen at the June 9th meeting. And let me make it smaller here. There you go. And of the 42 residential units, nine are now proposed as category price cap for sale units. six are proposed as primary resident units without appreciation caps and an additional six units are live work units and are proposed as ro primary resident units so that the deed restricted total is 50 percent of the total residential units The applicant is also now proposing two of the commercial spaces which are integrated on the first floor of the residential buildings to be community serving commercial spaces with a price cap of 80% of the market rate that would be advertised for the first 90 days that the project is advertised. And then the applicant has also proposed for three of the storage spaces to be prioritized for artists or small business incubators for the first 120 days of advertisement of the project for sale. Additionally, 12 of the storage units are now proposed to have priority to be purchased by Basalt residents or businesses for the first 90 days that the project is for sale. Other clarifications in the addendum to the application that you have in your packet include that the applicant is proposing specific items related to the Few Lane improvements. They're proposing to remove the fence along Few Lane. They're proposing to add a path along few Lane as well as part of the property and then they're also proposing to improve the half the few Lane frontage to the middle of the road per the improvements that were identified on alternative for by Jim charlier and to remind you what alternative for was it was to have one way in to Southside on Few Lane and then convert the current Somerset path to another one way out for vehicular traffic and then also have a path along with that one way out on Somerset. And so other clarifications that are in the application addendum, the applicant is proposing their access road to Cody Lane to have the sidewalk that's adjacent to it to connect up to the crosswalk that goes across Cody Lane. And the applicant has also included concept of working on the drainage on Cody Lane that's directly adjacent to their access road as has been brought up. I'll let the applicants provide some more color on their addendum items as part of their comments. Staff does note that the master plan amendments to change the typologies that were required at the first rendition of the application are no longer needed as the application now integrates the commercial and the residential pieces of the project. There is still a need to amend the future land use map in the master plan to remove the existing land use designation because the existing land use designation didn't anticipate redevelopment of the entire property as part of the master plan timeline. But it doesn't change the allowed uses on the site as part of the master plan. STAFF HAS PROVIDED A DRAFT STAFF HAS PROVIDED A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET MATERIALS. PACKET MATERIALS. PACKET MATERIALS. AND I'D LIKE TO GO OVER A COUPLE AND I'D LIKE TO GO OVER A COUPLE AND I'D LIKE TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THERE AND HIGHLIGHT THOSE. IN THERE AND HIGHLIGHT THOSE. First being condition number 7, which has the standard language that we have provided in industrial areas about the preexistence of existing industrial land uses that make noise, have impacts, and the acknowledgement of that and that they're going to continue. Condition number 15 implements a 1% real estate transfer assessment. That would be applied to the market rate portions of the development Condition number 18 represents the applicants affordable housing proposal that nine of the units be category for sale units and that six of the RO units of the residential component be RO six of the live work units also be RO and And then commission number 21 on the same page represents the locals program proposal that's in the applicant's addendum to the application in that it identifies that six of the market rate live work units and 12 of the market rate residential condominiums would be available to purchase only to basalt. residents and employers based in Basalt for the first 90 days that they're advertised. Additional conditions to highlight include condition number 22, which represents the P&Z's condition on timing. IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE FREE MARKET RESIDENTIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL BE PROVIDED PROPORTIONALLY TO EACH OTHER, WHICH IS A STANDARD REQUIREMENT OF THE TOWNS, AND THAT PRIOR TO THE FIRST CO ON THE STORAGE, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTED. THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE, AND IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN YOUR DRAFT ORDINANCE. and the applicants can go over that. It would allow some of the storage to come along before the affordable housing would be fully completed. And then condition number 25 represents the applicant's proposal on contributing to Few Lane improvements. As I outlined in the staff presentation, once again it is to remove the fence. It is to provide the path along Few Lane and then also to make improvements to the middle of the right-of-way on Few Lane. per alternative four that was identified by charlier staff does believe that if council is looking for potential for additional community benefit this could be an item to take a look at for additional improvement So this evening, staff would recommend hearing comments from the applicants on the addendum to the application, taking public comments, and then providing discussion. There are several decision options for the council this evening. You could approve the ordinance on first reading and set a second reading date. You could direct amendments to the conditions in the ordinance and approve the amended ordinance on first reading. You could deny the ordinance or you could continue the public hearing and direct on additional information that might be needed. So we have this evening the applicants with us. We've got Mark Blodgett and we've got Justin Price and we've got Marika Blodgett as well. So let me stop sharing my screen here.

Mm. Mm. Yeah, so before Justin goes over sort of the changes, good evening everyone. I think most of you know me, I'm Mark Blodgett, I own Myers and Company. And I wanted, Justin will cover the specific changes and benefits of the project since our last meeting, but I'd like to make a few opening remarks if you will allow that. As most of you know, this proposed redevelopment 555 Basalt Avenue has evolved significantly since we started talking to the planning department. I actually went back and looked at my notes. It's over two years ago, back in 2023 when we started meeting with Michelle and James. In our early meetings, we proposed significantly more housing since we were repeatedly told there's a big housing shortage in the valley. And because we're located next to the Rafta bus stop. In the meantime, it seems that the housing situation has actually gotten worse. However, we were counseled at the time that the high-density housing was not a feasible approach to our plans. We subsequently proposed a more balanced approach when we submitted our plan to the P&Z last year. With the P&Z's input, we made significant changes in terms of layout and aesthetics, as well as reviews of traffic and proposed changes to FIO Lane. As you know, the P&Z unanimously approved our application with a recommendation to increase the affordable housing component. Since then, we've made substantive changes to our plan over the last three town council meetings. One, we effectively doubled the affordable housing component to 50%. We replaced three residential buildings now next to Raptor with two residential buildings, thereby significantly increasing the green space of the project. We modified the large storage component at 12 live work units. And lastly, we participated in multiple discussions regarding improving both VO and Cody lanes and agreed to enhance both of them should this project move forward. When you consider all these points, the public benefits to the project, in my opinion anyway, are meaningful, particularly when you compare the site to its current use. Regarding traffic, I'm not an expert, nor is anyone in this room or in the town. We took this concern early on seriously, and we hired Curtis Rowe, who's considered the number one traffic engineer in the state, to advise us. As some of you know, Curtis and Kimberly Horne have worked for the Town of Basalt in the past years, and we incorporated Kimberly Horne's recommendations along the way into our revised plans. I mean, we probably had 10 revised plans now. While many in the community have voiced support for our proposed plan, we recognize that others have expressed concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility. I would like to remind everyone that Bob Myers Originally developed this area of south side. I looked it up 35 years ago was mixed-use With a view that it would ultimately increase the vitality of basalt south of highway 82. That's actually obviously happened We currently operate a dusty noisy industrial operation with plenty of heavy commercial traffic everybody knows that and I would postulate that a proposed development would enhance the community versus what is here today and since it includes for-sale affordable housing units next to a bus stop, which implies less traffic as well as live-work storage units and nearly 20% green space, which I believe is double what the town's requirement is. To the best of my knowledge, there's not a project like this in the Roaring Fork Valley, and we would expect it to enhance the neighborhood and ultimately the town of Basalt. In closing, we operate on a five-acre dirt lot, anybody who's been to visit us, which would be replaced by much-needed housing and live-work units with some large storage units for low-intensity industrial use. In addition, our project would be instrumental in making improvements to FIO and Cody lanes. We've tried to accommodate as many recommendations and suggestions as practical, But frankly speaking, we've done as much as this project really can bear. As I previously stated, we expect to move Myers in the next year for business reasons. I'm not gonna get into those reasons, but we've discussed them in the past. and a decision needs to be made to move forward with this project or continue a similar use of the property with the new owner. Thank you and I'll turn it over to Justin.

Okay, I'll run through some of the revisions real quick on this page. So, just in a quick recap, the site 555 Basalt Avenue, currently located in the south side PUD in the industrial zone district. That is one of two main industrial zone districts in Basalt, the other one being the basalt community or commercial park in the mid valley design center just south of willits and so you know feedback from planning and zoning about losing or reducing the amount of industrial space available in basalt was of major consideration the future land use map proposed that this become mixed use commercial and some of those uses overlap with the industrial zone uses and we've tried to limit our proposed uses as a part of this application the site overall as we have modified it is 34 sale condominium units 12 live work for sale units and 42 warehouse and storage industrial uses and now I'll jump to the next page So the breakdown on the housing side of things, the 30 for sale condo units, 15 of those would be deed restricted affordable housing. Nine of those would be category three affordable housing for sale. Another six would be primary resident deed restricted units. The remaining 15 would be market rate for sale. The additional Six units come from the live work side of the project those six live work units we have updated since our last meeting the deed restriction to be either primary resident or Employer owned housing. So if a business owner bought that they could put employees in that live workspace as well The remaining six live work units would be market rate Mark touched on the open space. The open space of the entire development is 18%. The requirement is 10%. So we're almost to double on the green space there. As we've mentioned before, Basalt's goal was to create 500 new housing units by 2030. Right now there are 53 built and 51 approved in the pipeline, but unbuilt. uh so this would be a significant increase to that overall number towards that goal our original design had the basalt code requirement for mixed use at 25 affordable housing units and that number has now been increased to 50 which is similar to the bcc and the jadwin projects i'll jump to the next page SO THIS PAGE IS IN REGARDS TO THE STORAGE WAREHOUSE AND INDUSTRIAL UNITS. SO THE BREAKDOWN ON THIS WOULD BE WE FURTHER BROKE DOWN THESE UNITS, ONE TO CREATE PRIORITY FOR BESALT BUSINESSES AND BESALT RESIDENTS TO UTILIZE THESE ON A FIRST COME FIRST SERVE BASIS. SO THE WAY WE BROKE THIS UP WAS TO DO 15 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL STORAGE UNITS. with an additional three of those becoming priority to artist, maker space, craft space. There is defined terms in the zoning code towards that, and so that would be part of the deed restriction. And then the remaining 24 units, 12 of those would be first come, first serve to Basalt residents or Basalt businesses within the three mile planning area. leaving just 12 for sale market rate units after the initial marketing and sales period. I'll jump to the next page. So these are kind of the three programs we've added to the deed restriction to further kind of prioritize local businesses and residences to utilizing these units because we have seen a market demand for that in the area. So the first one is the basalt local priority that is residents and for the industrial units businesses within the three mile planning area or because we have seen this in other deed-restricted programs. It could be a secondary location for a business that is doing business in the area and putting employees here locally. We've seen this pretty commonly with other type of deed-restricted programs. If, say, they've got a Denver office, but they're doing, you know, the employee is doing nine months of work up here, they would then, could qualify to purchase those spaces as part of that. The second one is, and this was raised at the previous meeting, was the artist incubator space. That is, again, defined by the zoning code for craft, artists, makers, or business incubator spaces for small business. And the third item that we added was there was two commercial spaces added to the mixed-use residential buildings. We felt with their location to the bus RAFTA stop and with their location and the number of affordable housing units in THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS, WE COULD GRANT THOSE SPACES AS COMMUNITY BENEFITING SPACES WITH REDUCED PURCHASE PRICE AND APPRECIATION CAPS. IN SIMILAR MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES, THOSE SPACES HAVE GONE TO GOVERNMENT NONPROFITS, CHARITIES, AND OTHER COMMUNITY SERVING SPACES. AND SO THOSE WOULD BE GRANTED AS FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL TO BE PURCHASED UNDER THOSE TERMS. for those defined spaces. So James kind of previewed this slide, but this is now the makeup of the different types of units. So starting kind of on the top, on the residential, the orange is the market rate, 15 units. And then from there, we've got the nine deed restricted category three for sale. We've got the light yellow, which is six primary residents for sale condos. And then jumping to the southern portion of the lot and the pinks and the reds, the red is live work market rate. And from the previous meeting, we increased our live work primary residence employee housing. We doubled that number. And then jumping down to the commercial storage, you've got the blue with the 12 market rate, the light blue storage, which is basalt priority program. And then you've got a bit darker blue, the storage light industrial uses. Those are the uses that would be allowed to have business operations in them. And that's part of our traffic study. And then you've got that kind of lighter blue of the artist incubator priority spaces. And then the last color, the purple being the two retail spaces up on the north side of the site. They're both just under about 900 square feet. That would be prioritized to community serving spaces. That allocates 50% of the residential units to deed restricted in some way or another. And it allocates 35% of the commercial spaces to deed restricted, prioritized to local businesses, local residents, local community spaces and business creation. I'll jump to the next one. So this slide just highlights throughout the process, the applicant has been very responsive to all questions and comments. As Mark stated, we've tried to address as many of these concerns as possible on a very difficult site. You know, this is half of the site is in a FEMA floodplain. It's a formal industrial site. It's right next to the bus stop. It's a multimodal site. So there are a lot of items to kind of cover. The revisions that we've made include adjusting building height, reducing density, limiting uses, and agreeing to few lane improvements and Cody Lane improvements, along with increasing affordable housing percentages. SO TWO OF THE MAJOR AREAS OF CONCERN WERE TRAFFIC AND FEW LANE. THIS SLIDE IS KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS THE CHARLIER OPTION 4, OPTION D, AS WE'VE CALLED IT, CREATING FEW LANE AS A ONE-WAY STREET AFTER THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. This would also eliminate the eight foot tall fence, increase visibility. There would also, as part of the conditions in the packet, there is a 10 foot wide easement granted on the south side of the lot line. So if the street was desired to be widened or improved in the future, that easement would be granted as part of this. And the proposed improvements include curb and gutter along the south property line, replacement of asphalt to the center line, increased landscaping, and a five foot wide soft path for pedestrian use that also serves as a firefighting path in the event of an emergency along the buildings in that area. And based on neighborhood feedback and Charlier's recommendation, the applicant felt this was the best path to pursue versus some of the other options. IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC, FROM OUR INITIAL MEETINGS WITH PLANNING AND ZONING, WE HAD ONE DAY OF TRAFFIC STUDIES DONE. WE WERE ASKED TO DO AN ADDITIONAL ONE, WHICH WAS COMPLETED, AND BOTH OF THOSE WERE REVIEWED BY, AGAIN, JIM CHARLIER FOR THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THIS TYPE OF USE AND TO THIS SITE. He did not see any concerns with how we had allocated that and each subsequent revision has been reviewed by planning and or Jim Charlier for its total overall trip generation from the site. These studies were strictly trip generation from the site and the previous south side study was based on trip generation of the existing use. And so any development on the site was to maintain or reduce total trips in and out of the site on a daily use. And that's what these numbers are showing. And you'll see the 15 and the 16, those are peak hour. So that's 15 trips per hour. And so it's an overall reduction of a couple trips per hour. In addition to that, we've been granted a CDOT access permit to use the Cody Lane access for the residential out the north of the site. Based on our traffic engineer, currently the volume on Cody Lane is less than 10%. I think it's closer to 5%. of usage but we do recognize that there is some improvement required there's some standing water in that area and as a part of that construction the access out to Cody Lane and the connection into Cody Lane would be improved to improve the standing water and then a sidewalk would be added along the north side of the property or the south side of the raft a lot the north side of the access connecting the sidewalk around for pedestrians to the raft a lot

Next page.

Overall, the development contributes to all eight master plan themes, specifically connection, balance through mixed use, and support of the local economy through the different spaces, whether it's storage, whether it's a light industrial, whether it's a live work situation, or the artist incubator. We feel that we've provided a large blend of options that could support the economy in different ways.

To the next page.

So as we understand the master plan amendment request, there are really two requests. One is allowing residential use in the zone district. This is part of the housing linkage of the town code. This is also part of the master plan. And it's part of the future land use of mixed use commercial desiring housing. And so we feel that should be granted. The second one is the update to the master plan land use designation. The current land use is designated as existing. The master plan does identify that existing uses should typically continue on their existing use or some variation of that with the addition of the housing. We feel this proposal and the variation with housing options and business options does create that mixed use commercial that the master plan gave guidance towards. So in wrap up of that, We think that we're meeting, the application meets the future land use map, the Basalt Master Plan. It creates 21 new affordable housing units, which is in excess of the town code, 25% required. It's based on our studies, reduces traffic, creates deed restrictions for housing and warehouse units to prioritize basalt residents and businesses, creates artisan incubator spaces and community spaces. It provides updates and improvements to Few Lane and Cody Lane that would not otherwise be part of any sale of the property. And Overall, the and James kind of pointed to the the Rita note in the ordinance. We feel this will also contribute. Upwards of probably $250,000 or more in fees and or Rita funds that could be used towards traffic improvements on Cody Lane or on the South side. So those are just kind of an outline of the overall benefits of the development. And from there we will take your questions.

OK, thank you for the presentation. We're going to go ahead and do public comments first, and then we'll go into questions and comments from council. So I will open the public hearing here at 741. The floor is open, so people can come up and speak. Just remember, three minutes. Make sure you give your name and address, and make sure you also sign in the back of the room. Here we go.

My name is Ted Guy. I still live at 167 Swinging Bridge Lane in Basalt. I also own a mixed-use building at 381 Southside. I drive by these intersections every day. It's a mess. This will make it worse. My first reaction is, ugh. Few lanes should be two-way. It's substandard now. They should reduce the density of some of the live-work units to make that a two-way street now. I'm confused is where they're going out on that northeast corner. My understanding that that's the private driveway to the Cerise Ranch, and it's not a public road. My point earlier tonight, I live there, I work there, and I'm just finding out about this now, two years after this started through the design process. There's something really, really wrong with public notice. I don't read the legal notices. Most people don't. But for me to find this out in July of 2026, when this started over two years ago, is atrocious. And this is not a good project. Aspen has a voluntary affordable housing program. You have many of those codes in your code. I did one on Main Street. Took eight studio apartments, created eight two-bedroom, two-bath, deed-restricted rental units. No government help. 100% affordable housing. LaSalle needs something like that on this site.

Thank you. for your comments.

My name is John Fitzpatrick. I am the president of the Basalt Center East Homeowners Association. Cody Lane is going to see all the traffic from the 42 unit housing development. It is currently, Basalt Business Center East is currently an industrial and commercial service area. Adding residential traffic on a substandard road will be a big interruption to our operations. Beyond the current vehicle traffic that includes semi-trucks, large delivery trucks, tow trucks and trailers, we will see added residential vehicles from the 42 housing units. Then figure in pedestrians, bicycles, small trillions with families and strollers on this very narrow road. The project calls for sidewalks on the access road on the access road, but not on Cody Lane itself. This leaves pedestrians to walk on the road with ditches, no shoulder, to dodge traffic or go on the busy raft of parking lot. As a society, we want to get people to use alternative to cars. This is not just buses. It's also people walking and riding bicycles into town to dine at our fantastic restaurants and shop at our wonderful stores. We are adding this housing without a safe way to reach Basalt Avenue and the underpass. The children that will reside here have to walk to the elementary or middle school and up to the high school. If this gets approved, the council needs to demand safety improvements on Cody Lane. The traffic congestion at Cody Lane and Highway 82 is already a problem, and this will just increase the situation. I feel that we changed the PUD of an industrial zone and add residential. It just causes problems. I have spoken this on prior councils. The amount of traffic on all the south side needs another form of egress in and out of the area. We are pleased developers are going to address the drainage problems on Cody Lane, but the road to Basalt Avenue needs to be improved. That's one more thing I want to add. All the Basalt business centers were industrial and light industrial. The PUD forbid residential, but past councils allowed changes that we deal with today. Changing a PUD has unseen pitfalls and should not be taken lightly. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

please hi um my name is jenna ifrito and i live at 304 somerset way in the south side neighborhood and i'd like to share a few comments on the 555 basal ave project i've followed this project closely since it first came before council attending the neighborhood meeting with the myers owner submitting a letter and speaking at the june 9th council meeting Throughout the council meetings, the meeting with the owner, and the conversations I've had with neighbors, a few comments slash themes kept surfacing. It is clear myself, my neighbors, Southside business owners, members of the council, and mayor are proud Basalt residents who care deeply about our identity as a town and how we grow. It was encouraging at the June 9th meeting to see community members show up and share their perspectives on this project and to watch council and the mayor consider them thoughtfully. When I tell people that I live in Southside, the response I typically hear is, that area is so nice. It's tucked away and has great access to trails, public transport, and Old Town Basalt. Twenty years from now, Southside has opportunity to remain this desirable residential area. while also continuing to grow into a real economic hub for restaurants, businesses, and shops. With the new development of Stott's Mill and the opportunity for more housing in the Basalt Master Plan, thinking carefully about what growth looks like in this area matters. I've heard that sentiment echoed by both my neighbors and business owners. There have been comments and concerns shared about infrastructure, pedestrian and biker safety, access points 82, and emergency evac planning. These are important conversations for us to have as a community and will make a big impact on what our neighborhood looks like in the future. With that mindset, I remain strongly opposed to the storage unit development in Southside. I agree with the housing component, but we already have ample storage options in Southside nearby on Southside Ave. The proposed storage units are significantly taller and larger in overall square footage than the proposed housing complex. i do not understand how more storage units that are designed to be luxury storage and live work adjust the needs of our community and contribute positively to the long-term vision of southside i hope that the public comments and letters shared by myself and other southside residents and business owners continue to be perspectives considered in this approval process thank you thank you

My name is Jim Jenkins. I own a property at 160 South Side Drive. I also manage two properties at 145 and 155 South Side Drive. I'd like to read a letter. My request is to deny the proposed development at 555 Basalt Avenue. Dear Mayor Knight and members of the Town Council, I respectfully request the Council deny the current application of the proposed redevelopment. I support the redevelopment of the former Myers Steel property. However, the proposal before the Council does not adequately protect neighboring property owners, fails to resolve significant concern raised by residents, neighboring businesses, and members of the Town Council during the public hearing. While opinion differed on aspects of the project, there was remarkable consistency regarding potential impacts on surrounding properties. The concern centered on traffic, parking, public safety, neighborhood compatibility, development intensity, and whether the public benefits justify the requested land use concessions. Perhaps the most significant issue discussed during the hearing was traffic and parking. Although the applicant's traffic consultant concluded the proposed development would generate fewer vehicle trips than existing industrial operation, several council members questioned the validity of that conclusion. Mayor David Knight expressed concern the proposed garage condominium units could function as active commercial businesses rather than simple storage units. resulting in substantially greater traffic than projected. Council member Rick Slack echoed these concerns, noting that the units appear more suited to commercial businesses operations than traditional storage, a distinction that could significantly increase vehicle trips and parking demand. If these units are occupied by businesses, they are likely to generate customer traffic, employee parking, contractor vehicles, delivery trucks, trailers, and commercial loading activities. These impacts extend well beyond the property itself and are likely to spill into neighboring streets, including Cody Lane, Food Lane, Basalt Avenue. Residents also expressed concern that insufficient on-site parking could result in overflow parking throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Residents consistently raised concern the existing transportation network is already strained and that the development would worsen current safety issues. Stacy Stokes described frequent numerous incidents involving children advocated for one-way traffic on Foo Lane, improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and better emergency evacuation routes for Southside neighborhood. Mary Wolfer, owner of the Kinder Cottage Daycare adjacent to the project, supported redevelopment in principle, but here's the town to ensure the safety and children remains a priority throughout the improved pedestrian crossings and traffic controls. John Fitzpatrick question whether the proposed roundabout would adequately address existing my out of time. Yes, they can. I just read one more paragraph and during the public meeting attended, the applicant stated their goal to sell the property and leave the area. The applicant further stated the council should approve the I think we can do better.

I appreciate your comments. Who's next?

My name is Stefan Isberian, owner of Isberian on 300 Cody Lane.

We've been there 26 years and our business is growing along with the rest of the businesses on Cody Lane. This is something we have to address that what used to be is no longer relevant. our clientele come and go all day long as they do with high tone auto body and high tone mechanics on a body and the other high tone you know if you were to stand at that corner between Cody and basalt Avenue and see the danger that's already existing there people flying out of the tunnel kids on the phone cars turning in there and then the impact of certain hours of the day when the school lets out when the businesses let out and so on you cannot access salt avenue i can't be more eloquent than jim jenkins or john fitzpatrick's statements i mean i don't want to go over that again but You know, 30 years ago, if you remember, Nick McGrath and some of the other council didn't want anything on the south side.

They felt that people coming down 82 would say, oh, you know, ah, and it would be a hazard.

So look what's happened since. It's okay. You know, we like development. I like this people and I like their concept, but we have to do something about the traffic. This roundabout business is a fiasco. You cannot turn a, Semi and so on. The real answer is that we don't do any more development until we put an underpass on Highway 82 and exit off of Southside. We need another way out of the Southside. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Who else would like to go? I know. Probably somebody else. I know I've got somebody online. I can call. Why don't we go ahead and do that? I see Brandon Weinstock online. We'll go ahead and let you make public comments now, if you're ready. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Knight, members of the council. My name is Brandon Weinstock.

Make sure you're close to your mic.

As close as you can be. We're having a hard time hearing you. Hold on one second, please. Let me take my AirPods out.

It's a little better. It's still soft. Do your best.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Knight and members of the council. My name is Brandon Weinstock. I'm a property owner at 336 Allison Lane, Unit B in Southside. And I'm here regarding the proposed development at 555 Basalt. I have supported housing on this site from the beginning, and I still do. I spoke in June, and I won't repeat those comments. Tonight, I want to raise four things about the ordinance in front of you and the process around it, because I have read it in full, and there are gaps between what this council has asked for in June and what is on the page. First, the master plan. Mayor Knight, at a prior meeting, you observed that the 2020 master plan was drafted before the pandemic, that much has changed since then, and that amendments should be considered for the entire Southside area. rather than one specific amendment to accommodate one specific development. I fully support that view and the timing matters. The town is right now conducting its land use code update with a public survey open and open house held just last week and community feedback being gathered all summer. Yet if this ordinance passes tonight, a resolution amending the future land use map for this one property comes back at a second reading before any of that community feedback has been heard. That is out of sequence. And I will add one more thought. The applicant has stated that if this project is not approved, they may sell the property. If that happens, I would encourage the town to seriously consider purchasing it. There may be no better way to ensure this parcel develops in line with the community's vision than for the community to own it. Second, the uses. We heard tonight that this development enhances the area. Housing with mixed-use commercial in line with Willett's enhances an area. Storage and undefined industrial uses behind a residential neighborhood do not. Calling them both mixed use does not make them the same thing. In June, this council asked the applicant to better define what would happen inside the storage and live work units. The answer that came back is a quantity cap, not a definition. 24 units would be storage only, but the other 18 units and all 12 live work units may house any business on the industrial zone use table, including welding, machining, and auto body repair. The council's question has not been answered 3rd, and this is my biggest concern. The fence, the applicant now formally proposes removing the 8 foot fence along the lane. And there is no condition in this ordinance requiring that that fence to be retained or replaced. That fence is the boundary of our neighborhood. It is what separates a private, beautiful residential community from an industrial and commercial development. I would ask the council to add a condition before this ordinance advances. The existing fence must be retained or an equivalent barrier constructed upon completion of construction, regardless of what is built on this property. And finally, condition 25 is written around charlier alternative four, which makes few lane one way and converts the Somerset path into a road staff has confirmed. You may substitute a different alternative. I would ask you to do exactly that and choose one that keeps few two way and leave Somerset a path. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Any anyone else online or in the room? Speak now or. Listen to us the rest of the time. OK, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. At 7 58. Any any questions that were asked that you guys want to clarify or anything that came up in there before we start?

The one topic mentioned on the fence, we debated that. We do have a question out to Roaring Fork Fire to see if we could provide the fence a long view. The fire department requested that we add a path to the backside of the buildings to get access if they have to park a truck and get access. into that area. We would be open to providing a fence as part of the ordinances. Additionally, I believe we included, James, did the use chart get included? So the use chart and the limiting uses have been included as part of the packet. I think the discussion around Few Lane and Cody Lane, all of those, we are open to further discussion there. And we'll leave that to discuss. OK.

Sounds good. So quite a few discussion items from the revision since last time we met. So I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. Clarifying questions would be ideal first. But if you have comments and broader questions as well, the floor is open. So who would like to go first?

I have one clarifying question what is the intended makeup of the residential condos like studio one-bedroom two-bedroom building has one two-bedroom each building has one studio and the remainder are one bedrooms I believe 26 so then of that you would have with the nine deed restricted you would have one studio one two-bedroom and seven one bedrooms available for sale for the deed-restricted category three. The remainder of the six primary residential units would be the one-bedroom units.

Thank you. Can we clarify your question?

Anyone else have any? I have a few, I guess. Go for it. The south side evolved because City Market came to the town and said we'd like to relocate across Highway 82, after it was four-laned, and the town voted no, and it moved to El Jebel. And that triggered a movement of some businessmen, Bob Myers, Jerry Twilliger, and a few others, to create the Southside industrial zone district as kind of a way to replace the lost revenue from the city market sales tax. That's how it evolved. The other thing that happened was Basalt Middle School was the high school determined that they could buy a 35 acre site out there on the other side of the rio grande right away and build a high school schools don't go through land use applications so infrastructure was extended out there sewer water roads etc the subdivisions were created and each of those parcels carried the impact fees for a new water tank etc so that's how it worked out and it was intended to be for local contractors local businesses small businesses um you know i think the ice cold turned out pretty good actually but um going you know 35 years later the first introduction that i had to this application was it felt more like a resort model and i think you even compared to some uses up in jackson hole or some things like resort areas you're seeing with the with the garages and the high-end sort of hobby garages and that's where i started to just say okay to shut this thing down um what you've done in the last four meetings i think is has actually transformed this project to where it feels more like a community model that it's offering opportunities to our community as opposed to what sounded like opportunities to the resort community that's a big differentiator for me the comments i have they're specific And you mentioned evolution. The rita distribution, I'd really like to understand that better. It wasn't defined in the packet as far as I know. And we just had a conversation about what our ritas look like, what they're available for. And I really don't want to get locked down to something too specific. um i'd also kind of ask for because of the number of changes that have been made during these conversations is some sort of a way to look at that from our first meeting that says here's what the proposal was to now and see if you could check the plus minus box a little bit on that and you know maybe maybe the eight items that were defined in the at the tail end of your presentation would be a good place to start um the other thing is the road the impact fees we had a little bit of a conversation about that earlier and the public benefits and whether impact fees we have not going forward not on existing applications are appropriate. So I read some of the detail on the impact fees. It's $93 for this and $72 for that. I can't do the math. So if there's a way to calculate what kind of income there is from those things and maybe starting with the first model, the resort model, and then reflecting what it would be on the community model would be helpful the other technical issues like intersection improvements sidewalks that that's just something that's got to happen and you know there is going to be more density over there that's what the intent was when we created that boundary was to allow for density close to transit it's been talked about for a long long time so I think that For me, I'm starting to tip over to a little bit more of the positive point of view on it. And I know there's a lot of questions that still have to be answered, but if I could see something like that, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Rick.

Who wants to go next? I'll go. Just to make it really quick, right to the point, I'm going to vote against this, and I'm going to encourage my fellow councillors to vote against it as well. I think I'm gonna put aside all my questions about this ordinance, and if I'm in the minority, I can bring up some of those things that I'd like to see at that second reading. But for me, I break it down as reading through the ordinance where it says the proposed use is generally desirable and needed in this area. That's kind of where it stopped for me. We talked about last time, benefit to the community, and I kind of started writing down what are the benefits, what are the costs? And I see these benefits here, I see no preservation of this benefit. All these things are nice ideas, but after 120 days, I think it's unrealistic and it's unlikely to be widely adopted. So that gets into the costs, and I look at what would it cost the town for this project to be successful. The town's gonna have to redevelop fuel lane in Somerset. I would add that Somerset might be tied for the most controversial part of this project. I don't know if people like the idea of Somerset turning into a road, or I'm sorry, dislike that idea more than the idea of storage units. The idea of Cody Ave, the town public works engineering, we need to define the scope of what those drainage corrections would be like. the town's gonna have to monitor and address all of the overflow parking issues. And I don't care how many traffic consultants you bring in here, I'll not believe that there's not gonna be overflow parking issues into the surrounding neighborhoods. The town's also gonna have to vet all these applications for your locals program, the artist incubator space, the community space. The town has to vet those within that short timeframe with that additional pressure to preserve that community benefit, right? So if they don't get it right, that benefit disappears. I'm not gonna even talk about condition 22 and your suggestion on that, but we can get there if I'm in the minority. This moves to second reading. And then we also need to do a master plan amendment. And then on top of that, all of the declarations and covenants about what is allowed to be in there, what are working hours, all of those things, you say the HOA will enforce those, but the town can also enforce that. And I think we all know what that's gonna look like. That's gonna look like the town ending up enforcing it and the HOA not. So to me, it's just a whole lot of costs, a whole lot for the town to deal with, and I don't see the benefit.

Thanks, Greg. Any other takers? I can go next.

Yeah, we moved on from clarifying questions and now we're just. Yeah, if you if you got you go.

OK, I'll go here. I appreciate the adjustments and the work you guys have put into this. So I've hit a few points here. Local locals program and similar type programs where there's like an initial offering period. generally feel are inadequate for preserving workforce housing or preserving whatever you know specific community benefit was intended because a lot of times they're not subscribed to and then they just turn into free market or somebody buys it and sells it onto the free market so there has to be something that's more more binding thank you for that more binding in the long run. Related to that, the live work units only half of them being RO. I mean, kind of the essence of a live work unit is that you live in it. So I don't understand why those wouldn't all be RO. I mean, I know you're like 50%. We've got 50%. But those live work units, nobody should be in there unless they're living and working there. I mean, that's like the essence of the unit. Artist incubator program, interesting idea. But we have to figure out a way, again, to bind those units to that intent indefinitely in perpetuity. kind of like the way the property over here is in the Salt River Park. That's you know, that's a nonprofit parcel. Not exactly the same, but similar in that the community serving commercial space is de-restricted as well. There might have been something about that in there, but that needs to be covered off on I appreciate the sidewalk extension and fixing the drainage issue, that's good. This is where, with Greg's comments about Somerset and alternative four, but I'll just zoom out a little bit. Alternative four, that is the way to go if anything's done over there as far as a redevelopment perspective, but I believe that cost needs to be borne by you all as the developer. We cannot take on a project like that. if this project were to go forward that in my mind would have to be part of it but that raises the question about Somerset I mean there has not been adequate community input to turn a trail into a road I mean that I would say that probably is the most controversial part of this in a lot in a lot of ways you know there's So there's kind of an order of operations issue here. What are we doing more broadly? And I know right now the road needs some love, but it's working OK. But if you guys go in there, it has to be fixed. But then we have to look at, if we do that, what does the community really want? What is the benefit we're seeking? How does that fit in the broader transportation infrastructure? turning a trail into a road is a big deal it's a really big deal I think you guys know that so I think we have to work through that and it's not going to be fast I mean it has to be community yeah yeah go respond to that by the way that was never our proposal to do that I understand okay

We're just going with what the consultant recommended, and the community right around there, including the person that's most impacted, the nursery center. That's what she wanted, and the people right there. So I'm just- I know, I know. You never suggested that. I just want to make that clear. Yeah, and it's- And in a sense, it is a road now with a path. I mean, it's effectively a road. It's not used as a road, but it's wide.

And I don't fault you guys at all for causing that issue to be surfaced. All I'm saying is that if we were to undertake something like that, there has to be a broader community process. I mean, it's just a big deal to change something like that. So, um, and I, you know, we're, there's a lot to talk about. We're already in an hour. We're already 35 minutes behind. Um, I think we're going to need to continue, but I would like to give everybody else the chance to make some comments and ask some questions.

So I'll try to keep mine pretty brief, despite my extensive notes on it. When I evaluated this latest rendition, I took really special care to look at each item against the master plan. The master plan is flawed. I think we all recognize that. It was written before COVID. I think the community has changed a lot, but it's still the guiding document that we have. I still think that there's a lot of good baseline stuff in it. When I compare this proposal, put it up against the master plan, I'm with Rick. It works out on paper. It does. I was looking for things in the master plan that it didn't meet, that it was against, that it worked against, and I couldn't really find much We have density over sprawl. We have placed high value on mixed use and live work arrangements. And I'm quoting the master plan in all of this. We have affordable and inclusive living. We have vitality hinges on a diverse business base that offers inclusive products and services. We're promoting housing development in most appropriate areas near jobs, transit, community amenities. I could go on and on. I have a full page of quotes from the master plan My hangup is, and it seems to be the public's hangup, is with traffic, which I want to acknowledge is not the applicant's fault. The traffic and the ingress and egress in the issues in Southside, what this application has done has brought that to the forefront. And there are some other quotes from the master plan that I find to be particularly relevant. which the public input provided during this master plan process indicated a significant community desire for a street connecting Southside Drive and Midland Avenue under the highway. Until this transportation improvement becomes a committed improvement, the town needs to be very careful in approving new development. Page 65 of the master plan. New development must be reviewed, keeping in mind the current transportation constraints in Southside. So again, I personally just would like to applaud you guys for your patience with this process, for continuing to amend it. It's clear that you kind of did what I did, right? You evaluated the master plan and you said, how can we deliver a product that that meets the stated community goals um and and i feel like you did a good job of doing that we can argue about whether or not south side needs more storage and you know we can doubles in the details as far as how do we enforce these things um But for me this application simply highlights our need and or failure as a town to provide the necessary infrastructure and traffic measures to this area of our town and it's become unfortunately your problem as well. But I would have a hard time approving any development in Southside. And I'm trying not to single you out. Like it said in the master plan process, any future development in Southside, without a corresponding commitment on our side to address the concerns around traffic and pedestrian safety and all of those things.

And I will say, just to add to that, we have, over the course of time, looked at 100% affordable housing. We've looked at 100% storage. We've looked at 100% industrial. We've looked at mixed use and mixed use commercial. Discussing restaurants and more commercial businesses leads to more traffic. These are low intensity, low use traffic users, and so that's kind of where uh the use led us in this process additionally when we looked at the first iteration of an industrial storage type use the offset was three housing units as you can see we started at 48 housing units and so identifying the proximity to the bus to rafta to the underpass the applicant really wanted to push for that to provide more housing units than just the bare minimum

um and and really highlight and feature that as a part of this development and so all of that was taken into consideration i really appreciate what my fellow counselors have said i think you've covered a lot of of the issues and again to echo angel like we're a little schizophrenic here um there are things that we want that are at odds with each other and i think that goes back to the concept of the master plan um has some specific things in it that we have not addressed prior to you coming forward with this proposal um i'm excited about the live work units that was something that i had asked for in the last session and i appreciate that you listened i would echo david that i think live work units should be lived in And I just think, yeah, I don't know how to move forward given that we have some sort of structural issues that need to be resolved that are agnostic to your application.

I don't know.

Angela, did you have anything?

Oh, yeah.

I won't repeat what everybody else has said, but I feel like my feelings were pretty well articulated by Angel, and I would like to say to you guys, to the developers, that you have brought this project so far, and you've done a great job. The first time that we met, I really wasn't into it, and now I think that you've come up with a great product, but I feel... This is the same about committing to any development when we obviously have these infrastructure issues. And you know, I find myself feeling like I wish I could. I wish that I could pursue this development with you, but if it was, you know 100% affordable housing. I just. Don't feel right about it because of the underlying.

You kind of trailed off there. But I think we we got the gist. Alright.

So I would.

I'd recommend continuing this. I don't think we're in a position to really vote on even first reading at this point.

No, but I would like some clarification on how How, how do we on our side of this, right, like move forward? Can we have, is there still room to add to our agenda for our retreat discussions about, you know what I'm talking about, like how do we have discussions about how we fix the traffic issues in the south side, which seem to be problems regardless of this application.

And that's, that's something we can talk about prioritizing in our retreat. I wouldn't say we would have like a. that's something that we can do outside of this application.

Okay. Jeff.

But I would also say that this application can't be contingent on a discussion that we're going to have at a retreat about capital planning, you know, for our streets. Um, so there needs to be, I guess, some evaluation as to whether or not we're going to have by the council as part of this application as to you know it there are the calls for the improvements to few lane um there's a condition in which don't necessarily need to occur in i guess in can you know timing wise that there's i guess probably some flexibility there But there's a condition about subject to budget and appropriation that there would be some improvements that would need to be made by the town to to few Lane. But there's you know. Trying to solve the entire. all the traffic problems the south side are kind of outside the scope of this application i would say but certainly the impacts from from it and the adequacy of the traffic and the impacts of you know one of the review criteria is a special reuse review is what are the impacts or what's the compatibility of the project the neighborhood and the impacts of the prop of the project on the neighboring properties so those things are are relevant i just kind of want to be mindful of

you know what what is you know what we're holding the applicant against from a review criteria standpoint to the town's capital planning so so alternative for is I think we're all saying it's a dependency you know what that being completed in order for this to work right what I'm asking is that the applicant right needs to because otherwise we don't really need to do it at this point.

But see, I think that is sort of the schizophrenia that I'm feeling is like- Let's use a different word.

Okay. Confusion.

Wishy washy? I mean, it's- Conflicting desires is like- We want them, we're saying like well we really need to have like a public input process for changes to Somerset and we can't say that and then at the same time expect the developer to do those changes. So it's like we need to be clear on what it is that exactly that we want.

so i mean like just i mean that's just one example no i mean i i i don't disagree i i think though the issue is if we were i mean just being very candid with the room here and whoever's listening like if we were to do something like this to change a road or a trail into a road as part of a requirement for a development is that even is that even something that we can contemplate or should we just drop that first i'll ask that

the um another requirement for us the the again the condition let me pull it up again but i mean the condition makes the town's obligations with respect to few uh subject to budgeting and appropriation it's just saying that they are going to construct the i guess limited uh improvements consistent with alternative four to then allow the town to make those improvements in the future right and those i mean the improvements being this isn't a there's not a requirement for a road where one doesn't already exist it's it's creating improvements to the flow of traffic. There is, you know, again, the Somerset connection there.

Yeah, that's that's that's the part I'm curious about.

Right. But, you know, I i guess i can think about that a little bit more and talk to james but the project and i know james if you have a better answer to this uh on if i'm missing it but the project could i think be constructed without the town in function because with the ingress and egress on the few that's contemplated by the project without the town's construction of the remaining improvements it's just that if the town's committing we're asking them to build certain improvements consistent with what the town would like to see from a future planning standpoint with the one-way traffic and with with the Somerset connection Somerset connection that's you know something that they could be obligated to to construct and the town could at subject to budgeting construct the remainder of those improvements because it's essentially existing streets that are part of its a planning process for the town That makes sense.

Maybe you guys can talk before the meet again and have a little more clarity on that. Yeah, sure. Does that help for now?

I wish that I had written down all of those conflicting things that I noted, and I should have, because that wasn't the only one. I think another one is that we're saying we don't like the warehouse space, that there's plenty of storage units. Sorry, storage units I want to differentiate from warehouse. and yet we sort of need the storage units in order to not have the high impact traffic analysis so that's another one of those like conflicts that and i again i'm like at a loss for how to resolve that but that's a scat by the physical infrastructure and the trap you know what i mean like we can't the ingress egress the traffic counts so that's like a different dependency that's physically in place over there um

I mean versus us Saying it. It's you can't increase the traffic flow

I don't know that I follow.

That's OK. Well, there's not capacity in the road to do something. I mean, that's why they're doing what they're doing is because.

Right. Oh, I understand that. Yeah.

No, I'm up against the limit set by the infrastructure.

No, I understand that. I'm just saying that I think part of what we've been struggling with is this concept of storage units and yet because of that limitation we can't put some of the other things in place that we might have that we might see as a greater benefit right Yeah.

But totally more commercial restaurants. Right. Yeah. Because it would increase the traffic.

Exactly. Over that. So that's another one of those like identified conflicts that I'm seeing again, agnostic of your application.

It's a hard constraint based on physical stuff that's out there. Yeah.

And I would like to note that, in my opinion, this undoubtedly would be, traffic aside, which I know it's very difficult to remove that, but it would be an improvement to the site. It's more green space. It's more trees. It's more vitality. It's more affordable housing. I mean, I... drove around there a bunch today and yeah, I mean it's dust and dirt and steel and trucks and I think that this would be a nice, I think it would be an improvement to the area and I think it kind of eloquently mixes what's already there, residential and commercial and light industrial. I mean that is what we have in Southside. It's just the traffic and the safety. I am looking at the plan and I think John Fitzpatrick, or no, I'm sorry, it was Mr. Esbirian that maybe noted this, but a sidewalk on the Cody Lane side, I see the sidewalk that runs along the side and then gets you to the access to Cody Lane, but I do think it would be important to have a sidewalk. on that Cody Lane?

So it goes across to the north side of the Cody Lane. Okay, so there's a sidewalk right there and then there's a sidewalk.

Correct. So there is pedestrian sidewalk there.

That is a 25-foot wide CDOT parcel that has access and so that allows for a two-way lane and then a five-foot sidewalk on the north that wraps around to the Rafta There's an ADA ramp just right by the drainage ditch there. Missed that today. And we originally tried to discuss crossing through the raft a lot. They did not want to have any further discussions with us on that because I think it was either cost or they were worried about liability of users crossing their lot on a daily basis. And so that led us to this Cody Lane sidewalk.

It's the rap.

Well, OK, so we're any we're now an hour and 20 into this one.

So so we just need to continue.

Yeah, I mean, there's I will I will just mention the applicants are open to if you want to have a continuance to have us further define some of the comparisons of the applicant application over time. Some of those items, we would be open to that. if that's what the council wants to do, or discuss the ordinance and the options further. But we respect the time of the meeting.

Yeah, thank you for that. I'd entertain a motion to continue the first reading and public hearing to August 11th, 2026 for ordinance number 18, series 2026. Is that good?

Or do you know something? I am out of town at that meeting. Not to say that it can't be continued to that day.

We can always continue. What are we waiting for?

Well, we gave them some feedback is there to see a new plan. Well, we have been given a few I was like I want to see the Charlie or 4 needs to be so that the Aussies be that I think would be an evolution of that spent time looking at this again it's been on the agenda bunch of times we keep continuing it.

just those notes that i didn't mention things like there's no updated letter from reefer or public works i think that's because this project hasn't changed substantially like what i see is you got rid of one building and you put what you call your central green space but this is like the mandated green space and you added a lot of colors here but none of these colors are institutionalized and preserved benefits and so there's no definition in the ordinance of what live work means and like what that is um there's a lot of details that are missing that are saying that we'll figure this out by the second reading we'll figure out the flood water or the storm water concerns um and then i don't think it's also very clear like if we're sticking with this idea of this locals artists community space having this limited time it's not very clear what this when does this pre-cell start when does that start and what defines that pre-cell start period and I'd advocate pushing it back. I think it's gonna be really hard for a locals or an artist to be buying in when the building's not even built yet. And so that's where I'd push back when that starts. Among other things, I just think the project, like I said last time, I wanna work with you. I think there's a lot of value to this parcel, but I'm just not seeing it in this presentation.

Yeah, if we're gonna ask for some changes, I would echo that I don't think that 90 days is enough time. We saw that with the condos over here in the park. I don't know what they're called anymore. But those were opened up to locals for, or no, sorry, I'm getting that confused with the ACE project in Tree Farm, I think. In any case, that model has been used before unsuccessfully. So I would say like it needs to be marketed early and often so that people understand what it is and what the value is, because most people don't really understand that concept. And then I think it was only open to basalt. And I would say that we have like a tiered approach where we open it to basalt and then for a certain amount of days and then

to the wider roaring fork valley and i would ask that that has to happen with every resale so it's not like this opens up the horrible artist but the great real estate investor it was like oh i bought it for my artist studio but i decided i can turn a quick profit by selling it quickly that's why i said we need to figure out a way my this is just my opinion like we're all giving our comments but figure out a way to do the intent of this in perpetuity not just for a windfall for somebody who's there of course that's how the midland was designed

17. Waterfall. They resolved to go to. Water. Yeah, I mean there's already been a process more or less.

Yeah, I agree. I think that the the 90 days the president is out there to do this sort of thing and institutionalize it so that you know what Greg and David are worried about doesn't happen.

you know this is um these ideas another question for you here with the live work units is the idea that if i'm living in this unit i park downstairs i live upstairs you can either park inside or the drives are wide enough for parking spaces in front of the units as well if i have a guest i have a partner

There are well the.

In order to see the parking issues of the neighborhood right people are saying you know I don't want to live in my apartment with my smelly truck I'm in turn that garage space into like more living space. The space is tight so I'm not going to park here I'm going to park right next door I'm part on the street parking this whole neighborhood.

They the indoor spaces would be the garage is wide enough to tandem spent Park 2 cars and then there are 2, 9 by 20 spaces outside of the garage for each unit.

And then just the only other question I have, as long as we're continuing it. I would vote to not continue it. But last time we met, we voted against or they withdrew the application to add a gate to their parking lot. This project has two gates. Is that common? Are there a lot of other projects that have gates in them in the community?

In the industrial zone district we actually have requirements generally for fencing off and getting yards, the contractor yards and storage. So it's a little different kind of scenario than downtown parking.

This would include residential units and now we have residential units behind the gate.

well no if you at least the way i'm looking at it the gate is keeping people on two sides from entering the industrial there's not a gate on that cody lane access side into the residential so it's to keep residential from going into the gate out here there's a there's a gate uh between the industrial and the multi-story

That was put in place so it wasn't made a pass through for high school traffic or fire department fire alarm would reset that into a fail open position and then with the Knox box that could reset that. And that would be both gates.

And that kind of makes sense in the broader circulation.

Should I make, may I move that the town council continue the public hearing and first reading of ordinance number 18 series of 2026 and set the continued public hearing and first reading for, are we still doing this?

You can do that and we can continue it if.

August 11, 2026. Sounds good. Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded. Pam, will you please call the roll? Sure.

Let's begin with Rick Stevens. Yes.

Angel Dupree-Bouchard. Yes. Greg Schaffran. Yes. David Knight. Yes. Elise Hoddle. Yes. Angela Anderson.

Yes.

Thank you, Angela. Motion carries.

thanks appreciate it appreciate your feedback thanks james all right so we're going to move along to item 7b which is our public hearing and second reading of ordinance number 14 2026 in order to the town council the town of salt colorado vacating a water line easement and approving a license agreement for property located at 142 swinging bridge lane salt colorado and this is sarah

Yes, give me one moment, please.

Does anybody need a stand-up break?

Sarah. All right, thank you.

There are so many opportunities.

um so on the line today we do have scott brought and he is the architect and the project representative council is being asked to consider ordinance number 14 series of 2026 at second reading the request is for approval to vacate an abandoned waterline easement and to approve a revocable license agreement for driveway and landscaping improvements within the towns right away i'll just go through this really quickly um next slide please just a reminder of background This is where the site is, swinging bridge lane right off of Cottonwood Drive. It's improved with a single family home, and it backs up to the River. Next slide, please. There is a water line that is across the property. It was abandoned and replaced with another water line in a different area in 2021. And you can go two slides up, please. Oh, there you go. And additionally, the applicant is requesting the improvements within the right-of-way, as noted in the area of yellow here, to help with channeling water in the area and to better define the driveway onto the site. At first reading, it was discussed that the council approved a very similar scenario a couple years back at 124 Swinging Bridge Lane, so there's some neighborhood context for this. And the applicant received an ESA exemption, environmentally sensitive area exemption through the technical review committee and approval for the two requested items as a condition of the TRC approval. The ordinance was approved unanimously at first reading. At that time, council did not ask for any additional information of staff nor the applicant's representative. If you can go back one, please. And since the first reading, a minor addition has been made to the easement vacation document per the town attorney, which commits the applicant to acknowledge the presence of the abandoned water line easement across the property and requires any removal to be handled by the applicant and not by the town. And the applicant's representative has provided agreement with this condition. So again, Mr. Broughton is online, available to answer any questions that the council may have at this time. And ultimately, staff recommends that the council approve the ordinance at second reading, allowing the revocable license agreement for the driveway and landscaping items at 142 Swinging Bridge Lane, and to vacate the abandoned water line easement across the property. I'll kick it to you, Council, if you have any questions, any thoughts you'd like to share.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. It's 840. Anyone would like to make public comments on Ordinance Number 14, Series 2026? In the room, you can come up. Online, you can raise your hand. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Does anyone have any questions or comments on this one? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion.

May I move that town council adopt ordinance number 14 series of 2026.

Moved and seconded Pam will you please call the roll.

Let's begin with the chaperone yes. I mean yes, police huddle yes, Angela Anderson. Yes. And Rick Stevens? Yes. And Angel to pray. But you're right. Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thanks, sir. Good evening.

Next up, we have item seven C, which is a public hearing and second reading of Ordinance number 13, series of 2026 Ordinance of the Town Council, the town of Basalt, Colorado, approving a final PUD plan and associated development review actions for construction of 16 residential units on parcel nine sopers meadow subdivision PUD Basalt, Colorado.

Thank you.

James.

This is a public hearing and second reading of an ordinance on the final plan Applications submitted by the town and it's to construct 16 2 bedroom residential units on parcel 9 of the surface Meadows subdivision. As we discussed that first reading. The town is proposing to construct the 16 2 bedroom deed restricted units. and the town received sketch plan and preliminary plan approvals previously the site as noted is the vacant property adjacent to the rugby field in willits as well as adjacent to the lakeside townhomes The property is fully in the urban growth boundary and designated as community facility on the master plan future land use map. And it's got an affordable housing overlay. At the final plan review, the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission, BOC reviewed the plans and recommended approval. The planning and zoning commission also reviewed the plans and recommended approval. As was shown at the prior meeting, the applicant's design is included in your packet materials and basically there were several discussion items that were identified during the sketch and preliminary plan review one of those was parking and at the direction of council at the preliminary plan review the staff and design team moved parking spaces from the south side of the development adjacent to lakeside townhomes to the north side per the direction of council and that was really the only changes that were made at the final plan review realm. It was noted at the last meeting that Public Works had some comments about replacing the current shed and nursery area. that's currently on the site. And the design team has been working with staff to come up with a site plan that does that replacement. And Scott is working on bringing it up here to show that adjustment. Scott doesn't have the Zoom link though, so. Let me bring that up here. And maybe while I work on bringing it up, if council has questions you would like to ask or like to go into the public hearing while I have time to bring that up.

I'll go ahead and open the public hearing at 8.45. If anybody would like to make public comment on this ordinance, which is number 13, series of 2026, in the room or online. Is there anybody online? There was nobody online. OK. So we can close the public hearing.

I can just kind of talk through some of the design changes that we've made in coordination with parks if that sounds good. I'm Jay Engstrom with Crystal River Civil and we've been working on this project for a while now but yeah I mean really what happened is as you guys saw from the last presentation we didn't there was still some pending coordination with the parks department and regarding some of their comments and so we had discussions with them and we determined we were We were kind of intending that you know their their nursery there could be relocated to another location But upon further discussion we found out that we have to figure out how to fit that on the site as well so What we've done here and looks like we actually have it pulled up now. We had to just move around some of the bike parking and the trash enclosure just to increase the size of the fire access through that north side, which then allows us to have more access to that whole fenced in area now that parks now could use as their future nursery and it ends up being the same dimensions as what they have currently so really just a matter of kind of moving around a couple infrastructure items there on the north side nothing changed on the south side which i feel like was kind of the the side that was had a little bit more concern just because of its proximity to the neighbors um one item to note of course you know just that we're adding more into this tight space as it is we might have to figure out some alternative to storm water not necessarily detention but treatment previously we were going to do a level spreader that dispersed water over a grassy area to treat water prior to going down into the pond We'll probably look at some other options that would probably be subgrade in this scenario. But all in all, that being said,

we do not have concerns that we can fit everything that we're not going to be able to fit everything on the site um it seems like we have adequate space we still have the covered bike parking numbers that we had before we have the trash recycling the mailboxes it's just it just yeah reconfigures a little bit of that open space that was there which was more for civil drainage So for the approval, we don't need to have it fully designed in detail from my understanding with James and Catherine and engineering. So this should this should work for now and then we'll work out the details with town staff and the engineers can you put it under the parking lot.

we'll have seriously we we will have some sort of subgrade uh either we could put it under the parking lot or we could just put it under the uh the space that the parks would be using for the storage yeah the storage is important for the user groups that store things there either or not so um yeah i think it'd be great if you could figure that out but we have done storm detention systems under blacktop

Yes, yep, and that purpose kind of deal because of that we're we're not concerned about having adequate space we have plenty of parking area that we can add some stormwater systems underneath if we have to.

Some of the post to change the name.

That's all I got. All right. Any other questions or comments?

I just have a question for Jeff. Procedural, can we approve this on second reading if there's still outstanding items?

If there's minor technical things on that, we could address them through a condition of approval.

We have a condition in the draft ordinance that requires the final layout of the yard and the shed be approved by the TRC prior to building permit issuance. OK. So that's how it's kind of set up.

OK. Thanks.

Could do a motion if someone wants to make one.

Mayor, I move that the Town Council adopt ordinance number 13, series of 2026, on second reading.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Family, please call the roll.

Absolutely. Let's begin with David Knight. Yes. Elise Hoddle.

Yes.

Angela Anderson. Yes. Rick Stevens.

Yes.

Angel Dupree-Bouchard? Yes. And Greg Schaffran? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you both.

Thank you, everybody.

Thanks, James.

Have a good night.

All right.

Thanks, guys.

Next up we have item 7D, which is the public hearing and first reading ordinance number 15 series of 2026 and ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Assault Colorado granting a PUD amendment to amend the allowable total square footage at 739 Hillcrest Drive, 5474 total square feet, Assault Colorado. Thank you. And James, you have this one.

Yes, thank you. We have the applicant here this evening with us. I apologize. Let me reorganize here.

Here we go.

This is a public hearing and a first reading of an ordinance to consider a PUD amendment submitted by Glenn and Laura Yeager to increase the allowable total floor area of their residence at 739 Hillcrest Drive above the townwide maximum of 5,000 total square feet. to a proposed 5474 total square feet. And it's proposed in order to accommodate the expansion of the first floor of the existing residence by 605 square feet to allow for it to be retrofitted on the first floor with a first floor bedroom and bathroom that will be accessible for the applicant's mother that has recently become wheelchair bound. The application discusses that the applicants believe the additional square footage is a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. In reviewing the request, staff consulted with the town attorney's office about what constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. and the town attorney's office provided a memo that's in your packet materials. It outlines reasonable accommodation to be qualified by three factors. One, whether the accommodation would undermine legitimate purposes of the zoning requirements. Two, whether consideration of the benefits that the accommodation would provide the handicapped individual And then number three, whether alternatives exist that accomplish the benefits more efficiently than the proposed scenario for a zoning addition. And as a bit more background, staff did offer that the applicants could decommission some of the upstairs space so as not to exceed the 5,000 gross square foot limit by removing ducting to spaces and filling it with blown insulation. So you basically decommission some of the upper floor space. However, the applicant chose to request the PUD amendment. And staff doesn't question the benefits of allowing the first floor space to become accessible to the applicant's mother. But staff does note that the Fair Housing Act scenario would support the floor area amendment. The P&Z reviewed the request and recommended approval because they didn't feel that it had Basically implications on other properties because it's kind of a site specific issue. And so Jeff can add maybe any thoughts he may have on it. But this evening staff would suggest taking applicant comments. taking public comments because it's a public hearing and having council discussion. We've included the ordinance in the packet for your consideration. Jeff, do you have anything you'd like to add on the...

yeah i'll just reiterate a little bit of what james had said you know this procedurally the the path to amend the restriction on floor areas a pud amendment and to go beyond the existing restriction the basis to do that would be through this reasonable accommodation under the fair housing act and which you know has the criteria that james laid out that to allow for the use enjoyment of the unit you can grant a reasonable accommodation to zoning rules and regulations based on an evaluation of the three factors that we listed in the memo whether it would undermine the legitimate purposes and effects of the zoning regulations whether the use and enjoyment of the residents is not possible without the accommodation and the accommodation would allow the individual to use and enjoy the residence whether reasonable alternatives exist with consideration of the functional administrative aspects but also the cost of they those alternatives and so those are really the the anchors for for your review I think the applicant has addressed and probably prepared to speak to all those things too so But yeah, and again, I guess to James's point is what's the broader effect of this? It would only be with respect to this parcel.

we do have glenn yeager the applicant here this evening so staff would suggest hearing applicant comments well thank you for your time james did a great job of giving a summary of where we've been over the last year year and a half on this process we're requesting a variance on the square footage to accommodate my mother who has had a stroke in In order for her to live with us, we're going to need a first floor bedroom and bathroom to accommodate her disability. The three key components that we've really been discussing for the last six months have been the three components that the city attorney brought up, and that is, number one, whether the accommodation would undermine the legitimate purposes and zoning requirements. the existing area and even with the addition our lot coverage is only 11% which is far below the 30% that in our view it doesn't change the the residential flavor of the neighborhood. And then the second thing that we agreed on the entire time is that the benefits of the accommodation would provide the handicapped individual benefits. And I think everyone's aligned with that. And then the third one is whether alternatives exist to accomplish the benefits more efficiently. And we always took the position that demoing and decommissioning a portion of the current house to get the square footage for the first floor accommodation is not efficient, cost effective. It's just not a path that we wanted to pursue Planning and zoning agreed with us. They unanimously approved the Us proceeding with the putt amendment to get the additional square footage without decommissioning any space Thank you for your comments as well We need to do a public hearing so I'm gonna go ahead and do that now 858 open the public hearing

And if anybody wants to come up, I don't think we have anybody in the room here or online, so I'll close the public hearing and then open it up for questions or comments. One question I have, undermining the legitimate purposes and effect, is there some kind of definition or standard for that? Like in the attorney's world, what does that mean?

I mean, would this request like have a consequence of of rendering meaningless zoning restriction, you know, and maybe have a more broader effect? There's a few cases out there that are that relate to these types of reasonable accommodation requests. And I wish there was more perfectly clear guidance on that, but there's kind of a mixed review by the courts of whether or not that criteria is satisfied or not. And we mentioned a couple of them in our memo. And so, you know, I guess maybe the more to put more of a pin on for this application. It's would allowing the accommodation to exceed the floor area restriction. Would that Would that undermine the town's ability to impose and continue those floor area restrictions in a broader sense on their properties? Yeah. And one of the courts in a utah case basically said it's not exactly the same application we're reviewing in a special use context but that no in granting it here you don't give up your discretion in a future application request on on another property but that was in a little bit different context but i think it could be viewed the same here where you're not necessarily creating a this isn't going to have the effect of the floor area limitation be one that can then be exceeded by by others or that it is going to that the purpose of the floor area limitation is being completely disregarded by exceeding it for you know in this limited manner so that's maybe more specifically how to analyze it.

Does that same hold true for the waiver for the sprinkler system from Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority? So we're talking about like FAR and how that wouldn't be a challenge looking at other projects. Yeah. Do you feel it's the same way with the sprinkler waiver?

I think it would be. I mean, it would be, you know, this is... It would be the you know this case by case analysis of it in here.

I'm trying to remember the sprinkler waiver component as to how the residents that goes beyond 5,000 square feet used to have a sprinkler system.

And the fire district chose to waive that and that's kind of their that's their decision. It's not really the towns and we take our cues.

So that's a fire district requirement, not a building code requirement.

It's in the fire code, the 5,000 square foot, which is an addendum to the building code. But they have the ability to waive that requirement. They do. That's, yeah, they do.

Okay. Other questions, comments?

Just to clarify, just so we're crossing all our T's and dotting all our I's, for factors C or 3, do alternatives exist to accomplish the benefits more efficiently?

there and I look I saw the plan of course but is there currently a bedroom on the first floor that can just be remodeled to there are no first floor bedrooms they're all on the second floor yeah make sure and another question that came up in planning and zoning is my mom is currently living in Chicago so the question was well how are you navigating now if you don't have a first floor bedroom and bath but she will move in with us as soon as we get this

Yeah. There are other questions I think we staff went through of, well, what other improvements might be able to be made that would allow your mother to reside in the unit and use and enjoy it without exceeding this? You know, are there Is it just a matter of constructing a wheelchair ramp? Or are there other types of improvements that might need to be made? And I don't remember all the details of that, but I think the upshot was no. Your position was no, there's not. And that's how you ended up in this position.

Correct. The stair lift doesn't work. No. The stair chair lift, no. No.

I mean the only alternative is decommissioning basically to reduce the square footage upstairs. That's what you got to.

Yeah that was I think what was that was what was discussed.

And there were architects on planning and zoning and the one shared the shared with me after the meeting that he was involved in a project like that where they were decommissioning space and he said he would never do that again.

I yeah, I can see how that would be a very undesirable not ideal for many reasons. First, I want to say like very sympathetic to your situation. Thank you. Right. It's a horrible situation. Nobody wants to be in it. And I totally understand where you're coming from. My only question would be with something like this, would it be possible to add some sort of like like time limit accommodations. So it says like when this house, you know, in the future were to get sold at that point, this has to get decommissioned or the sprinkler system has to come up to code, something like that. So we can accommodate

the use case now but we're not changing you know the home for future people who don't need the same accommodation yeah i i don't know if the future future councils want to have me coming back here in two years four years and talk about you know what we're going to do with our house I mean, is that what you're proposing?

Just like in the idea of something in there that says, like, yes, we'd like to accommodate. We'd like to make this accommodation for you and your mother. But you decide to move, and you decide to, a couple years later, down the road, you say, hey, this altitude's not working. It's really hard to, there's other issues here. We're going to have to move to get closer to health care. And now, you know, just looking at market rates, like 500 square feet. I haven't thought of that.

I've been 100% focused on getting this building permit to move my mother into our home.

Yeah, so I'm sure that was my question was. What's the anticipated timeline for a permit in a situation like this? Is it a?

Along nine months it's been very long.

You know, kudos to you for doing this. I think that the demographic in the Mid Valley and across Colorado is pretty much above 65 like 65%. And we have my wife and I both have moms that are different stages one is in hospice right now it's been able to stay in her house but she's stuck upstairs all day long all night long and 24-hour care so i think you know from the point of view of senior and what we've been following with eagle county and some of these other services that this is kind of a groundbreaking conversation frankly and i was going to have the same question for jeff was is this something that gets recorded on your deed of trust and goes with the property because i think it would be very advantageous if it did and whether it was occupied by a handicapped child or a handicapped adult would make no difference to me and I think that it's something that we need to look at there's these ADU programs that we have and all these other things aren't really reflecting I think accurately where the needs going to come from and the other thing of in-home care you know 24 hours a day is incredibly expensive

yeah this is yeah this variance not only allows us to accommodate my mother today but my my wife and i you know we want to die here yeah well i hope my son takes the same action and uh it would be nice to know that our home could accommodate us also yeah 10-4 yeah

So I'm going to be the naysayer on this one and I apologize up front. I am sympathetic to your situation. My mom came in, lived with us last fall because of some health issues. I have very big concerns about making a change. for one person, even for the best of reasons, that it could set a bad precedent. And I say this having just had somebody come to public comment and say that they were here five years ago and that there was a situation in their neighborhood and we said, okay, we're just gonna grandfather this one person in and now somebody else has taken liberties to do the same thing.

I'm just gonna interrupt and say, we're not gonna talk about that situation as part of this. public hearing it's because that is a very different situation than what's going on here i just don't want to get into it because we do we're in the middle of uh working with that complainant and that owner and i just i just want to caution you of not opening up here yeah

Well then, irregardless of that situation, there are situations in general where things happen where we change something for one person and then they push the, not they, the same person, but then another person wants to push that limit. I don't know anything about decommissioning space and I absolutely don't argue with the need for a first floor space for your mom. I just question whether we should change something that exists for the rest of the neighborhood and risk that setting a precedent for other people. I've seen it time and time again. I know, Jeff, I can't use any specific examples, I guess, but that just we're in the middle of an enforcement action.

I don't want you to talk about it in this public hearing. Oh, OK. OK, gotcha. Yeah.

Another one that comes to mind that it's not really a parallel, but somebody wanted a trash enclosure and so they just like built it in the right away and then asked for forgiveness instead of permission. Not the same situation, but like there's just people will push the envelope and that's what worries me. Not that your situation isn't like a good reason to do it, but rather just that 474 square feet is significant. It's like, you know, if it was 60 square feet, I'd be like, yeah, no problem. But 474 square feet is the size of an entire studio apartment. And so like that is a big thing, a big difference from the from where the threshold is now. So that that's my main concern.

If I could address that, approving this request would not set a precedent for other properties to exceed the 5,000 square feet limit. This is a site-specific, reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, Section 42 USC, for a documented disability. Each case is evaluated individually based on medical need.

I hear what you're saying, but our attorney did advise us that we consider the Fair Housing Act according to these three different criteria and whether alternatives exist to accomplish the benefits. And I guess maybe my question would be, it says more efficiently, it's like, well, more efficiently to the representative or more efficiently in the broader context?

Yeah, I mean, there's I think it is probably both ways, but including on the applicant because there is a part of that is considering what the cost would be. I mean, I understand your struggle where it's the permanency of the of it it's an improvement it's not you know it's not allowing an ESA animal or something right it's the permanency of the improvement and you know they're in James I might lean on you a little bit more on this just because if you're having processed the application but you know having reviewed would uh pursuing an adu and deed restricting it into the future be an alternative to to to this and i think there were reasons why that was beyond the scope of what would was desired as part of the reasonable accommodation request um and i think other a few other alternatives to avoid the permanency what the Well, the thought was, you know, again, the permanency of the square footage over the 5,000 floor area limitation, would it be if instead of an addition, an ADU and an ADU that could be occupied, then be deed restricted into the future for such that the occupancy would be consistent with the ADU requirement. So there's not just an expansion of the floor area over 5000 square feet. It is under this this this program that might provide a benefit to the town by having an edu that might be deed restricted and that's that's not what the applicant's requesting and that's not consistent with what his reasonable accommodation request is i'm just saying that to in part get at what i'm hearing as the concern being the permanency of the accommodation right

Yeah, I mean, like an ADU. I mean, I want to make sure I'm clear. I don't know the code. If you add 5000 square feet to the max for a house here, if the property would be eligible, if we ask you a simple question, could you add an ADU to a property detached or attached if it was already 5000 square feet? Is that allowed anywhere?

well they would have to go through a pud amendment process similar to the pud amendment process that is being reviewed now um and and get pnz and town council's approval to be able to add an adu typically adu square footage counts towards that 5 000 gross square foot so in order to add an adu above the 5 000 gross square foot

um it would require a similar town council action to what's being requested here but i do think like the idea of having a lock off to your point that does have additional value to the town as opposed to just adding square footage to an existing house and then setting potentially setting this precedent for the rest of the neighborhood to try and push that boundary as well

Yeah, I mean it's I mean.

It's an interesting idea.

It seems like a meters like a more elegant solution than putting insulation your ducks or. not or or allowing houses to be bigger than 5 000 square feet just kind of you know what i mean like it's just something that it seems like it's a more elegant solution but i don't know if it has the same process but in the at the end of the day would it well you are rewriting a lot of your zoning and um you know does it make

I think this is a groundbreaking discussion, frankly, and it's universal. And if we can figure out how to better accommodate people that are aging in place, it would be a great thing. And generally what slows these processes down just bureaucracy and somebody's gonna take advantage or they're gonna try to pull a fast one it doesn't matter what you say in here because somebody's always gonna pull a fast one if they can get away with it so I think that you know our responsibility as a community is to allow it and then sort of regulate it and watch it and if it gets to be abusive then you have such a thing as a red tag. I have personally thought about this for a long time. The other opportunity to do this is also restricted to most people because of financing. You know, we can afford to build an ADU, but we can't afford to retire if we build an ADU. So, I mean, there's a catch-22 here, and affordability is a big deal at the age we're talking about. And, you know, assistance that you get when you're in the position of being elderly and not being able to take care of yourself is compromised across the country by other reasons and so on. And I just think Basalt's always been in a place where innovation and good ideas were well received and, you know, maybe we misstepped a couple times, but this is one deal, right? This isn't, you know, we're not making a blanket policy here.

The people are I think that the queasiness or consternation is because 5,000 square foot house is a big house. The big house. That's why that limit is there and that's I think people don't we don't want to undermine that. And so I think we're wrestling, that's why the ADU thing sounds, I don't know.

But it also should consider the size of the lot. A 5,000 square foot home downtown Basalt versus up on Hillcrest Drive, we have close to an acre. And the square footage, garage square footage counts. um in the in the square footage calculation so it's not a 5 000 square foot home it could be a 4 200 square foot home with a two and a half car garage um so yeah like i said you are in the process you know this is a one-time request based on a medical need I don't see how anyone could come in here and say precedent has been set. What's your medical need? What's the accommodation you need?

At least to that comment, then we at that point have full grounds to say, well, no, there was a legal argument and we can deny that request. Look, there are plenty of people with malintent that might dig through these records and see this and be like, aha, you know, now we can do this. But I don't think that the Yeagers should be penalized because some person in the future might take advantage of this. I also don't believe that it would be taken advantage of because I don't believe that legally it would set any precedent. I applaud you being willing to do this. And I mean, yes, is it going to increase the value of your home? Yeah, it will. But also at great expense to you. It's not going to be cheap to do this.

I will not recover.

Yeah, no, and I build enough, like, I tend to agree with you. You're not going to see what you're going to put.

Correct.

You're not going to get it back, basically.

I get time.

I think we want to see more multi-generational living, and we want to take care of our seniors, and you want to do that, and you have an actual legal and medical, you know, reason to do so. I personally have no reason to. this and that's where I stand on it.

I guess one thing I would add about this.

Angela, do you have any questions or comments?

I agree once again with Angela. I think that I would rather I would rather, you know, have to sit in council and have people come and try and take advantage of what they see as an opportunity, you know, than to deny somebody who, you know, medically needs this allowance to, you know, to go without it. So, yeah, there are always going to be people who will you know, look for a loophole or, you know, try to get one over on us. But I don't think that this man and his mother should, you know, pay the penalty for that. So I'm in support of allowing extra footage for his mother's medical needs.

So the comment I was going to add was just I understand that doing a lock off isn't the same thing as having it as part of your home. But the square footage cost to build is the same whether you have a lock off door or not. And one thing for just the council to keep in mind for for future reference, too, is that then once they go to sell their home eventually, whenever that happens, 20 years, hopefully, you know, years and years from now, potentially a local buyer could afford it because they would have the added income of the lock off. So that's just kind of something to think about. So I've said my piece.

I think an ADU would be a better alternative that would still bring the benefits from the ADA requirements. It's better than decommissioning. Because of that ability with the deed restriction for a resident living there, it doesn't undermine the zoning, the legitimate purposes and effects of the zoning. we don't wanna have big houses with big loads. I mean, that's really, the bigger the house, the bigger the loads. I mean, I think the climate is one of the big reasons we have the 5,000 square foot, not the lot size. So I would prefer something where we do an ADU, because I think it accomplishes all the kind of the tests in the three areas. And it has a, it's a better alternative and more efficient.

Would that not require the need for a kitchen and even more square footage? And that adds undue cost burden to the Yeagers who are trying to accomplish a relatively simple and necessary need. You know what I mean? And I think that if it was somebody else coming to us just asking for additional square footage, then I can get on board with that and say, no, make it an ADU that can be locked off in the future. But because of this circumstance, because there's the medical need and the ADA and all of that, I mean, I just, I see it as two separate, you know.

They have to build it anyway.

I know, but adding a kitchen at substantial cost.

Kitchen on the map, is that currently there?

ADU is not on the table. Decommissioning space or giving us the fair housing accommodation is what I'm here for. Not to build an ADU.

Exactly.

the applicant's applied for reasonable accommodation for a bedroom, not for an ADU. And I just, I bring it up to say that that was recognizing the permacy of the reasonable accommodation that there was a discussion about that. And it was determined that wasn't what was gonna work for the applicant in terms of accommodating his mother. And so ultimately proceeded with this request. I'm tracking.

I just want to make sure we're turning over old stones.

I appreciate it. They've been kicked.

Is there any way to decrease the square footage?

There's not. We've done that. We're down to bare bones.

Well, yeah, I don't think this one property in and of itself is going to undermine legitimate purposes of our zoning. So I just want to make sure we're being thorough. It sounds like you guys had that conversation. But this probably will come up more. It's case by case. We go through the same set of tests just like any other accommodation request.

Yeah, it very well might. But in my view, I mean, this allows not only the applicant's mother to age in place with the care she needs, but it will allow the applicants to age in place. It might allow the future buyer to either care for an elderly parent or, as Rick mentioned, a child that needs it or age in place. I mean, yeah, I mean, I just I don't think it undermines the.

Yeah.

the zoning. I just don't. I think it's an easy yes.

And the Utah case kind of shows that.

Yeah.

So Angela has her hand up.

Angela.

Oh, I just wanted to say I agree that this is an easy yes. And I don't even feel comfortable with us trying to recommend, you know, an ADU or a lock off. I think that we should Let this man care for his mother and that this is clearly a medical exemption and I don't honestly feel like we should weigh in on it much more than that. They have a medical need. This is what they need to do to meet that need, and I think that that's where our involvement ends.

Well, it's our our involvement is based on what Jeff outlined in that memo with. That's what we went through, so we have to go through that.

I understand that, but they have a legitimate medical need. I don't understand why we would ask them to build additional space that they don't need when all they're trying to do is build exactly what they need to help his mother. That's what I don't understand.

I'll move to approve ordinance number 15, series of 26, Town Council, Town of Basalt, Colorado, granting a PUD amendment to amend the allowable square footage at 7039 Hillcrest to 5474 total square feet. First reading, public hearing for August 11th. Second reading for August 11th.

So we're approving on first reading?

Yeah.

OK. Second. Yeah. OK.

So move to second, and Pam, will you please call the roll?

OK. Let's begin with Elise Hoddle.

Yes.

Angela Anderson. Yes. Rick Stephens. Yes. Angel De Prevue-Chart. Yes. Greg Schaffran. Yes. David Knight. Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Thanks to your patience and perseverance going through this. take we take is it you know this seriously the fs if fha analysis thank you jeff for kind of t and all this i know it's this is the first one of these we've had to go through since i've been on council yeah it was an unusual thank you thank you Okay, what's next? Flipping the page. Item 70, public hearing and first reading ordinance number 16, series of 2026, an ordinance of the Town Council of Salt, Colorado, annexing the town's certain unincorporated, municipally owned land located at 20526 Highway 82. Jeff and James, you have this, and I believe that the next one, you can do the presentation, then we can do this, and the next one, I'll read it, and we can just vote, right? And do the hearing?

We can, yeah.

Okay.

great so this is the steward to agenda items are to annex the umbrella what's referred to as the umbrella roofing property is a property the town bought several years ago and has been using as a part of its public works operations the purpose of the annexation is to then the neighboring property which is Shelton drilling property the two of them comprise the public works facilities by having the umbrella property annexed into the town it'll allow for the next steps on the planning for a future PD public works facility on that's those parcels to proceed more efficiently so annexations of municipally owned property just require an ordinance they don't require the full process that of a petition and a land use application that's required under the master plan and otherwise under by state statute along with the annexation request there is a requirement under the annexation statute that properties be zoned with a certain period of time of the annexation and so the second ordinance would be to zone the property p public as back on the annexation part as is set out in the ordinance it does meet the eligibility requirements for annexation The main one being that it has continuity requirements with the town boundaries of the town. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. It looks like these were noticed for public hearings on first reading, so we should have a public hearing with respect to each when David gets back. But I can answer any questions in the meantime.

So Eagle County,

is involved engaged in this too right or not this is just us to take basically taking it as an enclave kind of thing yeah there's two exemptions from kind of the normal procedure i guess there's probably more than two but there are two main ones from the normal annexation procedures under the annexation act and one is for municipally owned property and another is for for enclaves and uh this is not because an enclave because there is continues to be um unincorporated property to the south and with um yeah the aspect of the salt right yeah i think we're ready for a public hearing let's do it open the public hearings public comment yeah

Euler Euler again, no one's coming up. Close the public hearing questions.

Yeah, we'll just need this will do separate motions on the on each of these OK.

So someone would want to fire the first one here for 16. Let's hear questions or comments.

Mayor, I moved town council approved ordinance 16 series of 26 the first reading set the public hearing second reading for July 28.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Pam, will you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Let's begin with Angela Anderson. Yes. Thank you, Angelo. Rick Stevens? Yes. Angel Dupree-Bouchard? Yes. Greg Schaffran? Yes. David Knight? Yes. Elise Hoddle? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

All right. 7F, public hearing and first reading, ordinance number 17, series of 2026, an ordinance of the Town Council of Basalt, Colorado, zoning certain municipally owned real property annexed to the town located at 2526 Highway D2. It's Jeff and James again. We can just go straight to the public hearing. So I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing for this one. It's 932. Same as the first. So I will close the public hearing since no one wanted to speak and entertain a motion.

May I move that the town council approve ordinance number 17, series of 2026 on first reading and set the public hearing and second reading for July 28, 2026. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Pam, will you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Let's begin with Rick Stevens. Yes. Angel DuPrey-Bouchard. Yes. Greg Schaffran. Yes. David Knight. Yes. Elise Hoddle. Yes. Angela Anderson. Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Cool. All right. Next up, 7G resolution. Thank you both, by the way, for that. Resolution number 28, series of 2026, resolution of the Town Council of Basalt, Colorado, expressing the intent of the town to be reimbursed for certain expenses relating to the acquisition of real property, including six housing units and the construction, equipping, remodeling and improvement of certain capital assets owned by the town. This is Doug, Gloria and Jeff.

So thank you, Mr. Mayor. So here's just a recap in my memo. We're scheduled to close our new six units across the street sometime here in the month. We're waiting on the inspection of the elevators with a certificate of occupancy. From there, we'll have 15 days to close. So it'll be a bit of a hustle, but we have all the funds available right now to close. We have a deposit already paid on them for 595. So we'd have to come up with that difference. I guess 1755 to to close. The intention of what we're doing here is we want to get a reimbursement provision approved so that when we actually, so we can actually borrow money on the properties after we close, not before we close. And the timing is that banks aren't gonna hold a quote open for more than 30 days. So we really need, and we gotta close within 15 days of issuing the occupancy permit. So it's a little bit of a chicken and the egg. So why we're doing this, the primary intention of doing a COP for this purchase is to preserve our cash. We just did that funding deck. If we're not able to do this reimbursement provision, that funding stack will be reduced by $2,380,000. We'll have that much less cash to deal with. We're not authorizing or not, I'm not asking you to approve the terms of the COP tonight. That's gonna be competitively determined interest rate wise. We're gonna go shop it and come back for our first reading on what those particulars are. I think that The rate that we're going to be paying is going to be pretty comparable to the rate we're earning on our money now. So it won't be exactly a push. There's always an interest rate risk. Rates move around. But I anticipate it should be pretty close to what we're earning. and i just say that uh um by by having this reimbursement provision we're able to actually reclaim that first deposit was made in 2024 so look back period on reclaiming my deposit or my deposit the town's deposit is is too long so we'd have to have this reimbursement provision and then also this language in here that we're going to be doing additional capital over the next year or so for the town so So without the resolution, there really is no point of doing the COP. So I was asked you to consider approving that. And off we go. OK.

I don't understand. OK.

So I'll take a stab at it. So we're we're buying the the BCC units, the six units. We've already paid several deposits. We're going to close. We have the cash on hand to actually complete the closing. But then we have the ability to, after the fact, borrow for the amounts that we've already paid and at an interest rate that is roughly comparable to what we make on that money. And the purpose of doing it would just be to free up cash to then use it for for future projects. But to be able to then do this post-closing borrowing and kind of that's what this would would tee up. And then there's a future decision on the COP.

Got it.

So then I hope I didn't just say I hope that I don't know. I was trying to. That was helpful.

That was very helpful. Thank you. So then my question is, and maybe you already addressed this and I was too busy trying to understand what you would just say. what is the advantage of the cop against the bcc units as opposed to the same cop on pitchfield well what's the advantage of having a cop on the midland as opposed to like i think borrowing against pitchview versus borrowing against midland i guess that's what i'm trying to i think we're trying we're going to be borrowing against both of them

And if I understand it right, the rent payments from those midland units would pay the interest on that COP.

On the midland one. And so to answer your question, we would not know whether or not we want to do a COP on Pitchview until we made the decision whether or not we want to own them or rent them. If we're going to sell them, we wouldn't be taking a mortgage on them. But if we were to retain Pitchview, those 16 units, we would have to arrange some sort of financing similar to what we're doing here in Midland. And we'd have to secure that lease with rent payments that those properties would generate.

They don't do a COP just on raw land, right, probably?

You can do a COP on a project.

The pitch is a couple years out, probably, at least.

Yeah, I mean, the properties, it's essentially the security for borrowing, and it's a mechanism to avoid TABOR, which if you want, I can explain it, the way the COPs function. But, for example, on the pool project, Arbity Park was used as one of the parcels that was subject to those COPs, so it is possible to use it.

for a development property like the pitch view project there i think there'll need to be um some more analysis done on oh yeah whether we want to sell those units when we have or sell some of them or rent some of them so i don't know if i answer your question well it sounds like it's just a question mark well it's a question mark on pitch view because we haven't we haven't only just been clarity that's what i mean right But I think the bottom line here is if we, the reason we're doing the COP are in these units across the street is to preserve our cash and to keep our funding stack in place and to reclaim the deposit we've already made where we're gonna have a dilution in our general fund.

2.3.

I appreciate you bringing this forward and just being mindful of, you know, there's so many other projects we've been talking about. I just appreciate that kind of like forward thought and preserving some of our funding for these future projects. So I like it. I appreciate the work you put into it.

It makes a ton of sense. Cash is king. If we can get the cash back, we want the cash. And yeah, the debt will be paid for by the rents. And so it's easy money.

I have a weird question though. Do we do we pay ourselves back the Rita? How does that work?

Well, I think actually technically what would happen is that if we did, we would be paying ourselves. But I don't think the RO units are occurring. We're exempt. We're exempt from that.

Okay. I was just like, you know, like, give us an alternative.

I'll just also say, I mean, this, I think, could have been done, you know, there's the ability to do this and have cash from the COPs available to close. But doing it just as a reimbursement preserves the opportunity. We're just going to be able to do it post-closing.

and it accommodates the timeline right and the timeline was the timeline was wishy-washy based on co so mitch mitch issues occupancy permit we're on the clock we gotta close the 15 days we're not gonna be able to hustle to do the cop in 15 days because we gotta do two readings right after the second reading we gotta wait two weeks right so this this cop i think probably won't even actually get in place until labor day

we need to spend the money we needed to spend the money within that certain period of time so right exactly so you got a look back period so logistic logistically it was really challenging to do on the front end which is why it's presented as the reimbursement mayor are you good rick yeah okay may i move the town council adopt resolution number 28 series of 2026. second

So moved and seconded. Pam, will you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Let's begin with David Knight. Yes. Elise Hoddle. Yes. Angela Anderson. Yes, Rick Stevens. Yeah, I'm Jill deprave a chart. Yes, Greg chaffin. Yes, motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Great last item. Thanks, Doug. Item seven H is resolution number 29 stage of 2026 resolution. The Town Council of the South Colorado authorizing participation in the coordinated election to be held November 3rd, 2026 and approving intergovernmental agreements with Eagle County and picking county to conduct such election. Jeff and Pam.

Great. Yeah, this resolution would authorize the town to participate in the fall election. That participation is expected to be to submit a ballot issue for borrowing related to the PD public works facility. By approving this resolution, it doesn't commit the town to actually submit that ballot question. It preserves the opportunity. So ultimately there will be an ordinance presented to Council on that issue in our August meetings and that's what would actually submit the question. This just is the logistical piece to allow us to participate and preserve that opportunity.

Mayor, I move that Town Council adopt resolution number 29 series of 2026. Second.

Any questions on the motion? All right, Pam, would you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Let's begin with Greg Schaffran. Yes. David Knight. Yes. Elise Hoddle. Yes. Angela Anderson. Yes. Rick Stevens. Yes. And Angel de Prebuchart. Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone. And we're adjourning the meeting. Have a good night.

letters there.