Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

this uh meeting of the board of adjustment, a special meeting, right? Um to order if we could and uh maybe before we do roll call because you outline us a little bit on on membership this tonight. Bill.

Yeah, thanks uh Andy. Just so before we get started with the board of adjustment meeting, um typically membership of the board of adjustment is um five members and two alternates. Um it is um the trustee appointed to the planning commission by the board of trustees that is Katie Souls. She is absent this evening. And um the the other four members of the board of adjustment are the four mayorally appointed members. Um, one of those, um, positions is currently vacant, um, due to Joy McCoy's resignation. Um, so we currently have, um, three of the regular board of adjustment members present as well as our two alternates being Brian as the mayor and Peggy as the trustee appointed to the uh, planning commission by the mayor. So I don't think there's any action needed by um the chair but simply recognizing that our five voting members will be the five um folks that are present at the meeting.

Okay. Yeah. So we have a roll call. Margaret BS Ryan Circ. Robert Gusi and then we have um is it Peggy online or Peggy? Kenny on Peggy Smith. Thank you. And Andy Miller. Thanks everybody. So could I have a motion to approve the board of adjustment agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

Thank you. Um and then a motion to approve the consent agenda which is the minutes from um March 26, 2025. So quite some time ago, but those had not been approved yet. February 25th. Well, it says March March 26, 2025. The board of adjustment. Am I on the wrong? Okay. Yeah. All right. So, move. Second. All in favor? I

thank you. Okay. So, open form for the board of adjustment, not not the not the planning commission. Anybody online? If there's anybody online that would just like to speak for the board of adjustment, please raise your hand. Nobody. Okay. Um, so discussion of possible action is a request to extend the duration of approval for height variance the ascent condominiums. Start with this with the staff report.

Thank you, Chair Miller. Um so this item is a request to extend the duration of approval for the height variance that was approved for the ascent condominiums development. Um so just some background uh this is a 24 unit for sale multif family residential development that is proposed adjacent to and within the current exports formerly ski broker building. Um, as part of this land use application, which included a major site plan and final plat, um, the applicant also requested a height variance, um, for a maximum 49 1/2 ft building height as opposed to 45, which is the standard height in the business zone district. Um, so if you all recall, this was originally submitted as a administrative height variance. Staff evaluated that and um, denied that administrative variance. the applicant appealed that denial and then the board of adjustment ultimately approved um that variance last um February uh or February of 2025 I should say. Um, and because building permits for this uh development have not been issued at this time, the height variance would otherwise expire in approximately one week on April 2nd um unless extended by the board of adjustment. Um on March 3rd, the applicant requested a six-month extension to this approval period. So staff is bringing that request forward to you all this evening. So in in evaluation of this request, uh this section of the code allows the granting authority to grant a single extension of any land use application approval for a time period that does not exceed the time period of the initial approval. And because the variance for this development has not received a previous extension and because a six-month extension that is requested

does not exceed that initial duration of approval which was approximately one year uh then this extension can be granted by the board of adjustment. Uh, in staff's opinion, this extension is necessarily primarily because of a roughly nine-month gap that occurred in submitts last year. Um, after the major site plan and final plat were approved by the board of trustees in April. Uh, there was kind of a pause in in submittals from the applicant with the town. Um, I do want to note that they did continue to work on their plans during that time. applicant had correspondence with town staff in September of last year. Um but they didn't resubmit their materials until um December of last year. Um and since December they have they have made an effort to you know address all review comments and and get their um approvals finalized. Uh but they're just running up against this April deadline. Um hence the need for this extension. Um so for this reason um given the good faith effort on the applicant to try and um finalize their site plan and plat documents uh staff recommends that this variance be granted an extension by the board of adjustment. I do also want to note that last week on March 18th the board of of trustees um separately approved an extension to their major site plan and final plat. So those um aspects of the land use application have already received an an extension and extending the height variance approval would be consistent with the board of trustees action.

Uh what um what action does the applicant have to take to um trig you know trigger the you know what do they have to do so they don't need an extension? What's the step? Yeah, in in this case I think because the variance is tied to building height and that building height is tied to the site plan approval um what what would uh I guess the next step in that process is getting a building permit issued. So that does it. So then they wouldn't need as long as they get building permit they don't need extension. Correct. So that's all they have to do in six months. Correct. Is get a building permit. Good.

Correct. Yeah. not not even um you know initiate construction per se or or certainly not you know receive a certificate of occupancy and and complete the project simply receiving that issued building permit um that puts them on a timeline for the permit for completion too. So, right. Yeah. Once the building permit is issued, there's a separate, you know, timeline and uh for that. So, any questions from the board at all or all day? Anything from the applicant at all? Okay.

Hey, Clark for the record. Yeah, we're ready to go. Uh we were actually ready to break around April 1st. Uh but we've got um uh some utility matters that we're trying to deal with Excel Energy. Okay. Platin note stuff. So hopefully that gets resolved imminently. But other than that, the architects are hard at work and and close to having final CDs ready submit for permit. They'll probably be ready before we work out things with Excel. So the way that's going so uh but no, we're ready to go. Six months is enough, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I kind of thought we would uh I thought we wouldn't even need the extension meeting. We get it finished, but really it was that that platinum issue is probably the biggest issue. Okay.

So, we should be good. All right. Yep. Think real close. But thank you guys. Yeah. Anything from the public at all? Okay. Okay. Um motion. Motion. I make a motion to approve the extension. I don't know what else to say. Um, resolution 2026301. Okay. Yeah. Uh, okay. I make a motion to approve BOA resolution 2026301 approving an extension to the duration of approval for the ascent height variance.

Any other discussion? Take a vote, please. I I I any any anyone in opposition? Do we hear from Peg? She's online. Peggy, I lost her. But anyway, that's that's a majority. So, yeah. Okay. Thanks everybody. So, any other business for the board of adjustments? Okay. I'll take a motion to adjurnn the board of adjustment. Move to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I

I Okay, so we'll move right over to the planning commission meeting and uh take a roll call for the planning commission, please. Margaret BS, Brian Svenic, Robert Gusi, Peggy, did we get you back or Peggy Smith? Thank you, Peggy. And Andy Miller. Thanks. So, uh, an approval of the agenda, please. So, moved. Second. All in favor? I I oppose. Thanks. So, the consent agenda is the minutes from February 25th, 2026. Have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda. Second. All in favor? I I. Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you. So, open forum for the planning commission. Anybody have a any remarks for the planning commission 3 minutes or less?

If anyone online like to speak for open forum for the planning commission, please raise your hand. Okay. So, discussion and possible action is the 255 mil avenue sketch plan. Great. Thank you, Chair Miller. And Antonet, before I get started, would you mind making Jeff uh Ban Simique a co-host? Perfect. Thank you. So, I didn't forget.

Very. Well, thank you, Chair Miller and Planning Commission. Um the item on our agenda this evening is a sketch plan for uh 255 Mil Avenue. Uh so I know we've reviewed quite a few sketch plans uh recently, but just as a refresher about the purpose and intention of these um they're established in our code with the intention to simply provide the town the opportunity to describe our vision for the development to the applicant and it gives the applicant an opportunity to discuss their plans for a development and explain how those plans will further the town's vision. Um and it also helps obtain input and direction from town staff early on in the development process. And um also per town code, the applicant or town staff may opt to present the sketch plan to the planning commission for discussion and and feedback. So um we are doing so this evening. So uh the applicant and property owner is 255 mil LLC. Um we have uh Tom Fowler here in the room with us representing the property owner as well as um Jeff Vanam Beek and Nathan Mason on the Zoom call. Um also as part of the project team. Um this lot or this project is located on uh interior lots located on the north side of Mil Avenue between Highway 40 and the railroad. Um, the sketch plan proposes a total of 13 residential units as well as approximately 1,800 square feet of general commercial space and this project is in the Riverwalk zone. Um, staff first met with the applicant about a year ago. Um, and um, they submitted their sketch plan uh, just about two months ago in late January. So definitely excited to see this brought forward um, and excited to hear your feedback. So, here's a look at the property location again on the north

side of Mill Avenue bounded there in red. And here's a look at that property in our zoning map. So, primarily surrounded by other properties also in the Riverwalk zone. The divide condos to the south of Mill Avenue are highdensity multif family. Um, and then there are some properties just to the east of Doc Suzie that are zoned business. Here's a look at the existing conditions of the property. Um, I just wanted to note that there are um two single family detached structures um cottages, you know, they they are smaller in scale on on the property. Um they do, you know, each have a active water and sewer tap. Um so there there are active uses on the property but um you know this in a way this is a pretty wholescale reimagining and trying to use the entitlements of the Riverwalk um zone district. So looking at the site plan um on the left is again just a plan view with a white background. Um on the right shows the sketch plan overlay with aerial imagery together to better give a sense of um this site in relation to um its neighbors. Um but functionally um you know the proposal again includes 1,800 ft of ground floor retail space uh facing Mill Avenue um one residential unit in the rear and then residential units um on two and a half floors above it. Um the fourth floor is kind of a loft area. Um the sketch plan proposes perpendicular parking along Mil Avenue as well as a few spaces um directly off of the alley um and some tuck under parking spaces as well. Um

so to get a better sense of the scale of the development, here are some 3D renderings um looking kind of at all sides. You can see from the um east view the tuck under parking spaces. Um and even though this is a black and white rendering um some of the proposed facade material materials are evident. Uh if I could zoom in here, such as um some stone masonry um and brick um and then other, you know, maybe more generic sighting or stucco type material um proposed. Here's a look at the elevation kind of at a scaled architectural view. Um and I just wanted to note that um you know at this level of detail and and the height that is being shown this does comply with the 45 ft maximum building height as you can see at the very top line. Um so with within the you know base height that's allowed. So next I wanted to talk about a few of the things that staff identified in our review. I will be kind of brief on these, but please feel free to interrupt me with any questions. Um, want to give the applicant an opportunity to um talk about their plans. Um, after they submitted this and staff reviewed it, they indicated that they would be tweaking some things. Um, so definitely want to give them an opportunity to um share any any um updates to their concept. So starting off with residential density in the Riverwalk zone district um the base density that is allowed is 20 units per acre that can be increased by one of one of two different means. One of them is the provision of ground floor commercial uses. Doing so increases the

density up to 40 units per acre. Uh the other avenue is by providing deed restricted affordable units and when that is done there is no maximum unit per acre density. Um but the development still has to has has to meet all other zoning requirements height setbacks parking etc. So this sketch plan as it was provided to the town envisioned um using the ground floor commercial density bonus and this would allow a total of 12 units on the site. Uh the site is just under a third of an acre. Um additionally a a 13 unit could be allowed uh based on staff's interpretation of our ADU regulations. So in speaking to that briefly, the sketch plan proposed keeping one of the two existing structures on the property. Um the one nearest to the alley was proposed to remain. Um, this could be considered an ADU, uh, which our code does allow in the Riverwalk zone and on multif family residential sites more generally. Um, again, it could be considered an ADU so long as it meets our requirements on having a kitchen and bathroom, uh, having its own utility access and shut offs, um, as well as being no greater than 50% of the size or square footage of a principal unit. So this kind of introduces a bit of a quirk with this proposal simply because the applicant is proposing to condominiumize this building so that the units are sold individually. So if this is ultimately what is pursued, this you know cottage ADU would have to be kind of tied to one of those condo units as a you know the principal and accessory unit in order to

be compliant with our code and how our ADU regulations are written and administered. Question. You say it has to be tied to a unit in the main building. Mhm. Um any unit or a unit that would be in close proximity to cottage a uh it doesn't necessarily need to be in in close proximity. I mean it could be a unit on the second or third floor. It doesn't necessarily need to be the ground floor unit per se if that's kind of what you're asking.

Yeah. I I was asking if there's a if it's to be connected to an existing property that's being built, wouldn't it make sense for it to be a connecting unit that's close by cottage A? Yeah, I guess they're connecting in the sense of their ownership can't be severed from one another. Okay. Um so the ADU cannot be sold separately. it it's its ownership has to be tied to that of a of another residential unit. Okay.

Um and and again, so as long as there is that kind of legal ownership framework, if you will, for the ADU, um it's it's physical proximity on the site is less of a concern or or it's something that I guess it's not really spoken to in our code, I would say. Okay. I get it. Big is that cottage? Clayton was Clayton was born in that cottage. Oh, really? Oh, wow. It's tiny. Oh, so it's really small. So, it's not an issue with the 50%.

For for some of the units, it could meet that. And I I we can pull up the sketchbook later. The applicant can, you know, when when they're presenting, they can clarify. My recollection is that this cottage A was on the order of between 4 and 500 square ft. And I think the ground floor ADU ADA accessible unit was the largest um and and may meet that 50% requirement. Just curious, could it belong to the HOA as a caretaker unit or um concept?

Yeah, potentially. I think our code is maybe somewhat silent on that. Um, I think the the ADU itself is kind of counted outside of that unit per acre calculation. Um, so for other zone districts like um our our multif family residential zones that allow a certain number of units per lot or per lot size, you could build that number of units and say a triplex or forplex and still have an ADU on top of that. So it's kind of like an additional bonus unit. But as far as it being a caretaker unit, I again I think our code is relatively silent on that, but Why could they not just kind of minimize that cottage as well?

Get right as the same question. It gets them over the number of units,

right? So, in this case, um because of because they're seeking this 40 unit per acre density, um or at least that was initially proposed that caps them at 12 units overall. So, 12 units in the main building plus the ADU is kind of the the workaround to that. Um, the other alternative is if the applicant pursues the deed restriction density bonus option, then they're not tied to an arbitrary cap. So, they could have this um as a 13th unit and it not be considered an ADU. I think the only wrinkle with that is how multif family residential is defined in our code. Uh, it states that all all units are in a single building. So this would be a multif family residential development with units in in multiple buildings. Um but again if that's something that you know the planning commission views as allowable we can change our definition. So any other questions on this aspect of the density what's the setback from the side of the building to the west? Yeah. So, in the Riverwalk zone for a mixeduse um uh proposal, there are no minimum lot setbacks.

I can just plat you know what that setback is, but um if it triggers the fire, it had space. See? Yeah, I there was more room or a decent amount of room on the west side. It just eyeballing it, it looks 15t. Yeah, 12 to 15 ft. Just looking. This This just brings up an interesting question. we may face in the future. If you're within the fire requirements where you've got a fireproof assembly, there's an existing building next door to a building that wants to get into that setback who pays for that existing building to be fireproofed. So, I would assume it would have to be the developer, but yeah, I wonder if our code even addresses that. So, I don't I don't think so.

Yeah. Anyway, that's something to look at. So yeah, I mean because sketch a sketch plan here helps us kind of identify things that may be shortcomings in our code. Absolutely. Yeah. I'd hate to think that a homeowner would have to do thousands of dollars worth of improvement to their building to allow the neighbor to get within the fire set back. So just a thought.

Yeah, excellent point. Um, so last thing I'll touch on as far as the the residential density. So for this ground floor commercial density bonus provision in the Riverwalk zone, the language in our code says that um it's it's met if at least 40% of the ground floor of the structure is commercial. Um so in in staff's view we were considering the tuck under parking area and basically looking at you know everything bounded in this red box here as the ground floor area of the structure. Um the reason for this is because the second and third floors have occupiable space in this area. Um so we we just use that larger ratio. Um, I think it could certainly be argued that a interpretation of our code should look at the occupied space on the ground floor and exclude that tuck under parking area even if there are occupied uses above it. Um, and that is what the applicant initially assumed and and kind of looking at this L-shape here as the ground floor of the structure. Um, I think, you know, admittedly that is probably the most correct reading of the exact language in our code. But I think, um, maybe reading it this way has simply, you know, the potential to maybe lead to outcomes that are not as desirable. Um, I'm thinking about a situation where maybe um, the the majority of the ground floor area is dedicated to tuck under parking and there's a very small um, you know, kind of token commercial space, if you will. Um I I do think the applicant clearly is making a good faith effort to balance uses here on the ground floor. Um you know if you if you include the tuck under parking area that commercial ratio

is about 35%. So they're not too far off from the 40% already. Um but if you remove it and if you look at this area they're um at approximately 48%. So meeting it um if if you calculate it that way. Um again an alternative to this ground floor commercial provision is providing deed restricted housing um that would achieve the same you know density result essentially. Any questions on this? Maybe thoughts on my thought is whatever we do here we ought to be consistent. Absolutely.

So if I Yeah. So, I mean, I personally feel like it should not be included. Parking should not be Yeah, that's just my Yeah. feeling. Yeah. I You could have a whole underground. Yeah. Kind of tuck under for the whole area. So, that's my feeling. But,

well, you know, and counter to that a little bit is that we're hopefully we can encourage covered parking. It solves a lot of snow snow maintenance problems. So, so but I get what you're saying, Margaret. I mean, it's um you know, and what the end result of that could be a a covered parking area with just a tiny little shop that really goes against what we're trying to do to foster commercial in these these zones. I do want to um reveal here that I'm next door to this. So, um I'm on the I'm to the east of this site. So I'm 267 Mil Avenue. So um so I have mixed feelings about it. Um but obviously I've been involved in the resoning and all the way through and understood that this is would be the end result of this. Um but anyway, the parking question is a tough one and I but I've gone over my mind over the years. How can we end up with a lot of covered parking in this town and not so much not not so many problems with snow banks and moving snow and and everything else. So, so it's it's it is kind of a tough one. So, but maybe we come up with a ratio that gives some credit to the the to the some ratio that they don't we don't go beyond with with covered parking. And this is a pretty good example. I mean, they're they're very close to the 40%. And we're getting some covered parking here, too. So, yeah.

No, I I agree. I agree with you. Just just concerned about the unknown if we Right. Yeah. So, we need to put some math to it for sure. Yeah. What's the square footage of the commercial space? Um, just under 1,800 square feet. Pretty good size space. Some good size space. Yeah,

so um go ahead and we'll finish the presentation. and we'll have a discussion and bring the public into it. Okay, I'll uh I'll be quick on these next few so we have more time for open discussion.

Um so the next items I just wanted to highlight deal with um parking and the sidewalk. So the applicant proposed seven perpendicular parking spaces uh along Mil Avenue mostly within the Mill Avenue right ofway to serve the development. um you know uh on street parking is allowed to serve you know the parking minimums for properties in the riverwalk zone. Um one of the quirks with this was um this proposal you know they the alignment of these parking spaces were kind of reflecting the existing paved area of Mil Avenue which I'll show on the next slide as well. Um and this resulted in this um you know kind of skewed parking angle in relation to the building and the lot line and then you had this um sidewalk of varying width that was you know approximately 5 ft at the narrowest and then widening out going to um the west. Um so this kind of shows those parking spaces angled to kind of respect the existing alignment of Mill Avenue if you will. Um but one other thing is that um sidewalks are required to be a minimum of eight feet in width in the riverwalk zone. Um so this sketch plan isn't um compliant with that provision of our code. Um and I also, you know, in staff's opinion, I think perpendicular spaces may not be consistent with the long-term vision of the street or just, you know, our our kind of downtown streets in Frraasier more generally. Um so something that staff proposed to the applicant um was you know first locate the sidewalk fully within the Miller Avenue right ofway. Um Mill Avenue has 60 ft here. This uh white line here at the bottom is the the

southern end of the rideway boundary. So within a 60 foot rideway you can fit, you know, 8 foot sidewalks on both sides, parallel parking spaces on both sides and a travel lane. That's what the town is doing over on Clayton Court this summer. Um so the initial you know kind of suggestion from town staff is to do a similar type of street section and kind of as you know an initial phase or say what the applicant would simply be responsible for is the area in front of their property. So simply just building the sidewalk lot line to lot line and and paving this area. Um, it looks like you could maybe fit four, but certainly three parallel spaces in this area in front of their property. Um, and at a minimum, this could be viewed as an interim condition. Um, as as staff and the planning commission and board of trustees, uh, kind of envisions a more finalized vision for the entirety of Mill Avenue, if that makes sense. if something other than 8ft sidewalks and parallel parking on both sides is envisioned. I mean there there are ways that um angled parking could potentially be accommodated. That does take up, you know, approximately the same area as perpendicular. So you not you're not really saving a whole lot of space with angled as you are with um uh parallel spaces, but you can fit a bit more parking in. Um and yeah so certainly alternatives to consider.

So the previous slide um the parking goes all the way across the valley pan then correct. So that's yeah I don't know that's pretty narrow street as it is. What's the pavement width on middle there? I think the asphalted section is probably 22 to 24 feet and then the the valley pans I think are typically four feet wide. Four feet wide. Yeah. The are they needing the uh perpendicular parking in order to meet Yeah. They're pretty

parking requirements. They short on parking for the number of units. Is that why they want to do perpendicular versus your suggestion of parallel?

Yes. So with the perpendicular spaces they were in Stafsu I think just one maybe two spaces short depending on how you do the math. So even with the perpendicular and the you know uh amount of commercial square footage being proposed and the number of units in their bedroom you know bedroom counts um again depending on how you round one or two spaces deficient. So even when you so when you go from perpendicular to parallel and you lose um three or four of those spaces that creates more of a deficiency certainly with this proposal. But that's a great segue into um the next kind of item for discussion is that in our code um there is an allowance a a 10% parking reduction for properties that are um within 250 ft of a transit corridor which our code defines as highway 40. Um in staff's opinion 250 ft is a very short distance. Um so this radius this circle shown here is 250 ft and you know placing that kind of at the edge of highway 40. Um this site is just outside of that I would say um being down here. And um you know in in more say urban context or when thinking about transit planning a typical walkshed to a transit stop is anywhere from 1/8 of a mile to half of a mile. Um again I think our context here in Frraasier should be viewed somewhat differently than just you know general best practices. But something I did want to show for the planning commission is putting just a a/4 mile radius around the site. Um there are 10 different lift bus stops um and a handful in in very

close proximity. I mean Gorinson station certainly um extremely walkable from the site as well as the um Amtrak station, the bus stop. Um, so you know, I I would view personally this site as being in close proximity to transit just based on this alone. Um, but just looking at the size of even a quarter mile radius, um, then, you know, we're talking about if if we amend our code to allow this, then we're talking about um a potential transit reduction for most if not all properties in the Riverwalk zone district. So, I think it's just a balance between maybe kind of the on the ground reality of there there is pretty good access to transit throughout the Riverwalk zone district, but um how

and that was the vision for the Riverwalk district as a walkable district. So, yeah. Yeah. And I think that 10% reduction is still subject to planning commission and board approval. And if if it's not written that way, it certainly could be. It's not an automatic thing is my understanding. So these again are opportunities to clean up our regulations too. And and I would like to point out that um if you're looking at lead standards um they have you know radiuses that they promote for their neighborhood plans andor transit. And I believe I'm doing this by memory now but I believe a quarter mile they use. Sure. Yeah.

If you're within a quarter mile then you qualify. Yeah. for the lead standard. Um, it's something we ought to look at and be consistent. But I I'm certainly okay with a quarter mile. Yeah. Yeah, I am too. Yeah, even in ski boots. Yeah. Yeah. I've walked further than that in ski boots before. You have to just to get from the stupid parking lot to face of the mountain.

So, uh, that concludes the major items I just wanted to touch on. Certainly, there's um other aspects of this proposal um that we can talk about in in conjunction with the applicant. Um but just as a reminder, next steps be a major site plan application. The applicant would also need to submit a major subdivision to combine what are currently two lots into one. Um and staff is recommending that the preliminary plat step be waved um and allowing the applicant to proceed straight to a final plat. that.

So, it's it's an allowance in our code. If a sketch plan is submitted, um staff has the ability to wave that preliminary plat. Um the reason being that especially when the sketch plan comes to the planning commission, that's kind of viewed as a you know, it's not a notice public hearing, but it is a public forum for reviewing the application. Um, so by by doing that early on in the process, it's kind of allowing them to not have to do that as the preliminary plat step. Um, but still having the public hearings for the major site plan and final plat. So it's kind of incentivizing the applicant to do this sketch plan to get this initial feedback and by doing so they get to skip a notice public hearing. H

you see you cited one one thing in our regulation that talks about relative sizes of buildings and this is our first major project in what was a residential area and obviously has been a business zone for a long time but you know we've got two houses on either side that are 12 feet tall Bryan is a bit taller but I'm not sure how we address that you know

yeah I think that is um you know maybe steps in the building the kind of, you know, clear story type. They've got they've got a loft apartment on the on the fourth floor that, you know, maybe there's without losing a lot of square footage, is there some way to make the mass of this look not quite so out of place in in that neighborhood, although that neighborhood of course could over the years changed to all of this too. So, but I think we put that in the regulations for a reason. So

yeah, that's that's a great point and um you know in referencing it's from our building design it's for commercial and use development in section 194190 there is a um a design guideline that speaks to the mass of buildings and it says that um they should be compatible with adjacent buildings. Um, again, I think it's it's maybe up to interpretation by the commission and our board um how much you weight, you know, what the zone district allows for this site compared to the existing uses that have been there historically. Um, but I certain certainly don't argue that, you know, this a building of this size would be taller than what's there adjacent to it currently. Okay. Any other comments from the board? Hear from the applicant if we could hear from the applicant if we could. Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, online. Gotcha. Sorry, I thought he was texting.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, you can go for it. All right, sounds good. So, my name is Jeff Anamic. I'm the architect on the project. Can Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Awesome. Um, I will share my screen um because I think that'll be helpful if I find the right button.

Right in the middle, the giant green one. There we go. So, we've um after making our smittle uh back in I guess it was December, we we did come in and have a meeting with staff after receiving the comments on the the initial sketch plan. And uh it was in my opinion, it was incredibly helpful meeting for for us anyway to get a better understanding of sort of what we didn't understand about the the Riverwalk district zone and and what the goals were there. So, we actually took a lot of the the feedback from from that plan um that meeting and this in the sketch plan comments that we received and have implemented them in a kind of revised version. So, I figure I'll just kind of run through this quickly and then um any questions happy to answer them um about why we made the changes we did, but I think this kind of mitigates a lot of the original of the the more significant concerns that staff had. Um overall look at the building hasn't changed a whole lot. We we did kind of freshen it up a little bit. um and uh added some of the features that that staff notes um in their their comments. Um but the big change that we made um is actually how we address the site. The the plan now is actually to do tuck under parking or not tuck under but actually do a parking level underneath the building. Um so fully not fully underground because of the the limited space we have on the site to actually ramp. Um, but to come off the alley with a drive aisle that ramps down to essentially like a garden level basement and do all the parking underneath the building or most of the parking underneath the building. We still likely would want to keep these three surface spaces. Um, and then we the hope is to keep the cottage and a parking space next to that cottage. Uh, and then change the parking along Mill to be as staff recommended the parallel parking and the eightoot sidewalk in the rideway. So with this change um we actually also kind of rethought what we wanted to do with commercial space. Uh

we decided that it would actually be more beneficial for us and the way we think this building would get used to essentially eliminate um the to try not to stop trying to go after the commercial allowance for the density increase and instead go for the um the density increase with affordable housing. Um, so our plan now is to maintain some commercial space on this because I think that is a key element of the Riverwalk district and also um a feature of this building that that we have a potential tenant that would be interested in the space and and so we're trying to size it appropriate for that. Um, but the now that we're going after affordable housing as the density waiver, um, we're able to eliminate all the kind of weirdness with the ADU of the cottage. Essentially, the cottage is a unit and we now have uh that one unit plus 15 units in the building um that we need to find parking for. So, we've got underground parking um in the basement of the building. I'll just do it here. So, essentially the drive comes in the back. We've got parking on both sides of a kind of basic parking structure. uh two stair towers and the elevator connecting that to the rest of the building. The main level consists of five units um of varying size um a number of onebedrooms, a studio and a couple of two bedroom or yeah a couple one two bedroom sorry. Uh the second floor uh is pretty much the same as it was in the the the initial application. Some minor tweaks to where where some balconies are and that sort of thing. Um and then the third and its connection to the the lofts, the fourth level. Um also similar uh but we did actually bring one other unit all the way up to a loft level. So in the original application we had three units that went to the loft. Now we have four that go to the loft. Um

so some changes there. We also did uh want to try to get to sort of a a common area on that loft level uh for the tenants that don't have access to a rooftop deck. So, this would be a common rooftop deck on the front of the building that you can kind of see in that front rendering. Um, just to kind of a minuteize the building a little bit more. Um, so yeah, so that that was sort of the the feedback we kind of took in from that meeting. Uh, the location of the building right now, um, rather than trying to center on on the lot because we're we're bringing this drive aisle in, we want that drive aisle centered on the building. We're trying to keep the cottage, so that's sort of driving the building location right now. Um, we do still have a setback. I don't have it dimensioned on here, so I apologize for that, but roughly 12 feet on the um, west side and more like approximately 18 feet on the east side. The idea with those sideyards is uh, access to the ground floor units as well as some open kind of green space for the building and also separation from the neighboring properties. I I unders I heard the conversation about you know how do we um how do we mitigate the scale of this building relative to the scale of the existing neighbor neighbors. Um we're hopeful that the the extended side setbacks are a mitigation um strategy for that. Uh but right now we are trying to lean into the building mass and height that's allowed for the Riverwalk District because um I think that's the the goal for the area. Um so rather than limiting it to where we're at now, actually leaning into the future, we did look at that. Um the other thing we were thinking about was that the the buildings across the street, while the the neighboring um immediately adjacent properties are single story residential, singlestory single family, um the ones across the street are twotory with some higher roof lines and just a little bit

to the the southwest you've got some larger multi-story multif family uh residential buildings. So, while we we are definitely a bigger scale than the immediately adjacent neighbors, we're I don't feel that we're out of scale overall. Um, so I'm hopeful that that also mitigates some of those concerns. Um, and I I I guess I did want to also respond, you mentioned a concern about fire separation and what the requirements are for the neighbor neighboring properties. Um, we do have that property, well really both of the neighboring properties are by building code too close to the property line to not be fire rated. Um the the fire the building code requirement is relates to our building and our property line. It doesn't actually relate to our building and the neighboring building. So no construction on our site would trigger any improvement requirements to a neighboring site unless there's something special with the the local fire district or your local building code that I haven't looked up yet. Um but typically that wouldn't trigger something for the neighbor. It would only be if the neighbor improved their property that they would then have to comply. And that compliance would have nothing to do with the location of our building. So even if we kept our building, you know, 30 feet from the property line, it's the fact that their building is near the property line that triggers a fire requirement for them. So um as far as our property goes, yes, where we're 12 feet off, we're going to probably I think that winds up with like a one hour wall where we're um close to 20 feet off. I think there's no fire rating required for that. So, um, anyway, you know, it was, like I said, very helpful to meet with staff and and kind of go through these comments and their comments and then have a chance to make some updates before this meeting. So, sorry for the, you know, kind of 180 on some of those staff's presentation, but hopeful that this kind of moves us more towards a compliance and and facilitates this conversation.

So, Jeff, um, this is Andy here. I've got the the what's the grade of the first floor? I mean, how deep is this this uh underground parking going to be?

Um, so it's uh it's it's a challenge. Um, so what we're doing right now is actually stepping. So the you can see it on the rear elevation here. The the garage is the entry for the garage is only um about a half a level down from the the main level slab there. So we have a little bit of sight grading from front to back. The alley is about um about 18 inches lower than the street. So coming off the alley, we've got a little bit of progress already in terms of getting down into a basement. Um but we only do manage about um you kind of see it there, about 3 ft of fall before we hit the doors. And then once we're inside, we can continue to slope that slab down. So what we what we're proposing to do is essentially um slope the So this is the the west elevation, the front of the building. Um, sorry. The front of the building being on the right and the alley being back here on the left, the um, basically the the basement slab is going to come through um, on a slope and we're going to step the floor inside to match that slope. So the the uh commercial space will be at grade at the front of the building and we'll still be able to maintain 10 ft of clearance. Um so essentially the slab at the front will be about 9 ft deep uh after we deal with curb and sidewalk and slopes outside and then it'll slope up from there. So

you be you'll be as as deep as nine feet below grade or That's currently what we're looking at. Yep. Yeah. So I'm sure you'll do groundwater testing. I mean, I' i've got an old and it should have been filled in long ago, but I have an old surface well right on the other side of the fence from your property there. And Okay. typical groundwater level there's about 3 ft. So, wait. That's good to know. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, but I I'm I'm glad you're moving the parking in that kind of location, but it'll be interesting to see how how it works. So,

yeah, we were aware of of high groundwater in general. Um, and actually staff was able to give us some uh examples of recent development and what their soils test results were and it was pretty varied. Um, but we're we're going at this. We're trying not to be naive about it, but we are aware. Yeah, that might take a back and dig a hole there and see what you get. Right. Well, it sounds like a shovel if they were only going three feet. Yeah. Um, so Jeff, if you're going for the affordable housing aspect and there's no limit on unit number, why are you saving the cottage?

Um, so right now we're saving the cottage because the cottage exists. Um, so it in that sense it it has some value. Um, it also is part of the neighborhood. It's been there for a long time. Uh, it's a structure that Tom, the owner who's who's there in the room, he's got some history with. So, like the idea right now is to try to save the cottage. Um, it does have a long history. Yeah. Well, and sorry, I missed who was born there, but Well, I think I think I'm correct in that. I've heard from the Clayton that Cliff was born there actually in that that building. So,

yeah. So, that's why we're saving it is uh No, I'm just No, I know. But but Cliff Cliff was the Cliff was Cliff. Yeah, Cliff was the son of our first mayor. So,

um but yeah, so I mean primarily saving it because as an existing structure, it has some value. Uh it is not an amazing structure. Uh and it certainly is going to need work to be more habitable by the time this whole project's done. It also does give us the opportunity to use that structure as a place for like the general contractor to office out of while they're doing this construction and you know facilities like that. Does it have a foundation? Does it have a foundation? I honestly don't know. I I don't think so.

Well, we'll get to some comments. Let's Yeah. So share the microphone and hear Tom. That'd be great. Um, so any other any questions for the uh project designer here from Jeff? Um, so how many units will be in total and how many will be affordable?

So we have 15 units in the building including the 15 units in the building plus the one cottage unit and I believe the affordable house the affordable requirement is 20% of the the units but I honestly I'd need to go back and check. Yeah, it's 20%. So if they're at 15 exactly, that would be three. I think 16 we would have to round up to four if I'm doing the math right if that matters. Um but yeah, 20% it minimum 20%. Okay. Yeah. Are you counting the cottage? Yes. Yeah. So a as a unit on the site we would include that in our ratio.

So is that 15 with the cottage or without? It's 16 with the cottage. 16 with the cottage. So when you basically four basically they can make the cottage an affordable unit and then have three in the Yeah. building. So yeah, we're we're talking four now. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Three in the building. Either way you knock down the cottage, three in the in the building. Yeah, that's exactly way to look at it. And then any other questions for Jeff? So, any comments from the public?

I like the idea of underground parking. Yeah. I don't know what the water tables say about it, but So, I'm sorry. Any comments from the public at all? Or Peggy has her hand up. Peggy, can you hear me? Yeah. Yes. Um, so I'm not What is the rule about set um balconies and a setback? Does it have to be Can it be protrude into a setback?

No. However, in the Riverwalk zone district, there are no minimum setbacks. So, as long as the balconies don't extend past the property line, say into the Mill Avenue rightway, um this would be allowed um in our code. Um maybe an item for discussion for the planning commission is um you know, it is sometimes common to allow encroachments into the right of way for things like balconies or awnings. Um but my understanding is that that is not allowed. um as our code is currently written. Uh but I believe and Jeff can clarify even with the revised proposal none of the balconies would extend into the ride ofway or across property lines. I guess my concern was I think that this new plan which I like and I am concerned about the water table but I do like the fact that the you know parking's underground but I do think for sailable units you need outdoor living spaces and it looked like we lost some of the balconies in the previous plan. And you know, I just think that being in real estate, it's pretty hard not to have an outdoor space when you're up up in the mountains. People really like that outdoor space.

Yeah. No, that's actually that's helpful feedback. And the way we have it set up right now, every unit does have a a deck or balcony um or or a stoop entry at the ground floor for the ground floor entry. So, they would have yard access. Okay. Because it just looks like on the that western exterior there's only two balconies on this. Mhm. So then I guess you got them on All right. On the end and there's only three units on that side.

Okay. All right. Um and and to answer the question on the encroachment like yes right now the way the site is laid out we've we've held the building back behind the property line so you can you can just see the the square columns of that front like porch condition

sitting behind it does mean that we wind up with you know a 13oot sidewalk. Um but you maybe that's not the end of the world especially for that commercial unit to be able to use outdoor space might be really nice. Well, I think even deeper even deeper balconies would be beneficial, but you know, I don't think I mean, if you had to walk underneath a balcony on a sidewalk, I don't think that's that's a deal killer. I don't

any uh comments from the public at all or just your name where where where you live, please.

Uh my name is Brian. I'm the other neighbor on the other side of this. And uh first I want to say um I'm not really opposed to this. Like it's actually nice to see something happening on this lot finally. kind of been an eyesore on the neighborhood for quite a while. Um, but most of my questions kind of go to you guys on the board here in the town with uh is this style building really what Frasier is looking for? I know it's allowed within the Riverwalk district. I know it's they're meeting all the requirements and that's great. and I'm I work in construction like it's you know if it didn't happen I wouldn't be up here. Um, so just biggest one I have for you guys like and for the board, everybody to kind of look at this. We build at Frasier's Funky. That's a huge slogan of ours. All this um this is exactly what they have a hundred of in Fort Collins in Boulder and Summit County. Like is that really what we want here? And if it is, that's it is. I'm not going to, you know, so you know, where does that go? Um, the other side of this, I would say, is just the that neighborhood was never really built with anything like this in mind. So, you have all that access off the alley in the back. Now, that's just a little eight, nine foot wide strip. Is that can that handle this even? you know, does that need to get fully paved or, you know, something done there? Um, the sewer line back there, I think it might still be an old clay pipe.

It is. So, yeah, still clay

like, you know, we're talking 15 16 units now for this. Like, um, stuff to think about there. Um, you know, I do like the underground parking. That makes a lot of sense up here. It eliminates your snow storage problem. was something on the original one and I was looking at it. I was wondering about where you're thinking you're going to go with that. Um, and then the building size like um to put in like perspective, this place is going to be a third taller than the divide condos neck across the street. You know, if you go over and look at the stuff Clark's building across the tracks, like that's how big this is. It's going to even dwarf the stuff on Highway 40 almost. Those are only three stories. This is a whole another level up, you know. So, um, just want you guys to think about that kind of stuff going forward with this. I know there's a lot more meetings to go and, you know, this is just getting started. So, that's why I just wanted to put a lot of stuff on you guys is is this the direction this town wants to go?

Thanks, Brian. That's, you know, that we've had long discussions about architectural. We have and um it never goes anywhere. Well, but this is this is showing us and I have to agree. I mean, I wrote a chairlift with an architect and no offense, Jeff. I mean um two years ago and I just asked her, could you guys do something other than boxes that are black and gray,

you know, and and I know it's an efficient use of space. is an economical way to build and we're trying to build things that are affordable, but kind of just got to think there's got to be some way we can mix this up a little bit. So, and that's and since this is a sketch plan, we can pass regulations between now and the preliminary plan, right? So, um yeah, I really think we got to look hard at at architectural standards. I totally agree.

And I would really encourage us not to let this skip. This is up to staff, but I don't think this should should skip the preliminary plan stage. It's just Jeeoff, you're breaking ground in a in in a new neighborhood, you know, and and and all of us, like I said before, we've we we wanted to go this direction, but somehow I think we can make it so that it's more salailable for you. Um, keeps the character of the town more. I mean, the the the the new building on on US 40 is okay, but it's large and black and gray and square at every corner. And I just think there ought to be some way we could still build things economically and give give a little more a little more um unusualness to it. Yeah,

I agree totally. I would agree as well. I was thinking I don't I don't dislike the look of this building, but it's like Brian said, it's there's 100 of them in Fort Colins. So, if we want to be different, it would be nice. Yeah. Yeah. Something a little more unique. Snow on your neighbors. Sorry. Do we have somebody else talking or somebody? Yeah, another comment. were welcome to have another comment, but it it was I think it was Peggy. She might be unmuted.

Um Oh, I I like the the look of the building. I do think it's a newer look. Um I don't really want to create think we want to create the old Wild West anymore. But that's not necessarily what I'm after either, Peggy, but I um Yeah. For what it's worth, I know I appreciate the feedback. The um I and I get what you're saying to that architect on the chairlift. I see plenty of those, too. I don't think we were leaning into a black and gray building here. I think the intent with the brick and the the stone was to warm it back up and do more of the natural finishes on this building.

Um the same with I mean the the the architectural standards do specifically mention like timber posts to to warm things up and give it a little bit more of that. I don't know about wild west but western feel and I think that's very appropriate. So I think our intent here is more of a warm tone than a cold tone for the for lack of a better term. Um but uh yeah I mean that's the feedback's helpful. Um I do think we are trying to to build an as efficient a building as we can just because of the cost what it costs to build. So trying to to shape the building and carve off the corners and soften it, like all that sounds good, but it takes away from salailable space and and drives up the overall cost per square foot building. Um, so that's this is where we're at. Um, but you know, the feedback's helpful and we take it to heart. So Andy, if if in fact we are going to look at changing our architectural standards in any way, then yeah, I think we probably need him to come back preliminary plat because we don't want him to go forward too far and then pass some, you know, code requirements that now they don't meet.

Sure. So, we either need to decide, are we going to turn them loose to go to final plat are we going to ask them to come back for preliminary plat meantime if we noodle something out architectural standards wise then at least they've got a chance to react to that before they get too far down the line. Now, I I think it's unfortunate that we didn't have some color renderings because to your point, Jeff, I I get what you said about the stone warming things, timbers warming things, and you know, we just had a black and white sketch to look at here. And that's all you're really required to do on sketch plans. So, um, you and I'm thinking that maybe a preliminary platty comes back with some color renderings that we can begin to see what it's really going to look like in a better way.

I don't know if something got in the line that moment, but yeah, I wouldn't think Peggy, you're not muted. So Peggy, is that you again or? Um, just a minute. Would you go in the bathroom and talk on the phone? My husband's on the phone. Sorry. That's okay, Peggy.

Yeah. So, um, yeah, I don't think that we're in for the rewrite of the whole architectural control. I think I think there was I'm assuming I wasn't in the River Rock design control, but I think that was a major point. So, um I think maybe having some discussions about the materials and a color graphic would be beneficial. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Any other comments? I'm good. Anybody else? I like the plan in general. Yeah.

And I I like that we're dropping the parking underground. If we can do it. Of course, they do make pumps for groundwater. Oh, they do. Yeah. There's ways to deal and underfloor drains. So, I'm not I'm not worried that they can't do it. Are we saying they don't have to come back with preliminary? That's up to It's up to staff, right, Garrett? Is that Let me double check in the code real quick as we're discussing it. But I I think given given the tenor of the planning commission, um staff is completely fine with with holding them to a preliminary plan. That's the whole new plan we're looking at tonight. That's what I was going to say. The packet.

Yeah, the packet is very different. We like all the changes, but um but it's drastically different. So I think it should go back for prelim preliminary.

So Jeff Jeb, just do some thinking. I know that that uh that it's expensive to do radical things, but colors and materials are going to help, but um massing and roof lines and and the way you've got the roof now, it's it looks like it's draining within the building, which is great because when we're when up against these setbacks and thing, the last thing we want are 45 foot avalanches coming off on onto the neighbors. So, so it's tough to do radical things with roof lines when we're starting to talk about these type of setbacks and density. But just do some thinking about that and see if there's maybe some ways to to um funk funkify it if that's if that's a verb. But uh but just make it a little bit more unique. I mean, we're just we are struggling. It's very very hard to to to find uniqueness and and as a town we've we've we've tried to put that across and this uh the razor funky type thing is is just a a fairly it's just a it's hard to find the right nomenclature for we're trying to remain a unique to so

okay I'll figure out what that means um no pink flamingos goes though. Yes, that's my one. That's my go-to. Yeah. Well, so I don't know if you ever noticed on the corner there as you turn in the alley my Acme shed. Yeah, I did.

Everybody asked me what it is. And if you look closely at the saw blade that hangs there, it's a sticker that my my uh grand niece made and it's a picture of the Roadrunner and it says beep beep for service. And I and I did just come up with a Roadrunner steel statue I'm gonna put on top of that shed. I hope I won't get in too much trouble. It's not very big, but anyway. So, it's my Looney Tunes illusion there on the corner. But anyway, we're we're trying, you know, so in our in our own way to to make make this town fun for sure. And I I do like the fact you're getting units. I really like the fact that you're looking at affordable units because um commercial is a struggle right now, but it's a particular struggle to have affordable units. So, I'm really happy that you're looking at that. So, but I hope you take take Brian's feedback to heart and and come next door you guys and say hello for sure. So,

so any other question any other questions, comments from the public? Okay. Any other anything else from the board? No. So, do we don't really need an action on this, do we? Or

no, we don't. I think you know the discussion will be documented in the minutes. um staff will direct the applicant to submit a preliminary plat application. I think the preliminary plat itself should be fairly straightforward, just a plat that combines these two lots. Um, but concurrently with that, I think we'd want to see again just, you know, this sketch plan with the revisions made and have staff, you know, review that kind of as, you know, the first step of the site plan application and and that way we can bring that back to the planning commission concurrent with the preliminary plat and discuss some of those things. Um, you know, certainly the the building design, um, the alley only access is another topic for staff to to, you know, investigate and analyze and consider. Um, but

I'm sure the town the public works will look at that sewer line in the alley, of course. Absolutely. Yeah. Make sure that these are the these are going to work for this type of traffic. So, that's uh that was Harley alley actually for quite some times. Oh, but it needs a name. So, good to know. Okay. And thanks, Jeff, for responding really quickly to to the design and some of the feedback from staff and coming up with a pretty much a new plan here that definite improvements. So, thank you. Yeah, thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Thanks, Steph. Yeah.

Okay. Um, so we have a draft code amendment for the landed allocations and fees in lie of Yeah, thank you, Chair Miller. Um, I don't have a presentation prepared this evening just because I think it's easier. It's a fairly straightforward code amendment to discuss and if there are any questions, we can pull up the relevant um documents. Um but essentially this code amendment would just implement the updated land dedication or fee in lie of land dedication um that the East Grand School District has adopted and Frasier has also adopted by approving an IGA with the school district um earlier this year. So really in effect all this code amendment is doing is updating our code to reflect this adopted IGA and the you know because the is adopted this is our current procedure. Um but updating the code makes that process transparent and just better documented for the public developers applicants more generally. Um so um generally speaking the fees that are um that would be charged are decreasing previous to what was the prior policy. Um the prior you know policy and and calculation dates back to 1998. So it is quite outdated and um even though these new fees are lower uh they reflect current demographics and population trends um in the east grand school district boundaries. So um

get fewer students. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. I I think since you know in the last 20 years since that last study um the student population has remained relatively flat whereas the population in you know the school district boundaries has generally increased. Um so if that trend continues you know in this in the future we can expect for every housing unit that is constructed fewer students would be um part of the school district. Um, one of the great things about the IGA between the town and the school district is that this study and that evaluation will be revisited at least every four years. So certainly it's going to respond more quickly to demographic changes than has been the case um, previously.

Yeah, this is something that's come in front of the board a bunch. Um, I hate that the fees are going down. I don't think it's necessary, but they have to follow the survey. Um, so I'm just happy that it's going to happen roughly every three years from now on. So, and if we start seeing demographic changes, people staying with kids, then the fees will go up again. Yep. Then there are other fees in LU involved with this too or just just the school.

Uh really just the school. Um I can pull up the draft ordinance language though because there are some you know more readability formatting type changes to our parkland dedication language. Um and I'll share my screen here so we can talk through those. Um the purpose of this is really just to make clear in our code what our current policy is. So scrolling down to this section. Um again bolded underlined text is new text that is being added to our code. Um so specifically this this sentence right here about um payment in lie of land dedication for parks and trails being 5% of the subject real property. This is consistent with our current policies. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed in 1998. So it's just reflecting that in our code where we look at the total subdivision area. Take 5% of that um and that 5% area should either be dedicated as public parks and trails or if it's not then the applicant pays the equivalent value of that how whatever that 5% acreage is multiplied by the bare market value of the acreage. So, uh, yeah, and a lot of this language admittedly comes from the town of Winter Park and their unified development code. Um, just cleaning up our own code language so it's consistent. Um, especially with the the school um land dedication and fee and Lou that language is wholly similar is town of Winter Park and it makes sense given that both municipalities are part of the same school district. we should implement this um in the same way. You know, the IGA between Frasier

and the school district is substantially similar if not identical to the one between the town of Winter Park in the school district. So, McRan Crown Lake, I am just less knowledgeable on theirs, but I would imagine that their IGAs are substantially the same as ours. And as far as changes to the parks, um you're just removing some language or

um really adding more language. So going back up to this section here, which talks about land dedication standards. So things if land were to be dedicated for park use or trail use, we're not modifying anything here. Um, you know, so prime example, in the case of a parkland dedication, it has to be at least 3,000 square feet for the town to consider that a a usable park area. Um, and so this section here is is all about school fees um or school land dedication, I should say. So this is all new language related to school land dedication specifically. Um and then in the fee in lie of land dedication section um this subsection B specific to schools again just implementing the rates from east grant study um and looking at the language for parks specifically um again I think it's wholly consistent with our current policy and practice just um you know it references our new comprehensive plan and the parks, recreation, open space and trails element. You know, so if if the area that the development, you know, if it would dedicate a park in an area that's not needed and not consistent with the comprehensive plan goals, for example, that's one reason why fee and LU might be accepted. Um, and then it just has some additional language about if there's um, you know, an inability for the town and the applicant to reach an agreement on the fair market value. Um, you know, it just adds some additional language here about okay, what happens then? Um, whereas before it simply said an independent appraisal shall be obtained at the applicant's cost. So

then is it is it clear that um parks are public or yes I believe every time the word park is used here um it is also has the word public. Okay. Um the other thing is that if land is dedicated it is direct is dedicated to the town. So town the town would own that parkland dedication. Gotcha. Any other questions? Other questions? Bob or Peggy? Peggy, do you have any questions or No, I think I'm uh I'm good.

Okay. All right. So, um any other discussion? So, okay. So, we the motion would be um we've got several things here. Is there any motions you need? Oh, I'm sorry. public I'm sorry public any any public input sorry thank you

hi Clark Lipkcom for the record and and the question is really for Garrett I I guess my question there's a lot of amendments here and there's no real clear kind of red line here's what was changed exactly etc that is obvious which I always like I I'm always skeptical of government as you all probably understand and I think I well should be no offense intended So Clark being honest just a second. I think Gary you got things underlined and crossed out on you as far as

just on one of them. So the question is really uh is there some kind of what what precipitated these amendments? I don't care that one from 1998 if it worked it worked. I mean was there something in particular? There's not a lot happening in our town developmentally. Great to see this gentleman doing a project. I love seeing other people investing and trying to develop in our community. But my core question really is I I I feel like you there's things that are done kind of with no rhyme or reason or hey this this was actually a real problem that we realized and we should address this. So the question is to Garrett there's I don't know five amendments here of of pretty important items and like I mean Frasier doesn't have to agree with an IGA with the school district. Um, I mean, you don't have to adopt an IGA to agree with the school district on their fees. Um, they don't rule over you, right? U, as an example, if it truly lowers fees, I don't have a problem with that given the voter base or the the the tax that the voters passed uh to build the new school for the growing population in Graanby. That was $80 million if I recall properly. I think some of it went here for the expansion of this school. don't agree that our population in schools is flat. Um it may be declining postcoid but we didn't just spend all this money you know through the taxpayer vote uh to fund all these new schools because our you know schools weren't growing. Um, so the the bottom line is the schools have other means of revenues and and I paid a lot of money into the brick and mortar, what I call the brickandmortar fund for the impacts that developers like me have on our school system, right? Creating housing and bringing people to our community. And and the problem was I saw that squandered and used for roof replacements because we had a school district that didn't uh manage uh its

finances properly for a very long time. Um and uh they didn't build replacement reserves on critical items like roofs that you know one day have to be replaced. Uh and and developer Cash and Lou or or you know I even tried to give them land at one point. Uh because I thought land was more appropriate for really addressing impact of of of the theoretical growth and population that comes from development. But they didn't want that. They just wanted the money that they didn't use very wisely. So, it it it concerns me that these things are being done and and the question is, did the board direct Garrett to do these things? Did he just decide to go do them? What precipitated all of these changes? And are they really necessary?

Well, like you already address.

Yeah. So, I guess first starting and um I'll share my screen. Um in in the packet there are a total of six documents associated with this item. The first being the staff report. The second being a planning commission resolution that recommends approval of this ordinance and specifically attachment two is that draft ordinance that has text that's bold and underlined our additions text that has strike through our deletions from our code. So it should be very clear and transparent what text is being added, what text is being removed, um what sections um you know we we are proposing to delete an entire section that is no longer relevant. Talking about if land is conveyed to the town for a public school then when is it transferred to the school district that is not consistent with the IG land would just be dedicated to the school district. So again this is the ordinance there. There is one draft ordinance in the packet. It is attachment to um in terms of the IGA um that has been approved by our board that was approved by the board in February. The document that is in the packet is signed and executed. Um you can see the mayor's signature here as well as that of the school board president. So the town is um operating under this IGA as of January 1st of this year. Um I guess the impetus of all this came from the school district when they completed this new study, this new analysis for land dedication or fee in lie of land dedication um last year. And after this study was completed and adopted by the school district board of education, um they worked with the various municipalities and the county um within

the school district to update our own regulations to be consistent with this study. So um that was the impetus

that that that was the impetus. It is not coming from me. It is coming from the school district. Um and you know our our code should reflect our policies and our regulations and given we now have a IGA that we are operating under that dictates and spells out the process or this land dedication or fee in loo. um it would be extremely appropriate and very transparent to update our land development code to be consistent with this IGA and when our regulations and policies change we will update our code at that time right so um

so it's intergovernment re agreement yes between the two governments and the school district came to us with data showing that school numbers are going down as far as the relation to to land and develop then so to keep the fees fair and I I agree with Brian. I'd like to see money going into the school district, but I'd also like to see lower cost housing as well. So, so we we need to keep those those fees based on reality. And so, where did the parklands changes come from? Exactly.

Yeah, I think the parkland dedication changes just um again in talking through what they are. First, there are no changes to if the town were to accept land for park purposes or trail purposes. No, no changes are being made. We are still having the same um requirements and standards. Um you know, no hazardous geological conditions or steep slopes. Um it should be a logical link to other open spaces or trails and again minimum 3,000 ft in size. um and then the requirements for trails here. So those are not changing. The only thing that's been added related to payment of a fee in lie of parkland dedication is really the the most I guess pertinent or important thing is the addition of this subsection 2 that clearly states that it shall not exceed 5% of the fair market value of the subject real property. And where that comes from is this resolution from 1998 where um let me just have the whole text open. This is the formula to be used in calculating you know provision of parkland dedication or a fee in l and that's where that 5% comes from. Y

so it's just putting that into our code. um other puts a lid on the dedication based on appraisal, but there's still no more than 5%. Mhm. Um and then your other changes that have to do with with appraisals just sounds like it's more of a way to to mediate between the two parties rather than just having to send it straight over to an appraiser on the town. So, seems like it makes it a little easier to reach an agreement without further expense. So

yes, I agree. Um there is some additional language added about um payments for school sites being made payable to the school district directly. The town is not accepting that money. It goes straight to the school district. However, payments in lie of land dedication for parks and trails come to the town. Um those payments, again, this is consistent with town practice. Those payments are required at the time of recording a final or asbuilt plat with the county. Um, or if there's not a subdivision required for a proposed development, then it's payable when a building permit is issued. Um, again, I think this is wholly consistent with our our current um policy. Um language is added about um you know funds that are provided for um in in lie of parkland dedication shall be placed in a specific account um and only withdrawn for the purposes listed here um in this subsection two. This is new language to our code. didn't previously speak to withdrawal from the fund for parkland dedication or vianlu. Um this struck through language here um it simply said acquisition of reasonably necessary uh of reasonably necessary sites and land areas or for capital outlay purposes for parks, trails, recreational facilities or development of sites for those purposes. So that's kind of broad. We have added some additional detail here, but it is still wholly consistent with

the purpose of acquiring parkland, improving existing parks, um, you know, doing designs and planning for park and recreation facilities, etc. So, and again, this section has been deleted because it's no longer necessary. And then there are no changes to these subsequent sections other than just renumbering them because this section has been deleted. And then we've added a handful of definitions related to schools.

Okay. So I appreciate the explanation. Yeah. But to be clear, there's not been any problems or issues that have been that ex exacerbated this or caused these changes. um because I I mean I've at almost every meeting uh and I'm not aware of anything with regards to these but one thing that I am concerned about um is under your public and and this I believe is an addition under the public I can't see your TV but uh public park and trail fee in L amount calculation uh it it it sounds like a payment in le of dedication of land for public parks and trails may be accepted in the event the board of trustees determines that parks are not needed within the area development due to the size of development or proximity to other parkland you know blah blah blah blah blah so uh that's new language and I think previously uh it's the uh subdivision developers uh can can either say I want to dedicate this park to the town I've actually tried to dedicate trails to the town I can remember and they're like we can't take care of them so it kind an issue um on public trails. So um it was common question, Katherine, would you dedicate the town? I'd be glad to. Would you can you take care of it? And and the answer is no. So So one of my core questions here is, you know, it seems like you're taking an option off the table for a private land owner and putting it the hands of the board to to say, I mean, what what would happen? Let's let's just use my lot as a great example. we're in with sketch plans and have subdivisions going and engineering is going like crazy on those two properties. Um would I haven't heard from the town that they want to park on any of that property, but let's just play it out. If

they did, how ex when would they tell me into this scenario? Uh and exactly, you know, who would determine where that would be? Is it up to the board? Is it up to the developer who's investing town in money in the town? I mean, I think you can see where I'm going. You know, I I think you keep putting more and more uh impediments to private investment in our community. Uh and and putting it putting a lot of unknowns. So, let's take for example, I hear you want to annex the Jones Ranch. Okay, that 500 acres. You know, I don't know. We're fighting over my meadow, but we're going to go develop that one. That's interesting. But regardless, what happens under that scenario? Is there a park there? Do they pay $2.5 million to the town uh in lie of that that goes to other part? I mean, what happens, Garrett, and who determines it?

So, Clark, we're just trying to plan, you know, I mean, you we want our partners together. We want access between them. So, I think it it just fosters a conversation. I love the planning and all I'm doing. Let me finish.

Um, it fosters planning by the town in conjunction with the developer. If if you came forward with the park that was lovely, but it was completely surrounded by homes and we couldn't get to it. There'd be no reason for the town to have this as a public park. I I don't think you would do that, but it could happen. So, but but these are public parks. It becomes Frasier property. Frasier should have the ultimate authority to say whether and whether we can take care of it, whether whether it fits into the town master plan as far as where parks go. So I I I think that the the town does need to have authority over over parkland. So

yeah, but they they could have that authority written differently. You know, the developer and the board may mutually agree upon that. like you you could have mutual a 5% fee, but in this scenario, it's out of the developer hands. It's in the board's hands. And as we just saw, there's a lot of consternation over the river district that was rammed through and and has, you know, no architectural guidelines. This is not the first time I've heard concerns about modern architecture and how it fits into our traditional community. Yeah,

I do get compliments regularly about the, you know, much more traditional little bit, you know, trying mountain modern type architecture that I'm maintaining and and I believe that I I agree every with everything Brian said that that, you know, I was just in Jackson Hole and I was shocked to see, you know, fourstory modern buildings next to an old log cabin that's probably 150 years old. I mean, I was like, "Oh my gosh." I mean, and and to me, you know, we can go to the city, but we live in the mountains. So, again, you know, ill thought out. And what I'm doing, Andy, is because I've experienced almost every one of these things routinely, and I think I probably have, I don't know, 10 subdivisions in process with the town at least, plus, you know, a ton of final plans going for years. and and because of my experiences and the things that I've run into that cause more delays, cause more reviews, cause more money, and basically cause any other person like him looking to invest in the town and go, "Geez, do we really want to invest in Frasier?" I mean, I want to encourage investment and I want to avoid pitfalls, but I want clarity. And this doesn't create clarity. It's written by Garrett, and I understand why I wrote it the way he did. and he knows I like clarity, but we don't get a lot of clarity and and and and hence why we're on eight and nine reviews on subdivisions, right? I mean, this poor gentleman here will be here 3 years from now trying to get his project approved. Okay? So, just I'm just saying we already have enough challenges in getting development and investment in our community. I mean, just think of the money that would already been pumped into our town and the housing that would already exist in the commercial space that would already exist if we weren't running into review after review after review on endless stuff like this that basically you know what you would say is

um that's well this is my interpretation of it or you know u what was the term earlier more correct more correct so there's more than one correct like to answer the issue. Parker, excuse me. We're wandering way a field of this language and we'll focus on this language. The point is this language isn't clear. Okay. And you made your it is it is clear that the board the town board would decide. Okay. Without any input from a developer. You've had more than your three minutes. Let us talk. Well, thank you for giving me all the time. I appreciate it. But I the point is I'm trying to be protective of private sector investment. Yeah. Okay. And and I would like y'all to be respectful of that, too. as it's hard to do in this community. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for all the time, by the way. Yeah, it was way more than three minutes. Would you like me to sit down there? That's please. Okay. So, I mean, basically, I do think the ultimate authority on parklands needs to remain with the town. And I I do I and I believe this is fairly clear on that. Gard, do you see any

I agree. And I think instead of talking through rhetorical questions, it would be maybe illuminating to look at something that Mr. Lipkcom submitted uh last summer a sketch plan for Meer lot one. This is the wedge-shaped property bounded by County Road 72 Elk Creek Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad. It has Elk Creek running through the property. Great natural feature amenity. Um in town staff's review of the sketch plan, I would point everyone to comment number six here. We lay out the fees in lie of land dedication that would be required for this project. Specifically, subsection B deals with fund um and provides the dollar amount for the parkland fee that would be due if land was not dedicated. And we say specifically in our review, town staff may consider the dedication of parkland um of sufficient area along Elk Creek basically. And if this land dedication is provided and meets or exceeds 5% of the total subdivision area then there's no fee and loo payment of you know required. So I think in my opinion this is very clear especially at a sketch plan stage to give the option to the applicant. Hey we think Elk Creek would be a great public park and trail facility for the town to own. Um please consider that if you don't want to give us that land. That's fine. You can pay the fee in loop. Okay.

Okay. So, that is what we have provided and I think that's consistent with some other sketch plan reviews that we have done. And um ultimately any subdivision of this size that is you know has the option to dedicate parkland if it's that big then it is going to come before the planning commission and board right and we are going to have this discussion of is there the opportunity for a parkland dedication does it make sense or would the town rather have that fee and I don't think it's fully up to the developer or the town it is always as most things are a conversation between the parties, right? So, that's where I'll just leave that. If there are any other questions, please let me know.

No, El Creek's a perfect example. And I mean, we try to develop corridors of parks so people can travel through the community in nice spaces and that's only the town board has that type of overview and that type of authority to make those things happen. So, right. Okay. Any other discussion from the board? Anybody else in the public? Yeah, you bet.

Uh Brandon Jung U Grand Park. Um, one thing to consider uh is with public parks in private subdivisions, uh, think about, you know, hate to drop names, but uh, Tony Shear, you know, what starts living in a public park right behind some nice residential developments. It's problematic of course and and of course we respect and and understand it's a you know we work together to do this but a lot of times and the way the language is is worded currently is it's up to the town board and again something to consider with this public land inside of a private development. I mean, we're in the business of selling homes and obviously public parks and people staying in them and we have like the Frasier Cemetery, for example, big group back there. You know, that's been an issue for a while now, too. I think uh talked to uh Sergeant Essingler over at Winter Park PD about that recently. We've had some issues, so kind of got brought out, but uh figured that'd be something also for the board to consider when we go through this process. So, thanks.

Thank you. Yeah. Any other comments from the board? I mean, I I understand completely. As long as there's conversations happening, I think everyone's going to get to a conclusion that that they're going to be happy with. So, I'm I'm I think the the verbiage does have to say who in the end has the decision, but we're going to take all the applicants into consideration every single time. Goal is always to collaborate, right? Somebody's got to make the decision on public land especially. So, right. Right. Yeah.

So, the motions on these, any other discussions? Anything wanted to see tweaked or Okay. So, the motions on these Garrett, are you looking for several motions? Uh, it's just a motion on PC resolution 2026301. Just that just the code amendment to modify land dedications and fees in lie of correct. Okay, that's that second one. Okay, I move to um God, I never make motions. Um I move to approve PC resolution 2026301 recommending approval of code amendment to modify land dedications and fees and loop.

I'll second it. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other business?

I have one thing. I'll make it really quick. Um the um there's there was a there's an engineering study being done about the three possible uh routes out of the St. Louis landing. You know, there's there's the Sun River folks live next to me and they're coming up to me a a lot and saying, "What's going on? What's going on? We can't get any information. What's the status of that right now?" And who ultimately decides where that cutth through is going to go? Where does it stand? Does anybody know or is this not the proper place? I I'm just curious. Is it going to come before the planning board? Is it going to the board of trustees? Who makes that decision? And where is that engineering study? Because I'm getting a lot of questions and I don't have any answers.

Yeah, the stud is not completed yet. So, yeah, nobody knows what the results of that are going to be. I think it's just going to go to the the board eventually. Obviously, there will be plenty of public comment um for that, but and we'll make the study available for quite a while before any decisions are made. Okay. So, maybe we'll even have workshops or um or just have it on on the agenda to talk about but not make decisions, that kind of thing. Okay. It just hasn't been completed yet. That's just right. Is there a time on that, Brian? Or there is, but I don't know what it is.

Okay, no worries. Yeah, but anything else? All right. Okay. So, any future agenda items other than the uh the We don't have any because our planner's leaving us. Sure. Well, it's been great working with you, man. I think this your last meeting with the planning commission, right?

Well, this will be my last meeting here in person. Um, I am leaving Grand County uh in April. Um, moving back to Texas to be closer to family. Um, certainly it's been a real honor, pleasure to serve in this role and serve this commission, serve our board, and work with our other town staff. Um, I will remain on with the town remotely for a period um, just to help ensure a smoother transition with um, whoever is brought on board. Um but yes, this is sadly my last inerson meeting. So, thank you sir. Pleasure. Thank you for all your hard work. Yeah,

motion to adjurnn. So move second. All in favor? I Thank you. Thanks for a good meeting, folks. Y