Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There's two more.

Yeah. Holy cow.

Okay. Can everybody online hear us? Yes. Great. Okay. I think we are ready to go. Bob. Good evening everyone. Um Andy Miller is not with us tonight so I'll be chairing the meeting. I'm Bob Kissi. planning commissioner and vice chair. Uh, I'd like to call the meeting to order at 6:30. And first, let's do a roll call starting with staff. Antonette McVey, Alan Feliff, Garrett Scott, town planner, Michael Bra, town manager,

commissioners, Peggy Smith, Katie SS, Brian Cinnick, Margaret Bubbles, and I'm Bob Gi. Okay. Um, do we have an approval of the agenda for tonight? So moved. I'll second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. What about our consent agenda, which basically is the minutes from the last meeting, January 28th, 2026? Um, do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting? I'll move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

All right. All those in favor? I I. All opposed. All right. Um, open forum. If anyone would like to speak during open forum, please raise your hand and come to the podium, which we don't have a problem with that. And speaking none, anyone uh online have anything for open agenda? I don't see anybody

for open forum, I should say. Okay. Um, for the record, when we open the meeting for our public hearing, uh, we would like to have you, if you're going to speak tonight, we'd like to have you limit your time to three minutes. We'd also like you to, um, state your name and if you live in the town of Frasier. And you'll have three minutes each to speak when we get to that point in the program. Okay. Public hearing and possible action regarding Grand Park West Mountain filing number two parentheses the overlook at Grand Park parentheses dash preliminary plat and final plan development plan. Okay. May I have a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. Okay. So, open. First, I'd like to call on our town planner, Garrett Scott, to give his presentation of staff report. All right. Thank you, Bob. Uh Garrett Scott, town planner. So, as Bob mentioned, this is a preliminary plat and final plan development plan application for the overlook at Grand Park, which is West Mountain filing two. information on the development proposal. Uh the applicant and property owners West Mountain Development LLC. If you guys want, you can sit over this way.

A long be unreasonable unreasonable expectation.

Okay. Uh so the location we'll we'll show some maps but uh it's generally north and west of proposed extension of Grand Park Drive west of the Union Pacific Railroad. Uh the FPDP includes a total of 174 residential units, 500 lodging or hotel units, 65,000 square feet of commercial space, as well as recreational uses. And the property is zoned to land development within Grand Park. Uh this is a public hearing. Uh public notice was provided in the newspaper two weeks ago and applicant sent out mailed notices to adjacent property owners uh two weeks ago as well and that information is in the packet. In terms of the review and approval timeline for this uh development um if you recall a year ago in April we reviewed a sketch plan for this development area. Um soon after review of that sketch plan in April and June is when the FPDP and preliminary plat were first submitted. Um the applicant then followed up with a second submitt uh in December of last year. Staff has completed a second um round of review on those applications which brings us to today's public hearing. So, this map shows the development's location in gray. Um, again, zooming in, north of Grand Park Drive, the area uh just south of the gray area that I'm now pointing out in um in red uh is West Mountain Filing One. Uh and then you can see other features such as uh the railroad rideway, Highway 40, um and other existing and future proposed uses on this map. comparing this development area to the 2005 Grand Park PDDP.

Um so here on the left are the planning areas that are part of this application 8WB 9W as well as a portion of 10W. Those are what is included in filing 2. Filing one uh included the the balance of 10W as well as all of 11W. So, they're in the same general geographic location as shown here, just uh, you know, planting area bubbles have shifted around a bit and um, and moved. And then this just shows an overlay uh zooming into the filing two area which is uh up here uh overlaid with aerial imagery to better show its proximity to highway 40 um the village of Grand Park and uh the existing Leland Creek subdivision here helps uh provide a sense of scale of the proposal as well.

Can you um pull the sketch plan off the top of that little overlay just to see what's underneath it or not? Um I I have some Yeah, I have some more information on that on a later slide. Great. Okay.

So, this shows um the planning areas. As I mentioned in this proposal, there's 8WB, 9W, and 10W. Um kind of also broken out into kind of sub planning areas. Um as well as this green area is planning area 23W. So, looking at this map, and I'll also zoom in to each area. Um 8WB includes um town homes um attached uh residential. Uh 9W.1 includes town homes as well as a mix of these larger lodging and commercial buildings. Uh this one down here as well. 10W.2 also includes predominantly lodging and commercial mixeduse buildings as well as a single four-unit town home building. Uh 9W uh includes the clubhouse building and 10W.3 has a mix of these are um multif family in this area here and then uh this area are um kind of individual cabin lodging uses. Um, I'll also note that in 23W is um a planned uh sport, court, and recreation area um kind of centralized within this filing. Um, you know, staff determined that these recreational uses um are acceptable for the, you know, facilities use of 23W. Um, Outpost Club Drive, which extends off of Grand Park Drive into filing one and filing two as a collector roadway, is also included as part of planning area 23W. This is consistent with the Grand Park PDD to include um certain major roadways as 23W and not other planning areas. Um and then zooming out planning area 23W

um outside of those areas outside of the sport courts and the collective roadway is just generally open space. Um the FPDP does identify um potential golf uses um but it you know it doesn't approve, this FPDP would not approve golf uses at this time. It's simply just depicted as a a conceptual use. um as well as a couple detention ponds. So that's kind of the layout of the site. In terms of open space um within this FPDP, it does meet the minimum 15% open space required within the planning areas. And that's even with um as we zoom in here, a lot of open space areas aren't even being kind of tabulated in uh the FPDP at this time. only the shaded areas are, but um you know areas um there there plenty of other other areas that aren't highlighted that are also open space. So um stuff has no concerns there. Um there are landscaping plans provided um primarily for the lodging and commercial uses is where the landscaping is uh proposed. And um the landscaping plans do appear to meet uh town code requirements. And then zooming in on the clubhouse and recreational use area itself and its landscaping plan um just for further detail. So, next I'm going to speak to some of the um items that staff highlighted in our staff report. Starting with the clubhouse building itself. Um if you recall from our review of the sketch plan, this clubhouse building was previously uh proposed to be included in planning area 23W. Uh this FPDP now places that within 9W.

This is consistent with the Grand Park PDD. So, um, the applicant has addressed that comment from the sketch plan, and they're also counting this, uh, clubhouse building as commercial use, which was another comment from the sketch plan. So, um, staff appreciates the applicant making that change. A couple other review items to flag um, in terms of parking. Um, just one area to to highlight for the planning areas. Um, awareness. this specific lot um in uh I believe it's planning area 9 uh 9W. Um this is a 50 lodging unit hotel and um 3,000 foot commercial building. Uh but the parking area on this lot itself only has 21 spaces. Um, normally, you know, our parking minimums in our code would require 58 spaces for this use. Um, because it's two separate uses, uh, a 20% reduction could be allowed, uh, to, you know, consider shared, you know, parking shared between those uses. Uh, but still, even with that 20% reduction, that results in 46 spaces. Um, but I will also just add that in PD zones, you know, it's not required that parking be. It is a negotiable item. Uh, but I just wanted st um the planning commission to be aware of, you know, this lot specifically having fewer spaces than would otherwise be allowed per code. Um I I will note that it's not shown here, but just off on the other side of this terrain way road, there is the larger um parking area for the the balance of the lodging in commercial buildings. And staff does believe that there's sufficient parking um there to cover,

you know, the parking requirements for this lot specifically, if that makes sense. but it's not, you know, directly on this site. Um, so to that point, another thing just to bring to the planning commission's attention with regards to parking, um, in this parking requirements table and specifically this final column here that tabulates the parking spaces provided in each planning area. Uh what these numbers also include are a total of four spaces each per town home unit. So um that's reasonable. It assumes you know two garage spaces as well as two spaces on the driveway. Um but just you know without that knowledge I think looking at this table it could give the impression that um these planning areas are are way overparked. Um, so just for reference with with what we're looking at the on the screen here, uh, with planning area 9W.1, um, out of these 436 spaces, uh, 224 of them, which is slightly over half, are for these town home units. So they wouldn't be utilized by hotel or commercial uses. Um, so that leaves 212 spaces for the remaining um 250 lodging, 6,000 square feet of commercial space, which is is pretty close to the parking minimum that's required. So again, not a concern about a lack of parking overall, but just wanting to have some separate tabulation. So it's it's more clear, you know, if there's if this FPDP is proposing any reductions either from, you know, the the shared use aspect that just to make that a bit more clear.

Where is the um the last uh the one that had the not enough parking in relationship to this hotel? It's it's right off screen right where this red dot is. Okay. So going back um looking at that specific site, you can see terrain way right here and then this building footprint in red that is this building seven right here. Um and also to back up to the overall um site plan. This is probably a good one to look at.

Thank you. So, did they specifically state or did you just assume that they were going to have two-car garages because those lots look really skinny and it could be a onecar garage with one parking space which would significantly reduce the number of parking spaces.

Sure. um when the applicant presents they can certainly clarify but I think the way staff um kind of deduced that was going back to this parking table um planning area 8WB is the one that only has town homes. So from this parking table the 44 town home units with 176 spaces provided that's how we determine okay so they're providing four spaces per unit. So just yeah cuz I mean if you look at soldier and you see what the parking situation is going to be and they're all onec car garages. I think I mean I it was really hard to read how wide those lots were. So I mean I think we need to really confirm that that's the plan.

Sure. I I would say um you know staff can during the meeting look at the width of those lots. My understanding is that they are similar if not identical to what's on Hey Meadow and I believe those all have twocar garages.

Yeah. So so I I think it's um reasonable but that's certainly something we can look at with um as part of our review. Um so so in general just bottom line on this is just ensuring that um the parking is tabulated and split out between these town home and lodging uses so that it's clear you know to what degree this um kind of mixed use uh reduction in parking is is being proposed. But broadly speaking staff doesn't really have any concerns with with the parking as as proposed. Um the next comment that was I um mentioned in the staff report was a depiction on the 2005 PDD to have a trail facility adjacent to the railroad. So this is a a colorized version of the Grand Park PDDD. Um it may be a little bit difficult to see, but I'm tracing with the red dot a blue line which staff believes is meant to depict a a regional or community trail. Um, you can also see that blue line kind of peek out here and here. Um, but just zooming in and kind of tracing that line, um, it does overlap with some of the line work for the railroad ride ofway and planning areas. But when it kind of deviates from those, it is clear that there is a line here on the PDD and staff is confident that it's meant to depict a trail facility. Um, recognizing that this what we're looking at, this colorized version is not the recorded document, I just wanted to compare this black and white version of the recorded document. And first just kind of alternate between the two to show that the line is in the same location. And again, just zoom in to see how this line work

is is slightly different than, you know, the railroad rideway or that for planning area. Doesn't that even say trail? full scalp.

So again, it's it's it's hard because of the fact that this is now in black and white. The colors that were present in the legend before are not visible in the recorded version because the recorded version is is black and white. But again, staff believes this is a regional or a community trail. I mean, I I the distinction between the those two or how they're defined is also somewhat unclear, but I do believe that it's clear from the PDD that there was this intention to provide a trail facility on the west side of the railroad. Now, I think we talked about this a little bit with West Mountain filing one, but um whether it makes sense to provide that trail facility is certainly up for debate. I know there were um discussions about um the topography in this area, if it's not suitable for a trail. Uh we discussed, you know, on the um on the Cousins Meadow side of the railroad, there's that informal trail that staff believes is mostly in the rightway for Union Pacific. Um could that be viewed as an equivalent facility if that was formalized? Um sure. You know, I I think maybe in my mind the intention behind providing a facility like this is just to provide um a you know, a non-motorized pathway means of travel to get from um kind of the extreme west uh east to the extreme west side of Grand Park without having to go up um and back down Grand Park Drive where there will be a paved trail facility. And it also serves wildlife.

Sure. You know, if it's not a paved trail, it's just a single track, dirt track, whatever would fit in there. And what I understand, there's a lot of wildlife that comes down the creek there and then heads up follows the tracks in either direction. So, um, and would we need to deal with the railroad and get a Yeah, good luck with that. might be easier than 45 just make sure that nothing gets built in it, you know, to block it. I would imagine that trail is not in right away or it would have not been added. I mean,

that'd be pretty presumptuous to say, "Yeah, we'll put a trail in in the area that we don't own." Well, we weren't build we weren't building trails back then when this was passed. Nobody was building trails. They were just happening from use. Gotcha. you know, people riding horses, a lot of people, you know, back in

the 80s, 90s rode a lot along there and that sort of thing. So, and then trailside living became quite a thing and everybody wants a trail near their house so that they can ride their bike or walk or Yeah. And um I think that having as many trails as possible on the west side for residents and for everyone else is huge because that's what makes a community that people live in. Well, it might be good to try to get HTA to take a peek at that route. Of course, now is not that great a time because it's mud.

You never know what you're going to run into. I just walked it this afternoon. It is slush. It is mud. It's slush. So, how far did you walk? Uh down about halfway to the trestle and then jumped over to the main roads old victory and came back. Okay. But yeah, you wouldn't want to walk it right now. Okay. But yeah, I mean I think it is in the railroad rideway though because they have a 200 foot wide rideway. The railroad does. Yeah.

And there are spots where you're within 50 60 feet of the tracks. So, I'm sure it may weave in and out of the rideway, but u for us to take it over and try to do something with it and make it an official Fraser Trail, I think we'd have to have something in writing with the railroad. Are you talking about the existing one on the east side? I think we're kind of more just referring to this west side up. Well, the rideway is on both sides of the road. It is right.

Correct. So, yeah, I'm more curious of the west. I think there's more distance on the west side to the tracks of let's put it this way. When the cows are over there, you can see where the trail would go because you could follow them their tracks. And I think there's more room for a trail on the west side of the tracks than the east. But didn't Clark say something about it being topographically difficult? Yeah. To it was so steep in there. He the last time we talked about it and he said earlier that was a problem. Yeah. The um Well, like I said, it doesn't have to be a pave trail.

Yeah. Could be just a simple path. That's Anyway, single track. Yeah. Yeah. Once you get like when you go under the railroad tracks, it's very steep. But then once you're up there, it's pretty flat. That's just a meadow back there. everywhere that this is being built, it's pretty relatively flat.

Yeah. So I I think just in in talking about this trail on the west mountain side, the west side of the railroad, I mean there does appear to be sufficient open space areas um in um their FPDP so that the trail could be located outside of the railroad rideway and it wouldn't impact any of you know these lots from West Mountain filing one or these that are part of West Mountain filing too. Um, so I again outside of challenges with with fitting it into this topography, I think there's sufficient physical space to locate a trail here. Um, again, I don't know if there needs to be a broader conversation about the the usefulness or utility of a trail in that specific location versus something else. Um but I think if ultimately if the planning commission would like to see you know a trail facility in this approximate location or an equivalent one then that can certainly certainly be added as a a condition. So

I think that would be a really good condition and it doesn't necessarily have to be right there but I think there needs to be a trail and we cannot rely on sidewalks. That's not a trail. That's just a given. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I've lived in two different houses in Grand Park and I had a trail in the backyard of the first one. I missed that trail. You know, I have a sidewalk now and that's great. But, uh, but the trail is really cool. You know, you knew it was neighbors that was they were using that in locals. Well, I think his overall plan for the community on West Mountain would include some trails anyway. He's going to have to

um now whether or not that particular trail alignment that Garrett was pointing out makes good physical sense to try to build it there. To me, the reason to do it would be is if it came around and connected into the Leland Creek trail system. Yeah. Yeah.

If you're not going to connect it into the Land Creek trail system, you'd move it up the hill some. You could put it somewhere else. But it would be nice to have it along the railroad track, you know, and then tie it in through the U where Grand Park comes up the road there. I think that it showed the trail doing that. It's tying in, right? So, um I guess I can't zoom in and uh have the red dot, but you know the the the trail that follows the railroad, it does seem to come into where Leland Creek hits Grand Park Drive. You see the the dashed line there? Yeah.

So, so that would be good. And then, of course, you know, it would connect into the the pave trail along Grand Park Drive and Old Victory Road. Um, I would say this, I've walked that area many, many times. The topography gets steep in there, but from the railroad track, I don't know where their rideway ends, but there is relatively flat area that that trail could go in, I think. Well, it's not a steep portion. You could do some switchbacks to get to the flat part,

right? Well, I mean, it does come down quite a bit like across the hill to meet up with Leland Creek. Um, so I think it makes I mean, I think this was designed intentionally. I think that would do the job. And again, this was from 2005 2005 PB. Yes. Okay. So, good discussion on the trail. It sounds like this is maybe a condition we can add to the resolution.

Um, moving on to the last thing. So, if you recall from the sketch plan, um, the applicant proposed or envisioned uh that the lodging buildings would be 65 ft tall. Um, within planning areas 9 and 10W, the maximum building height is 50 feet. As part of that sketch plan review, staff determined that our code does allow for height increases um with an FPDP. Uh we also determined that a height increase of up to 30% could be approved as part of the FPDP process without amending the the overall 2005 Grand Park PD. So this request for 65 ft is a 30% increase over the currently approved building height of 50 feet. So this represents kind of the the ma maximum height increased request that could be approvable through this FPDP. Uh the applicant has provided these um kind of conceptual building elevations for these lodging buildings uh generally showing them as you know fivetory buildings. So, you know, the way that staff use this uh request is is really seeking going from a four-story building to a five-story building. Um, the main thing I want to point out uh with these elevations is they depict a kind of conceptual um finish grade. this dark line in black at the bottom that is meant to reflect how for some or most of these buildings uh they would where their building footprints are currently proposed or on sites that are sloping. Um, however, staff just wants to make the planning commission aware that what is depicted here kind of uh is

uh it it's it's under reppresenting the degree that the site is sloped for some of these buildings. So, what's shown here is an 8 ft change in elevation from the left side to the right side. So, what they're showing is about 8 feet of exposed foundation on the right side and um you know the average four corners lies so weird that I can't get

in the middle. Um so that makes the the height 65 even though one side is 69 ft and the other is 69. Um so again this this shows an eight foot change in elevation but um there are some sites like this one here for building three that have grade changes of 14 to uh 16 ft. So like uh this left side here is the same as the left side that we were looking at before. It's like the front entrance of the building. This right side would be the back. And you can see from these corner elevations um 8868 and 8854 that's a difference of 14 feet. 8876 and 8856 uh and and a fraction this is a little bit less than 16 ft. So more than double the change in elevation than is seen here. So just to kind of visualize that for that building that we just looked at, the proposed grading would follow a line more close to this red one here. That means that this area shown in light gray would be, you know, exposed foundation or just part of the building on this right side above this lower finish grade. And that effectively means that the the reference point for the height measurement, the average four corners would now be lower. So therefore, this same building elevation would now be taller than 65 feet. So there are obviously ways to change this building design to accommodate this. One of the main ways would be to kind of on this right side of the building, drop this um top floor and instead have a walkout basement on the bottom so that you have a terrace building. staff would evaluate those two um segments of the building with different roof heights.

Um we we would now have two separate height measurements if that makes sense. So um it it would still be possible to have a building with functionally five stories on a slope like this, but it it wouldn't necessarily look like this. So you could drop, they could have another story down below on the walk out, drop the roof line, add a more terrace so it's not so massive

and it would everybody be happy or just as long as you're not behind them. You have to build this one first, I guess. So obviously the topography moves throughout that property, but there are some spots where you're below the railroad tracks and then you know spots that you're going to be positioned above them. I'm just wondering about like if you're on the first floor are wherever these are positioned are you basically staring at dirt that goes up to the railroad tracks or are you above you know and you can see kind of like and there was a sight easement there. What was that? what maybe that helps.

Yeah, those site easements that you saw um from the uh grading plan, I believe they're more for the curves in the road. Um we can pull that up and actually look at it here in a minute. I'm not on your question maybe was related.

Yeah, Steph doesn't believe those are related. Um and then Brian to your point uh we can also look at the you know the the finished floor elevations that are shown here in relation to um you know the elevation of the railroad. Another thing to note backing up here is um you know there is this road kind of beneath this building and just offscreen here where the red dot is are town home uses. So, you know, the the difference in elevation plus the height of those town home buildings, it could mean that um you know, that the ground floor on this right side of the hotel building would look right into those town homes. I think that's not something that staff evaluated very closely at this stage, but

it's going to happen. I was just kind of I I was thinking that these were like boarded up to the to the um railroad. So

yeah, backing up to the overall site plan, um, in general, they're they're not. So you can see the railroad and yeah, and all the all the 65- ft uh proposed buildings are in that central area. Um, so set back from the railroad quite a way, but again, adjacent to town home town home uses on terrain way. Okay. Um in terms of evaluating this height request um there are you know 10 different criteria which the applicant did provide um you know justification and reasoning on you know in staff's opinion some of the reasoning was maybe um less defensible than others. um you know, one of the criteria is um like proximity to um adjacent residential uses. Um again, there's those town homes that are right next to them, but I I think there's an argument that could be made that, you know, this is all part of a kind of uh consolidated development plan. It's not like these are proposed to existing uses. Um, and you know, it's it's I think it's it's something that would be known of any future buyer of of those town home uses, for example. Um, you know, that the applicant also referenced, you know, alternative site layouts, um, where, you know, if you had fourstory buildings instead of fivetory buildings, you know, to accommodate the same number of hotel rooms and commercial square footage, you know, naturally those fourstory buildings would have to take up more ground area. You'd have larger building footprints or or more buildings. um you know, they didn't provide any of those alternative site layouts, but I mean, it's pretty it's it's a pretty logical argument to agree with that you either would have

bigger buildings or more of them at four stories as opposed to five stories, assuming the uses are the same. So, so in general, you know, staff um is not opposed to this request. um you know it's it's um up to the planning commission and the board to approve this as part of the FPDP. Um at this time our main recommendation is simply that if this is approved um any any future buildings that are above that 50 foot height um those would automatically come to the planning commission and board for review and approval um and not just be approved administratively. So that way the you know the final design and height could be reviewed in a public way.

What's to the west of the lodge or can't really tell. Yeah. So more hill more mountain on this map. North is to the left. So west would be these uses here. So, so right where the red dot is, that's the core, you know, lodging area. The 65 foot buildings to the west is um where's the hotel? So, where's the So, all the big buildings um are So, the 65 footer is down there on the It's more on the west side. Are they all 65 ft? No,

they're they're proposing all of these to be allowed to go as tall as 65. So, it's a total of of nine buildings as shown here. And so, you got the courts and then there's are those duplexes. Um, which ones? These? Yeah. Kind of. Uhhuh. Um, I believe these are somewhere in the range of four to six units per building. Um, these are single unit like cabins, but they're envisioned to be lodging. And then this is a clubhouse and that's related to

if you're a member of the club, you can rent a cabin. Is that the deal or what? I I I leave that for the applicant to answer or specify. But I guess in looking at the plan, it strikes me that you've got basically on the east side of the railroad tracks. You're down here in, you know, the Cousins Meadow and uh area, Old Victory Road.

There's quite an elevation rise to get to the railroad track. Then on the west side of railroad tracks, you're going to have some of these taller buildings. But as you move on up the hill, those buildings aren't going to look as tall to the people who are buying property above the clubhouse, right? And from Old Victory Road, if you're over there driving along Old Victory Road, they're not going to seem that big either. They're going to stick up. Yeah, they're going to be high, but I think um anybody that buys below the lodging units, it's their choice to buy.

That's that's where mine's at. I like that this is a big plan. Like, this is what's happening. These buildings are going in. If you want to buy in between them and the railroad tracks, you're you're not going to see up the hill very much, right? But you know that going into it. Exactly. It's not like and putting a garbage facility moving in your in your front yard.

Well, yeah. And the the fact is that uh you know, we're getting a lot of density with these buildings. So, that's good. Um, but I I think those ones behind the four units, they're going to be totally blocked of the view to the east, which I mean, maybe you should build. I don't know. That that's going to be tough.

Yeah. I mean, I I'm getting flack and rendevous about the hotel. And you know, that's certainly not a you know, that's four stories, not five. And yeah, I just I think about walking on the trail on Old Victory and you like you can't see Buyer Peak from there as it stands right now. So, it's like if you see some buildings poking up, it adds a little intrigue if anything. um you know what's up the hill and basically whether whether you're whether you're below the railroad track or above the railroad track it's all grand park development

right if you had a dividing line where you have you know different ownership different property people already living there 65 foot might be more obje objectionable but you're right I see It is all part of a grand scheme development and it's allowable I guess Garrett says to increase it up to 130%.

The height I'm talking about. Yeah. And again, if I'm thinking about if they want to add 65 feet, they want to, you know, those economies of scale building one building a level higher and getting more units, they're going to want to do it somewhere, they're going to be asking us again. If we say no to this one, I think I think this is a pretty reasonable place for them. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. It's a good point. I agree with you,

D. their density and I had I think I brought this up at our other meeting. It's West Mountain's density overall is doesn't include the density that they um have or are allowed down in Kos's meadow area or is it the whole has a certain amount of because I remember him saying to us well you know if you put in that open space in conservation you but I'm allowed this much density where are you going to Would this help take the pressure off that?

Um, I don't think I included a land use summary. I I think maybe my comment on that would be within planning area 9 and 10W. Um, the 2005 Grand Park PDDD allows a total of 550 lodging units. That's true for that. And this this proposes um 500 so slightly below their entitlements in these planning areas. Um it allows 50,000 square feet of commercial space. They are requesting with this FPDP a 30% density transfer to bring that up to um 65,000.

Okay. So, and that transfer comes from largely, if I recall from their table, um it it's I mean it's planning areas within West Mountain. No, within the the Meadow side uh in between the railroad and Highway 40. Okay. Um off the top of my head, I know planning area 4W has commercial entitlements that would likely not be used. So, it makes sense to transfer, you know, 15,000 square feet up here if it can be utilized. All right. Um but but in terms of lodging, they're not they're not increasing above their current, you know, planning area entitlements there. Okay. So when they're building a hotel and it's five stories,

but the first floor is restaurant and the pool and workout, is that commercial or is that lodging on that first floor that nobody's sleeping on?

Yeah. So lodging is tracked by a number of units. So we look at rooms or keys or you know me measurement like that. Um when we reviewed the sketch plan and initially when the applicant had this proposal that these buildings be a mix of commercial square feet and lodging, you know, we we made the applicant aware of that kind of what I would call or what staff would call ancillary or um accessory commercial uses to that hotel. something like a bar restaurant that is integrated into the hotel itself. Certainly something like like a pool facility or spa. Like if it's integrated into the hotel, we wouldn't that wouldn't automatically be considered commercial square footage. Obviously, we want um the ability to review their building plans and make a determination based on concrete information, but just generally speaking, um staff staff believes that those types of things would not necessarily count against that commercial square footage entitlement. Uh but what I believe the applicant is envisioning is something maybe somewhat similar to you know a vertical mixeduse like commercial residential where on the ground floor you have completely separate commercial uses uh retail restaurants etc and above that you have say condos or apartments but instead you have hotel uses. So um a similar concept is something like that. So again, it depends on how the building is laid out and how integrated those proposed commercial uses are. Um, yeah. So that that's at this point that's kind of how we're looking at this.

So I guess don't we have a a zoning lodging zoning? I mean, is that because I mean, you you go to the Elmer Beaver Creek and they had, you know, like the Four Seasons where you can buy a unit and you can own it and then you could stay in the hotel in the same building. Can you mix and match? Is that the intention or is that something that we need to even consider that it's residential and lodging? Yeah, I mean at this time I think we don't have sufficient, you know, detail or information from the applicant to even, you know, know if that's a proposal that's being considered. Um, I would say that in our code, we don't have something like a condo defined. I know that's something that uh the town of Winter Park actually recently did just last year or so. So I think certainly we could easily adopt a similar definition in our in our uses. To what degree it would apply to, you know, our PD zones, Grand Park and Rendevous, which you know have a clear separation between lodging and residential units. That's kind of undetermined. But, um, again, I think at this point, we're just assuming it is a a hotel end user kind of just, you know, similar to the Spring Hill Suites or the Holiday in here in town right now, right?

Does does a hotel have different parking requirements than residents? It does. Um, so hotels are um one parking space per room regardless of how big it is. Um whereas for residential units it it scales based on the number of bedrooms or whether it's um detached or multif family, single or multif family. So if we were to approve this as if it's a hotel now and they later come back and say we're going to make them condos, they'd have to figure out more parking.

Yes. with the caveat that um our parking regulations do allow for uh flexibility or negotiation, whatever you want to call it, um in our PD zone. So, if in that instance um you know, they're not meeting their parking minimums for a residential use in these buildings, that could still be approvable by the planning commission and board without modifications to their parking quantity. So, if we approve this, they still have to come back with an overall we're going to show you what the building actually looks like and materials and everything. It's this is just kind of a sketch plan idea.

Yeah. So, um the annexation agreement requires that non-residential uses um when they are approved in an FPDP that they meet the what was at the time called our development permit process which is now our major site plan process. So, with a major site plan, you need you know final building design, floor plans, elevations and those are details that are not on this FPDP. Um, and that's similar to how staff processed the FPDP for the village at Grant Park. Um, and so that is a a similar framework to this approval where the non-residentidential lodging and commercial uses, there would be an amendment to this FPDP that includes final building design, floor plans, and elevation. Okay. Yeah. Um, so that concludes my presentation. Thanks for all the great questions and discussion. Ultimately, staff recommends approval of PC resolution 2026201 with the conditions as provided. Um,

plus you add Oh, yes. And and we'll add in the condition related to the trail. So, I'll go ahead and um type something up. We can type something up now if you'd like or we can kick it to the applicant for their presentation and then look at the resolution. I guess like defer to y'all. Yeah, let's wait. Let's hear from the Hold on, Leila. Hold on. Good evening. Looks like you got some nice digs happening up there tonight.

It's a stormy night. I'm jealous I can't be hanging out with you arm to arm. Right. All right, let me share my screen. Oh, I don't have my See All right, let's see here. Oh, baby. There we go.

All right. Can you see that? Yes. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome. Well, thanks for the good conversations. I think I'm going to answer a couple of your questions for you that you brought up um as part of your discussion that you guys just had. Um so with that, let me Okay.

Okay. So, uh what you're looking at here is basically a pretty version of uh of what um Garrett shared with you. So again, we're asking for, you know, the 174 residential units, 500 lodging units, and the 65,000 square feet of commercial. This is kind of So I'm going to totally flip you guys around on this one. So the uh railroad is down here at the bottom. So north is actually down in this particular graphic that you're looking at here, but I think this starts to show a little bit of how this fits into the context. And again, keep in mind that in the PDD, this is the densest part of West Mountain, right? This was the intent here was it to be the clubhouse, a hotel facility, a resort. So, this is kind of the resort component of West Mountain. And as you continue going west and uh south on this, you end up the densities get lower and lower, right? So, then you get into the to the larger lots and the other types of single family development. So, kind of keep that in mind as you're thinking through some of the conversations we've already had. Um, so in this particular plan, we do have 23W. We've got about 83 acres, I believe, of 23W. And this kind of highlights for you what that includes. So, it includes obviously just some open spaces. Um, it includes some of the potential golf or open space, whatever that ends up being, as well as the uh sport court facilities that that Garrett had already mentioned, and then the roadway. So, this kind of just highlights for you. Um, it's pretty extensive portion of 23W out of the 460 acres. this is, you know, 80 some of that. So, it's a pretty significant portion of 23W that this particular FPDP will contribute. So, Garrett brought up parking and asked that we kind of figure out a way to make this make a little bit more sense for you. So, we did just that. Um, he is

right that in the FPDP that we had shared with you or they had reviewed, uh, these town homes do have twocar garages and two parking spaces. So, the intent there was four. Um, in this particular plan, we'll probably just change that to two. Um, that's kind of what's required. So, we'll keep it simple in case we end up needing a driveway that's a little bit shorter, doesn't quite meet the criteria um when we get into the details of this. Uh, but what we've got here is the residential is in this category. We've got 348 required, 348 proposed. Uh, and then on the commercial and lodging, we've got 570. We did do a reduction the the uh 20% reduction for 1W8.1 and 10W.2. Um the rest of these we left the ones that just had the single uses we didn't we didn't include that reduction. So that's 570 and we show 593 again in total. Um you know we will continue to play with those parking spaces and and reallocate them as as necessary. But I think as Garrett already mentioned, we feel confident that overall for this purpose, we we do have all the parking that uh would be required as far as town code goes. So I wanted to kind of share that breakdown since Garrett had brought that up to me the other day. And I will include these breakdowns in the next submitt that we do that's actually in the FPDP document that will get recorded eventually. So trails So, I've got a couple slides as it relates to trails. Uh, this first slide that you're looking at, I'm hoping this is tracking as quickly as I'm talking. If it's not, please tell me.

You're good.

Okay. Um, so what you're looking at here is kind of all of West Mountain kind of as proposed right now. And you can see on here we've got the uh I got call them pink trails. So, that's the old Victory Road. That's the Grand Park Drive. Those are the large 8-ft uh paved trails whether they're concrete or asphalt um that are hap that will happen kind of in and throughout. We also do show that 8ft trail. So this is what I'm showing here on my mouse. This is filing two what we're talking about today. The roundabout here and then outpost club drive. So there is an 8ft trail also along outpost club drive that takes you up to the clubhouse and lodging facilities and adjacent to those lodges we were talking about. Um, in addition to this, you know, this is a Leland Creek trail that exists and then all of the on street trails or the five- foot on street trails, which you know, I know that that somebody had mentioned they don't consider those uh trails, but they they they are and people walk on them all the time as well as in these areas. I mean, in Steamboat, I just walk down my street. There isn't a there isn't a sidewalk in in my neighborhood there either. So, um, so I just wanted to show you kind of overall what what this looks like just so you can understand the extents of all of the pedestrian connections that we do show through all of West Mountain. And so then I'm going to zoom in for you a little bit and show you two, which again is right in here with the pink and the blue and the red. again showing these trail connections and how pedestrians um will move in and throughout this this resort area. And you know, keep in mind too that this doesn't show, but you know, at some point when this resort is is further def um finalized, I'll say um there will obviously be walks, you know, along the buildings, right, and in and throughout the the um resort itself, right? So keep

that in mind too as is the ways of people kind of getting around in this neighborhood. So So here's really the big the big conversation of the day, right? Has to do with the uh assumption that there is a trail that runs along the railroad. And I know that Clark had mentioned last time that we met that I wasn't able to attend. Um talked a little bit about the physical constraints around here. So, what I kind of want you to I'm gonna zoom in on this a little bit. Um, so what I'm showing you here is is topography, right? And so, if you're looking down here, I'm kind of over on the far right now at Grand Park Drive. So, each of these are twoft contours. So, you've got 10, 20, 30, 40. You got 60 ft of vertical between Grand Park Drive and this homesite up in here. You can kind of see the railroads. See how you can kind of see these contour lines how tight they get here. Same thing all through here. You got 30, 40, you got 10, 20, 30 feet. So, this this stuff's pretty steep in here. Now, you are right that it flattens out in here. But, I would tell you that you got a driving range here and these guys are going to be hitting balls that way, right? My nice little drawing like that. Um, and again, again, you've got tea boxes, fairways, all of this takes you right into the heart of this golf course. And I don't know about you, but I'm not taking the liability of somebody getting hit with a golf ball. Um, and you know, and if the town is interested in taking some of that liability, I'm sure that Clark would be willing to have a conversation with you. But, um, you know, putting a a a public trail through a golf course is never a good idea. So, so really just between the topog topographic constraints that are over here on the right side and then kind of the golf course and all that entails. Uh we feel pretty strongly that a trail

connection in this location. Uh whether or not it is shown on the PDD, we think that that was more of a golf cart path kind of scenario. But irregardless, um, we, you know, I think the physical constraints and then just kind the proposals around the golf make that pretty infeasible and pretty unsafe to be candid. So, I just wanted to address this and some of the physical constraints that we're looking at in this particular location. And again, I know that uh Bob mentioned he walked the trail that there is a not a formal trail, we'll say, but but some sort of walkway along along the railroad that exists now along with what's happening at Old Victory Road. So hopefully this kind of helps a little bit for you guys to understand some of the constraints that we're up against in this particular location.

So questions for me while I'm on this slide. Yes. I um could you show us where the golf holes are going to be and how many they're going to be? So the golf can you not see the golf holes on the screen? Blobs of green, but I don't see what 9 187 or

Yeah, the numbers aren't aren't shown on here, but this is a T box here. I don't remember if this is one or 10. It goes to a fairway, so you'd hit this way. Then you got another T- box here. And then you got a T- box. So this that's another T- box to a fairway that's right there, right? And you got another T- box here that comes up and goes to a fairway up there. So you've got balls being hit to obviously off the driving range and then off of this first hole, balls are being hit right into this general location. So is it what, five holes? Is that what we've got here?

We've got a driving range and you've got three holes in this particular location as well as our irrigation uh and detention pond which is that pond 1 a that you're A1 that you're looking at there. Amount of golf going to happen is four. There's more there. There's plenty. No, this is just isolated to this particular spot. There's there's three holes along the railroad along uh filing two. So, have you spoken with a golf course designer or you just decided that this is where it would be a nice place to put green? Oh, no. This is how golf course is designed. Yeah. If you look

I mean I Leila, I respect what you're saying here. You don't want people getting hit by golf balls, but I mean the houses on the left side of the longest hole are closer than where a path would go along the railroad tracks. Yeah. Well, they're not they're not outside walking in the during the middle of a

backyard. It's even worse. They're a standing target instead of a moving target. Um, I I would still argue that you could put a path um right along the right of way and and be okay, especially knowing that the the what eastern most hole the par three over the water that the um the T- box is on closer to the rail railroad. So, people aren't even hitting in that direction. I mean, I think there's space for for a single track right there. Well, I all all I'll tell you is is that um you know, if you're willing to take on that liability as the town, we're happy to have the conversation, but there there's definitely quite a bit of concern around the liability of somebody getting hit with a golf ball. I mean, you it's just you just don't mix pedestrian trails and golf. It's just never a good idea. So, I'll I'll I'll leave it at that.

Sure. Fencing. Yeah. I mean I think higher stones we could do I think trails are an important component. I think people don't want to be just I mean you know this kind of looks like aurora to me you know everybody walks on the sidewalk. It's really great. But we're in the mountains and the people that live in the mountains like to be in nature walking on trails, not just walking on a path and next to a street. Frasier River Trail, probably one of the most freaky trail. Well, I mean, we have nine miles of trails in in rendevous and it's they're heavily used

and people that's what sells rendevous. I don't know what Clark is going to use as a selling point since he somehow is has a complete aversion to trails. So, he's going to have to pick something and I don't know. Okay. Yeah, we'll keep that as a condition. Yeah. Okay.

Uh building height. So Garrett did a good job of kind of speaking to the building height that we're looking for. The 65 ft uh for the lodging uses that are kind of in this core area here. Um again, these are just some illustrations of what those fivetory buildings look like. And you know, keep in mind, I know somebody had mentioned the height of these and and them being a, you know, potentially just too too tall, but keep in mind you've got 80 foot 85 foot buildings down at Winter Park at the resort. So, you know, so this this building size in this location isn't is certainly not, um, an unreasonable request. Um, so I'm just going to skip to this next slide. So, um, Garrett had mentioned about the, you know, the discrepancy in some of the elevations along some of these buildings and, you know, one of his, uh, suggestions was to step the building. Um, another suggest, another way to solve for that problem is sight walls, right? And so what you're looking at here would be, you know, if you needed some sort of of sight wall here, uh, a 10ft wall, an 8ft wall, some some some terrace walls that are sight walls that take, you know, that take up that grade in lie of a. So there are other options other than the kind of what Garrett had had presented that can get you to that 65 ft height and be able to keep that same building. So, just wanted to share this as kind of, you know, an alternative uh a way to to solve for that problem. And there were probably more. Um, so these are just some um you have seen these before. I think we shared these when we did our sketch plan about a year ago. Uh, again, some of the illustrations and graphics around that clubhouse that we did move to 9W uh at at your request. So, again, it shows the clubhouse. shows some of the sport courts in the background and some of the the parking and some of the, you know, kind of what that particular space can

and will look like. So, um, with that, I think that is all I have. I'll kind of leave this graphic up for conversation if you need it, but um, I appreciate your guys' time tonight and I'm glad you have such a nice cozy spot to hang out. Lea, are you thinking it's going to be one hotel, one large like resort, or is it going to be different? Yeah.

Yeah, that's the plan right now. The plan right now is that all these buildings internal to this loop would be a resort. This one outlier could potentially be something a little, you know, uh, boutique hotel kind of scenario, but um, but the intent here is that this would be a just one large resort area. Great. Um, other thoughts on conference room space in these buildings?

Probably. It's going to come down to the resort, but there's no reason why there couldn't be. There's plenty of room out here, especially including all that commercial space that we included. And, you know, part of the reason why we did include that commercial space was for some flexibility. I know Garrett had mentioned that he thought that some of the accessory uses could be considered lodging, but you know, we we didn't want to take that risk that we decided to propose something in one of these structures that didn't quite meet that. So, that's why we added some of the commercial square footage in here just to give us some flexibility in users and without kind of having to have that uh discretion by staff or others on on what could and couldn't be part of the hotel or lodging use. So, have you made any anything considering possibly a convention center kind of format?

Yeah, I I I think the Clark is certainly amanable to that and is certainly talking to some some big users. Yeah, I think that especially if we get the golf course in here and do all that. I mean, that makes sense all day long. So, those are definitely some of the users he's he's talking to. Yeah, I think that's something everybody would be pretty excited to see and brings people here in the shoulder seasons when we're quiet. Yeah. Um it's I mean it fills your hotels which is obviously important um year round. So that would be great.

Absolutely. And um speaking of that but not I was just looking at this plan uh this where this 10W.3 is I think Peggy you had asked about what these are. These are actually four-unit buildings and it's two units on the first floor and two units on the second floor. Um Clark's got some product that he really likes um that he's built elsewhere that is in this configuration that that uh he that sells really well. So that's so that's what those are. And then again these little uh cabins would be a um you know whether they're associated with the resort itself or whether they're associated with the clubhouse. we haven't that level of detail, but we think it'd be kind of cool to have some just small little villas or cassitas kind of on the golf course with the views of buyers and everything else could be pretty pretty cool.

Okay. Well, Ila, thank you very much for your presentation. Uh, hang loose with us. I'm going to go around and let the commissioners ask any more questions they have or we can discuss internally before we move uh to a motion or I should say move to public comment.

Yeah, I guess I have one more thing. Um I think they mentioned ch moving some commercial from 1 WA or something to up here. Is that moving it from the village of Grand Park? Are we taking commercial space away from the village? It's actually coming from 4W. So, which is where the Elk Creek condos are now. I believe there's maybe a 100,000 square feet of commercial allocated down there. We are moving it from from that 4W.1 or 4W over to um to this area here. We have a picture of where 4W is. I I can pull that up.

Let's see here. Um, yeah. 4W. Can you see my screen still? Yes. So, 4W is down here. The El Creek condos. El Creek condos. So, down over by the um ski broker, right? Yeah. So, right next to the Murdoch Center there. Yep. Got it. Which is where we would really like to see commercial. Yeah. So that's already all fully developed or approved and and under construction for all of those condos that are down in that location.

Yeah. The ones on 40 are approved. Just Yeah. And then the ones that are built already, the condos that are built and occupied, those are also part of RW.

All right. Um, why don't we go around the room with the commissioners and what are your thoughts?

Well, I I'm a passionate trail person. I think that we need to have trails in on the West Mountain and not sidewalks and you can have sidewalks, but you need trails and they're two different animals. So, I would like Clark to reconsider that. I think we were being I think very flexible going along with his plan for his 23W with all these sport courts, which certainly not what I envisioned for 23W, but I'd be willing to meet him halfway if he comes with some trails so that everybody has access. And I think I think that would be a benefit for Grand Park. And I think in in the spirit of moving forward, I would like to put that on the table. Let's see how many trails we can add to this as well.

Any comments about height?

I actually do not object to the height. I think because of how steep that mountain side is, I understand that that's I I I would like to see some movement in the buildings and not just a box with a retaining wall. I would like to see it step and have some articulation and I think that because of the steepness of the site, um that allows that opportunity. So, I'm looking forward to hopefully some some really nice architecture coming back when we actually approve it. And I think if it's not just a square box with a retaining wall, then you'll get a lot further with your approval, I think.

Okay.

I'm okay with the height. Um, I like the added density. So there is more open whether it be a golf course or not. I definitely want to see that trail um pursued that was on the 2005 PDV. And um it's true trails are a huge amenity. a huge ability and that additional density with the added height allows for more of that um a little bit more of an open space there. So, usually I'm not big on height, but that's a good location for it up on the hillside. It's a very good location for it. Much better than the valley floor. Brian.

Yeah, I'm I'm fine with the increase in height. Um I don't see a problem with it at all. I think it's a pretty cool plan. Um if if you guys can can pull this one off. Um I will say when I was traveling for work, you know, multiple times a month and staying at hotels, the one question I would ask every front desk person is where's a trail I can go running on? So, the people that are going to be staying at these hotels are going to be asking where the trails are. And sidewalks are not trails. Sidewalks are just an expectation. So, we need we need to see trails. Other than that, I like this plan. Mark,

I have nothing to add. Looks good.

Okay. As do I have nothing further to add. I um I'm good with the height and it would be nice to get that trail, but um I appreciate the difficulties you pointed out, Leila. Um and I think it's something that, you know, we could negotiate this a little bit more and see if we could get a trail in there. All right. Um let's open it up for any public comment that we have right now. So, if you're going to make a comment, I'd like for you to give us your name, tell us where you live, uh, and limit your comments to three minutes, please.

Get that ready. Give me just a second. Sorry, they move everything every time I come on my timer. I am unable to. Okay. You want to start in the room?

Yes. No, we'll start in the room and then we'll go online. Does anybody in the room want to speak? Sure. Sure. I'll just uh Brandon John Pret Valley.

Um definitely appreciate the trail stuff. I mean, as you guys saw too, the o the outpost club. I mean, talking about amenities, this would be the premier spot. I mean, obviously, we want to dovetail the trails in. I would ask the planning commission just to consider obviously in the flat area. You know, the Gulf is a concern. The liability is a huge concern for us. Uh but the topographical uh constraint where it connects right there by Leland Creek, that's like a 60 foot as Leila showed on that map. But definitely I think we'd we'd be obviously open to making trails. It's definitely a big amenity too and and kind of parlays into the overall plan. Uh but just that area right where it attaches to Leland Creek is just so so steep. And then of course the golf consideration. Uh but in general um we appreciate the comments guys and uh yeah this is great.

Well it might be um that I know what you're talking about. It is steep and it might be that you'd have to bring the trail up and come around and back up and tie in with one of the roads that's already going to be connected. So it would be a dirt trail perhaps single track trail until you got up close to Grand Park Drive where you'd have to put in some pavement, bring it up and around and tie it into the so they can get down to Grand Park Drive, walk down there and over to Leland Creek. I think it's doable if we put our heads together. Yes. Yes. And we look forward to working with you guys on that.

Yeah. Anything else? That's it. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. No. Anybody online like to speak? Please raise your hand.

Learn is there. You always have something. He hasn't he on mute. Farel, are you there? Yeah, I mean uh the only thing I was first doesn't have anything to say

kidnell um I just want to say you know on the trail thing I know they're important and people like them but as a person that golfs and has a lot of golfing buddies um most golf courses do not allow people to meander around the golf course when they're playing golf. Uh P Creek doesn't do it. Graanby Ranch doesn't do it. There's not a golf course in Denver that allows you to tour around why people are playing golf. And it's more for the golfers than it is um the safety of it. As Brian mentioned, there's houses close. That's why golfers have to make sure they're careful when they play golf. But having people drive by or ride by on a bike, that's very distracting for the golfers. So, that's something to think about. That's my only comment.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. So noted. Uh any other public comment. Anybody else online? I don't see anybody else with a hand up. I don't see anybody else. All right. Commissioners, any last thoughts? If not, um I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I I Any opposed? All right. Um commissioners, last chance for discussion.

Yeah. I have a question just for clarifying on condition four.

Um if it makes sense to everybody else because to be almost I I'm easily confused about stuff like this. But does it on number four proposed maximum building height of 65 ft for the lodging commercial buildings in planning areas 9W1 and 10W2 is conceptually acceptable but we're talking about approving it right or is that different planning areas? So I I think the reason why staff has phrased it this way is because the building height request is uh approved as part of the FPDP approval.

Okay? And the planning commission is not the decision-making body that approves the FPDP. It's the board of trustees. So it's written in a way to convey, you know, the planning commission uh is agreeable or acceptable to this hype request, but it's ultimately subject to approval by the board. So, gotcha. Okay. But it's it's signifying to the board of trustees that the planning commission is is giving the thumbs up.

And then the second sentence is simply stating that um um again as would be a requirement anyways because these are non-commercial uses. It's just further clarifying that um the final design of any building that's over 50 feet. So even if it doesn't hit that 65 feet, if it's a, you know, 62 foot building, what what have you, um, you know, the the the design of that building would be considered an a major FPDP amendment and therefore come back to the planning commission and board for approval. I have a question on number five. Okay.

Um, it's a little bit unclear to me. It says, let's suppose, for example, that they really cannot figure out a way to put a trail in next to some golf, you know, next to a golf. Are we saying here that he could find another location? Are we asking him to figure out a way to put it where like along the railroad? What are we saying to him here?

Um, I Yeah, I just wrote this up just now. I think the intention behind this was to state that um you know the first desired option is the public trail facility on the west side of the railroad you know just outside of the ride ofway um to be consistent with the Grand Park PDDD. Um, however, this the way this is written is giving maybe the option to if that's not a feasible location for whatever reason, topography conflict with golf users. Um, then this is just stating that an equivalent trail in an alternate location could be acceptable. Um, I again I think that would, you know, we we'd like to have that determined prior to final approval of this FPDP. I mean, I think we can add language to that effect so that it's um not simply decided, you know, administratively between staff and the applicant, but um any any other suggestions? I guess I was just going to say you put the as depicted in right after the word railroad because because to me that I just want to make it clear if that's not possible then maybe he can find an equivalent location

sure that it's just clarifies it for me. Great. Thank you.

So that brings up a question that I have. Um, if we're creating a resort location here with fairly high-end facilities and uh, lodging and everything, um, it makes a lot of sense that the people who stay at the resort, the people who come to the resort that maybe are residents in Grand County that but they're members of the resort club, um, they would like to have trails. I I understand that. I'm a little uh concerned about the use of the word public trail. If we're creating a resort atmosphere, but you're saying that we're putting in a public trail right down below where some of the golf holes are and the clubhouse and everything. I'm not sure that if I'm paying a sum of money for membership in this club, I want to have general public available to come stomping through there. So, I don't know. I I I'm sensitive to the trail idea,

but I don't know that we can necessarily say that we're going to have to open it up to the public. It has to be the public. The public people, too. and we all live here and we should have the right to be able to go on the trails. Well, but then what if you proposes an alternate an alternate location for a public trail? That's fine. We can work with the alternate. It just has to be the same. Yeah. I mean, if you look at Grand Park's layout for West Mountain, going along the trail is the least the least intrusive by far. So,

as it is now, right? Yeah. Along the railroad tracks, the west side. All I'm looking for is a connection from the Leaning Creeks trail system to get over to like the the mountain biking trails off of 73.

Yeah. Um, I I'll also just add that section 10.5 of the annexation agreement clearly says developer agrees that public trails shall be dedicated and constructed and constructed in accordance with the 2003 PDD. In the context of Grand Park, this refers to the 2005 PDD which we looked at for that trail along the railroad. So, um, again, I I believe any trails that are depicted on either the 2003 or 2005 PDD should be public trails. anything. Yeah. Anything beyond that, um, you know, I think there's certainly room for debate, but again, this trail is depicted on the PDD, so therefore it should be.

Okay, that can you speak?

Sorry. Oh, that's okay. Hey, thank you. Um, again, I kind of want to reiterate what Bob just mentioned about the public piece. 23W is private property and it's not public property. Um, and it never will be. So, you know, a trail is one thing. There's nothing on the PDD itself that says these are public trails, the community trail, the regional trail. So, you know, I I would respectfully request that the word public be taken out of that condition. But the annexation agreement says they all have to be they're public trails. When it says dedicated, is the town going to take them over? Are they going to build them and take them and take all the liability for them? Once they're built, I don't see why not.

Well, it's what happened in Rendezvous. Works really well. No, but it is private property and it all, you know, 23W is not public. What you have in rendevous is is is town property. Yeah. So I think maybe clarify on how staff envisions this working just to give the example of rendevous. Most if not all the trails are located in planning area 4E which is open space dedicated to the town.

In this case given that 23W would remain private. It's uh I think the way this would be accommodated is simply a trail easement as well as um some sort of like maintenance and liability agreement. I mean maintenance agreement at at a minimum for this trail facility. Um other you know paved trails, sidewalks, paved pathways that are um adjacent to roadways. Generally speaking, they're located within the ride of way. So therefore it's you know town town land, town maintenance responsibility, etc. So would we be responsible for plowing these sidewalks?

Oh, I think that metro district should do that. If you want them public, I the town maintains the ones in rendevous. We don't have sidewalks in rendevous, so we don't have to worry about it.

Our code, as it's currently written, is clear that clearing sidewalks is a responsibility of the property owner. Um my understanding that in you know the downtown oldtown Frasier area especially like properties along Highway 40 and Eisenhower our public works staff has historically you know cleared snow from sidewalks. Um you know we view that as just an added bonus and not any sort of you know assumption of that responsibility. Um, in terms of the uses in West Mountain more broadly, I mean, I think it it would not be the town's responsibility to clear sidewalks is is my assumption at this time.

Thank you. I agree with that assumption.

Okay. Any other commissioners wanting? I did revise the language on uh condition five uh just to maybe make it more clear. You know, option one, the FPDP should depict and accommodate a public trail facility that's consistent with the 2005 PDD. However, an equivalent trail facility in an alternate location in West Mountain may be acceptable if the location west of the railroad is not feasible. So I think okay helps clarify. Thanks. Okay. Make a motion. Please go ahead.

Uh I'd like to uh make a motion to approve planning commission resolution number 2026201. A resolution approving the preliminary pat and recommending the approval of the final plan development plan for the mixeduse development known as Grand Park West Mountain Park. Uh filing number two. And I won't go into the description, but Okay. Do I hear a second? With the addition of with the additional number. All right. Hear a second. Second. Okay. I have a motion made and a second. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Laya. Thank you, Cong.

All right. Um, I suggest we take a five minute break and then we'll get on with number two. Item number two. Too rich. Got cookies.

Our uh next item on the agenda is adoption of Colorado wildfire resiliency code here at we've talked about this before but and we have a deadline that We have to do something. We have to adopt whatever the state has passed. So Garrett's going to give us our tutorial on it. Yes. And I'll actually pass it over to Alan for this presentation.

Yeah. I'll outline some of those requirements and kind of um what we're looking at from the state here and going forward. So I'm Alan Cos, assistant town planner. Um so the the origins of this is from 2023 state legislation adopted through Senate Bill 23166. Um and that's Senate bill specifically created the Colorado wildfire resiliency code board. So um it authorized a um kind of a collection of professionals various professionals and experts in uh building building code, fire protection, land use, home builders, etc. They were tasked with creating um and adopting a model state code. not necessar not unlike some other recent model codes that have um come through including the the Colorado model solar energy and EV ready model code. I may jumble that but the recent EV and solar ready requirements that the town adopted in late 2024. So this board um was tasked with creating this model code and adopting a um state map um to kind of map risk areas and tie the model code to different risk areas um specifically to the state wildland urban interface which is these kind of these borderland areas between development and um open space and wild areas that are prone to to wildfire. and and cause the most danger to built environment and to um to development. So the uh main components of this are structure hardening and defensible space. I'll go through each of these um in later slides. And yeah, the dates that we have in front of us

are April 1st for local adoption and then July 1st for an effective date. So a little bit of a gap uh between that in order to kind of accommodate different adoption processes. So this screenshot is the state map at the full state level. Um the the code board utilized data um in conjunction with the division of fire prevention and the Colorado State Forest Service, the high level GIS mapping mainly utilizing vegetative fuel data and topography and then differentiating between um private land and or federally held land and all other land. The code is is um applicable to non-federal land. So zooming into the Frasier Valley here, um all of the non-federal lands are colored here in orange or red. And then all the obviously like the state forest um or the national forest areas are kind of the surrounding areas outside of the valley. But we've got Frasier in the middle here, Tavern to the north and winter park to the south for context and essentially shows the entire Frasier Valley within the moderate to high uh designation levels. Um, and I'll just note, it's hard to tell here because once you zoom in the um the mapping layer disappears on the state map, but there's a very small single area within downtown Frasier that is not within these areas, but the rest of town boundaries is and all the other surrounding areas is and I'll I'll say a few more words about that, but um essentially these three these two categories, there's three categories total. The only difference in the code differentiates between level one or the low intensity and levels two and three are combined together. So even though we're shown with a mix of orange and red, it's the same standards that

ultimately apply. So what it's you got it shaded as blue. Those are Yeah, that's just the density of of parcel lines. That's where it made the coloring a little bit difficult. But those blue are just property lines. Those aren't anything. So if um removing those and you would be able to remove those on the state map, it it's all orange within the kind of core. Orange or yellow? What's that? It's it's orange or yellow. It's orange. You can see at the very top left there's a little bit of yellow. I don't know how to point. Orange. Red. Garrett, how do I use the little red? Um if you're in uh presenter mode, it's on the bottom left.

Okay. Yeah, up here. Yeah. Oh, I'm on learning on the fly here. Okay. Right here. So, at the top left, there's a little pocket of yellow that' be up into uh headed towards Graanby and the middle up there, but there isn't any yellow identified in the Frasier Valley area. I mean, where all that blue is, you're saying that's going to be yellow. No, that's all the same color that's surrounding. Okay. So there's a little bit of orange that's really probably mostly Winter Park Ranch and a touch like maybe three lots in rendevous. Are you you mean the red? Well, orange red.

Yeah, just colors, but the high intensities are kind red is what we're dealing with here. So orange is the middle.

Yeah, the the red is the high intensity kind of on the fringes on the east and west side of the valley. Although there is a pocket up here in Winter Park Ranch that's shown as red and then portions of down here West Mountain and then um adjacent to Winter Park and the rendevous areas Winter Park are also shown as red but basically essentially we're all subject to the same standards because in the state code moder and high adhere to the same. Okay. So um we're we're coordinating our adoption with the town of Winter Park as uh Winter Park operates the shared building department for Frraasier. Um the plan is that both communities Fre and Winter Park will be adopting the full resiliency code as an um adopted by reference to the building code which is again how the model solar and EV codes were adopted and then each individual jurisdiction is adopt proposing to adopt landscaping regulations to get at the defensible space portion. So, um, sorry I jumped ahead a little bit there, but the structure hardening, that's all kind of building code, building material. I'll get into a little bit of detail there, but that would be adopted by reference in chapter 18. So, come in verbatim. And then the uh defensible space component of that since we have our landscaping regulations outside the building code obviously need to be integrated into our chapter 19 landscape code so that they're all in one place. So just to run over uh the structure harding provisions since these are going to be in chapter 18 these aren't necessarily up for debate or amendment with the planning commission. Planning commission just recommends um amendments to chapter 19 but I'll provide these here just so you can understand what the context of the

structure hardening is and then we'll go on to the defensible space prevention that will impact our landscaping. So, it'll be applicable to all new development and then um and then certain uh excuse me, additions, um expansions of use, things like that. Basically, anything that would require a site plan review, um building permit review for an addition, anything that's impacting the um the structure itself, right? I misspoke there. But um the the building itself um so it impacts exterior walls, windows, doors, decks, roofs, gutters, kind of everything that is touching the outside air. Roofs is a big one. Um there's a few exceptions built in here. um certain accessory buildings at certain distances from the building. So based on occupancy or size and then more limited exterior alterations generally 25% or less. So if you're doing a um doing a reoof if for whatever reason you're only doing a portion of the house if it was specifically damaged and it's under 25% it um the structure aring requirements would not kick in. But anything over 25% you'd have to replace the whole roof and bring it up to to the code.

What's group U? Group U is utility. I believe it's just like storage like a garage. Gotcha. Utilities. So is there any setbacks? There are not setback uh requirements um included in the structure hardening component. defensible space that we'll get into include uh different ranges away from the structure for different landscaping, but there isn't a hard distance requirement from one building to another. I think that's unfortunate. That's the real oversight. I know that this is the statewide deal, but

right and we we can um adopt more stringent codes. um we can have that discussion. What I'd say to that is we need to adopt this as the baseline kind of upfront, but as long as we're not adopting something that's less effective than this, it's okay. And then we can go above and beyond um generally in in conjunction with neighboring jurisdictions, the fire district, something like that, if we want to have a broader compensation. So this can be subsequently amended, right, to make it stricter. Yeah. I I I don't see why we couldn't do local amendments as long as the these baseline ones are in place and upheld.

Well, I think that's something that we need to really look at because I think that's really what happened in the Palisades fire is that these houses exploded and it was not only landscaping. It was the intensity of the building igniting the one next door because they were so close together. And hopefully with these exterior materials, they won't be able to see. Now it's the heat, you know, it wasn't it was just the intensity of 2000,

right? I think there's an acknowledgement that, you know, these standards can only do so much. They're not going to be 100% scenario for some of the more extreme weather events and fire events that have have occurred in a few places across the country. Yeah. And the other thing is you've got some of these little uh subdivisions around here have such tiny lots. I don't know how you'd space the buildings out. Well, and that's what you I mean, here's an opportunity because we have so much undeveloped land in Fraser.

Yeah. and in Winter Park to get ahead of it and not allow people to be 10 feet apart. Yeah. Five foot setbacks because I mean they really would be nice if they were 20 ft. Right. Well, we we just have to deal with grandfathering in any of these subdivision developments that are already on these tiny lots. Well, or when we start approving West Mountain and Winter Park starts approving what they're doing, that's when you it's really hard to go back and retrofit. That could be a trickier conversation with approved PDD that has setbacks already. Yeah.

Of doing that necessarily. That could be maybe a separate or it might have to be separate than new annex lands for example where you can or when in 2028 when and then sure something changes. So it's just something we need to be cautious about. Good point.

So I won't go through the detail here. A lot of this is kind of building code nomenclature, but just example of this level of detail that's included in the structure hardening requirements. Um, and then some of the things it it details into windows, doors, thicknesses, things like that. Um, exterior decks is going to be one um that impacts probably a lot of existing properties. So, if someone needs to replace their deck after it's, you know, after wear and tear over the years, the deck would have to be built with approved non-combustible materials. And there's details specifying that, but basically something like the track texts instead of a classic hardwood deck. Um, and then chapter five is where um the landscaping regulations kick in. So this is what will be ultimately um asking for a recommendation of approval tonight that would um amend chapter 19. The state code outlines uh the the fifth chapter of its site and area requirements and identifies three different structure ignition zones basically the the very closest to the building within 5T an intermediate zone within 30 feet and then the larger kind of expanded area within 100 feet. And as we've discussed a little bit here, you know, in more urban settings, some of these properties are only going to be subject to the first zone or the the first two zones and not necessarily the third zone, but the majority of the kind of more stringent requirements are at least closer into the the home zones. So, ignition zone one 0 to 5 ft of the building. It requires use of non-combustible landscape material. So this is essentially hardscaped materials uh rock, gravel, sand, concrete, etc.

and ignition resistant planting. So it's not a prohibition on all vegetation, but it's a really kind of fine fine grain look at which plantings are acceptable. You can't just put any kind of tuna bush right up against your house. Um, obviously the some of these excerpts aren't meant to read, but again, staff is utilizing guidance from the CSU extension for um, various planting lists, low water planting lists, high elevation planting lists. They've got um, more detail in here about kind of size placement and their climability ratings on a scale of of 0 to 10. Um, so there's lots of options out out there still and town staff is working with and generally um relying on the town of Winter Park for their planning list. They've gotten a head start on it. They had kind of more uh sophisticated landscape regulations already and planting requirements and had an approved planting list already. So they've begun looking into that and are developing a list. Um, we've referred kind of this initial list to our town gardener for input, but ultimately we're proposing maintaining a list just kind of administrative list that we'd be able to provide. Not necessarily something that's codified. That way it doesn't have to keep getting amended as updates come, but just that there's an approved ignition resistant planting list that'll um need to be um provided as part of implementation of this. So, so pass this. Are we saying if you're not compliant then like you got to rip out your bushes kind of thing?

We're saying that if you want to do a new construction, so that wouldn't apply. It would be that be new construction anyway. kind of installing the landscaping or if you're doing an addition of a certain size and it must be on a later slide if I didn't do it already, but the defensible space provisions kick in at 500 square feet or more of an addition. So, a minor addition, no. Um, but you know, you start adding a couple of bedrooms or a garage, something like that. If you're hitting 500 square feet, you are going to have to um provide a landscape plan with defensible space zones as part of your application and that would be reviewed and potentially require you to change land landscaping on the other side of your house from where your addition is

within this. And I mean, I can see the insurance companies coming in saying, "Okay, we've all agreed. Guess what? Here's your new insurance bill. If you don't, which if you don't comply, right?" I've been having this discussion with my husband and it's it's not looking good at our house. So, it's it's a painful conversation.

Um, a couple of the other inclusions here are no new trees. So there's an allowance for existing trees to remain. Um a little bit of that conversation, but quite a bit more maintenance. It the code talks about maintaining a clearance of 10 ft into from a structure. I was trying to to make sense of that if it's already within 5t of the house. in this first zone didn't quite make sense unless it's something that's very tall and you're lpping off like half the crown around the house, but it's really going to be difficult to keep and maintain trees this close to a house. Here's a couple other just graphics pulled from some of the guidance material, but a you know a linear explanation of these different zones and then couple of photos down below. So the before photo, I know it's really small here, but showing kind of an un unmaintained before condition and then after some of these um defensible space provisions are enacted. It's thinning out trees. It's it's keeping the the trees more of a distance away. The the ground covers cleared up. Um there's a house in the back there, so we're not seeing the first zone here. This is probably more of the 30 to 100 ft zone, zones two and three. question for you. Does this apply to all trees? Would it apply to an aspen tree even?

Uh oh, great question. No, it would just I believe it would just be um trees that aren't ignition resistant. So, there is a list of ignition resistant. Um I remember hearing that aspen trees are included in that. So, that might be some in some of our implementation guidance is to have a clear list of trees that aren't as right. Oh, I have one tree in my yard. Yeah.

And I mean, great for this environment, but obviously why they drive here is as fire resistant plants. So, I believe that that would be um not applicable. Okay. So, zones two and three. Um a little less stringent here, but this one's more about maintenance. So, clearing out of dead material, um avoiding combustible accumulations of branches, logs, etc. Still maintaining 10 foot clearance between trees and structures and then um including shrub spacing. So this is assuming no shrubs or no uh fire prone shrubs within five feet and then beyond that you could have the non-ignition resistant plantings but they have to be 5 feet apart. And then the beyond 30 feet zone is just focused on the trees. Uh the code defensible space code also includes a few provisions for uh combustible materials for retaining walls and fences within 8 ft. So that's the distance from structure. No, not um no combustible fences. So uh wood fences right up against the house wouldn't be allowed. It would be masonry or some other proof of material. I believe vinyl is on the exception list.

So, does that include like a fence that just has fence posts and then a bar or something then maybe metal? Yeah. And if the posts are combustible material, it would I guess if it's a metal fence or something that wouldn't I'm just thinking about the the approved fences in Grand Park. They're what three feet tall maybe and then they're they have metal or they have wood connecting to the next post and then it's just a metal kind of mesh in between. Yeah. So there would have to be for the new development portion. So they fencing in Grand Park. It's like very see-through and very I bet you could find a house

because I mean that was never allowed in Rondville and assuming they were all approved at the same time because of the wildlife, you know, they didn't want people to have fences for their dogs and then the wildlife couldn't move through. Yeah. Um there's a specific fence. So, question. So, if you have a fence that goes to your house, it's all wooden. You need the maybe the panel closest to your house to not be wooden,

right? Yeah. It would have to be a different material and probably advisable if you're I mean, I guess depending on the scope of your work, but you're not going to have to proactively upgrade that unless you're doing something larger to your house anyway. But at times fence replacement replace all the non-compable or if you are doing some kind of attachment you could technically get away with only doing the first eight feet of a different material. So you have to do tricks or something. Interesting.

And then here's that exceptions list that we were asking about before. So um additions 500 square feet or less. Similar exemptions for these small accessory structures meaning if you're adding those on the site they don't need their own defensible space around them. Um and then fences over eight feet and there's a blanket exception in the state code for development basically on 35 acre parcels or larger. So unsubdivided land probably only applicable to so right now our side setbacks are 10 and a half. It varies by zone district but it ranges from five feet I believe to 10 feet for sight set.

Okay. It's interesting with this, you know, people want fences between their yards. Yeah. They would all have to have at least eight feet. Probably more like going back to the tent. And it depends on where the on your lot your house is placed. It might not be right in the middle. Interesting. Okay. I don't know if you're going to get into this, but what about wood piles? Because a lot of people still burn wood here and have them Yeah. So, one of the I think it was the second one talks about accumulation of surface fuels. that would that would qualify for clogs, combustible mulch. Yeah, you may need to

either put it farther away or invest in a fire which I know probably more in common like wood. Yeah, it's got these blue stuff you used to get it. Just a few of the the definitions here that are going to be integrated into the code. This is from the state code. I won't go through these here, but it's introducing a lot of different terminology. Um, so we're carrying lease forward similar to the nonfunctional turf definitions that we previously discussed. Wow.

Um, and then just an example of some of the other guidance out there. Again, this is from the um the Colorado State Forest Service. Um they've got a home ignition guide that has sample photos, checklists. These are things that may go above and beyond the code potentially, but um obviously best practices and I know there's a lot of discussion how to um how to convince insurance companies to potentially lower rates. I don't know if there is a necessarily obvious answer. is a little bit of an unknown, but other recent legislation is trying to get at that in terms of requiring more transparency from the insurance industry and requiring responsiveness at some level. So, um tying some of these um kind of different approaches together to hopefully result in both better building safety and less loss from wildfire out. And then just a basically a footnote here is as part of these code revisions, we are proposing to relocate a couple of our existing um code sections for landscaping and exterior lighting specifications just because they were outside of chapter 19 kind of in a different mostly um um engineering requirement section of the code. The landscaping specifications is uh what mainly caught our attention. moving this into chapter 19 right next to the all the other landscaping provisions and for defensible space. And then just a few sections down in chapter 19 is exterior lighting. It was also living in this landscape and exterior lighting specifications in chapter 14. So we just wanted to move both of them over. Um, I don't have a screenshot of it here, but it's provided in the packet just showing the proposed code language being relocated.

And that's all dark sky compliant exterior. We're not proposing changes at this time. So, it's just the existing regulations and the dark sky compliance is only currently required for commercial and mixed use, I believe. Really? So, that's carrying that forward. So yeah, again moving things at this point. Yeah, that's move up the list. Final slide here.

Um, we've got a an approval resolution and I'll pull that up here. I we have added a condition of approval that wasn't included in the packet. just addressing further coordination is likely going to be occurring with the town of Winter Park and East Grand Fire. Both um both jurisdictions and agencies are going to be adopting the wildfire code and we want to make sure that we remain consistent with um any possible changes they do or or good ideas that come out. So, we um want to be able to tweak the language um as necessary and we can provide an update of any further changes from this once it goes to the board. Um it would advance to the board. Right now, we're proposing April 1st. This is also a slight change from the staff report. I think it mentioned um March. We wanted to move this back a bit, give us a little bit more time, and then put this more of Winter Park. They're proposing to be adopting their final um version on April 7th. Um, and then if approved, the ordinance will take effect no later than July 1st in conformance. It could potentially be sooner up to 30 days after the board adops it or um set it for July 1 because that's when I believe Winter Park is proposing to give homeowners, builders, contractors kind of enough more time to take it into account. So that concludes my presentation. Um, and then I'll just pull up the resolution with the condition here.

Okay. Thank you, Alan. Yeah, happy to discuss and question. We'll stand by. We may have questions. Um, commissioners, let's just open it up for discussion if any. I think it's really important. you know, we've seen what fires do and I'm really glad that we're doing this and I'm glad that we're open to making it more stringent because I think

um these a lot of the the building materials that have been used in the near recent past are not exactly fire resistant and um I think it's important that we start enforcing things that are fire. And do they do they address um tall grasses? Of course it's you have to have defensible space with non but um I don't know off the top of my head. I have a hunch they do. Maybe we can look into that later. Again, I think and that's that's one of the big problems in

Oh, it's a huge huge problem. I want to say I've I've seen maximum of of like four feet which is still a pretty tall grass height. Yeah. So I might be misquing. Well, they just grow well and just where the location is. Anyway, that's something. Well, I mean last week we had a presentation that was done by whatever the fire people were. But

right and I thought it was really interesting that Rendevoon and Grand Park are probably the only ones that aren't part of that. I mean, you know, even some of the smaller subdivisions and maybe we put in that everybody has to be a member of that organization. It's the wildfire count firewise community. Yeah, that's further level. Yeah. Trying to pull up the bottom here, but it's going slow. residents in Frasier are belong to an HOA or a defined group. But I mean the HOAs I think you could

make that a requirement that Rond and definitely Rond and Grandpart needs to be part of it. So, but and I I think that opens up with, you know, we have no landscaping requirements in rendevous, but you're supposed to have this meadow mix, which goes to this high in the fall, which is then when we had the highest fire danger, and that brings you to 4E, which is, you know, what the town owns, and 4 has all of this high grass. And so,

20 years ago, when it wasn't this dry, it was nice. It stayed green, but now it's scary. So that may end up, you know, if you require everybody in rendevous in September or late August to cut their breasts, which I think would be a good requirement, that opens us up to what do we do with 4E that's owned by the town, which we probably have to do something with that, too. So, and I'm not I'm actually not seeing specifics in the code about like grass height or maintenance, but I think most people would never think that you would live in some place that had grass that was 4t tall. That's probably Yeah. So,

we may be the only subdivision in probably there. Yeah. Consequences. Well, you know, and it was to save water so that we're not putting Kentucky bluegrass in. Right. Just yeah. Okay. Any other comments? No. Well, hearing none, uh, even though we don't have to have this open for public comment, I will allow anybody that's still with us and wants to make a comment. I'll allow them to make a quick comment.

Let's see. If anybody's online, can you raise your hand? um is just the staff. Okay, that was easy. All right, so hearing no more. I'd like to make a motion. Let's do

to approve resolution number 2026202 recommending approval of a code amendment to chapter 19 section 194160 to add wildfire defensible space requirements in conformance with the Colorado wildfire resiliency code and to relocate existing landscaping and exterior lighting specifications from chapter 14 into on chapter currently. Good job, Katie. Second. Second. All right. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. My husband happy.

Is there any other business that needs to come before the planning commission tonight? Hearing none. Um, any future agenda items that we need to discuss and and consider putting on our future agendas? Hearing none. Dark sky. Dark sky. Okay. Skating rink. Okay. Dark sky and skating for next year. Did you get that? Okay. All right. Um hearing no other comments. Uh I'll take a motion a motion to adjurnn. So move. I'll give it I'll give it to All right. Second. All right. All those in favor?

I I All right. Planning Commission meeting is adjourned at oh 8 8:44 8:44

I will be on for the next conference room I will Keep