Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are you guys all set in the technical department? What do you think, Wendy? Okay. Okay, I'll go and call to order the um board of adjustment meeting to begin with. And um I think Peggy, you're a member of the board of adjustment or an alternate. Can you do you remember? Uh Peggy is an alternate. Alternate. I found out last meeting I was on the board of adjustment. I didn't think I was. Yeah. Yeah. There's a plus Joy is online, but Joyy's online. Okay. So, let's do a roll call of the board of adjustment if we could. Margaret BS, Katie Souls, Bob Ganes, and you're online, Joy. Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? We can't hear her. Uh, Joy McCoy. We're working on a Joy here. Just a second. Can you I'll try it again if you would. Can you hear me now? Hello. I think we've got you just on Wendy's computer. So, oh, can you hear me now? What about now? Sing us. Sing a little song. What if I sing a song for you? Have to get a sign that says yay or nay.

Oh, man. I tried my video, too, and it wouldn't allow it. Um, I think it's on our end, Joy, because you're coming through at least one machine. So, yeah. Okay. What if I talk like this? Um, yeah, I don't see anything on my end. Yeah, it's like I say, you're coming into Wendy's computer, but we're having trouble linking you into the room here. So, okay. Well, anyway, so Joy is here. Um, we'll work on her sound and then Andy Miller, I'm here also. So I have a motion for an approval of the agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Thank you. And so the only thing on the agenda is the consent agenda other than open forum. So do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda which is minutes from February 6, 2025? So moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I I Any opposed? Thank you. Okay. So, open forum for the board of adjustment. I don't think we really there's nobody online at least Wendy that we're just working on joy, right? Yes. Okay. So, no and there's nobody in the audience. So, not nothing on open forum. Any other business? Okay. I'll call to for a motion to adjourn the planning the board of adjustment. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, so that concludes the board of adjustment.

I wonder can we try holding a microphone to your for joy if we don't have any luck? I thought that's not working. Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and call the the uh planning commission to order if we could please. So, with the roll call, Margaret Foss, Haiti Souls, Bob Gusi, Peggy Smith, and Joy is um present. She's we're working on her audio and Andy Miller. So, a motion to approve the agenda. So, moved. Second. All in favor? I I Any oppose? Thank you. Okay. So, a motion to approve the consent agenda which is just the minutes from February 26th. So move. I'll second. Good. Peggy got. All in favor? I. Any oppose? Thanks. Okay. So, um open form again. We don't have anybody in the audience and we don't have anybody online other than Joy. Um, so anybody we have other business at the end, but Oh, we do. Is that where I should bring up a concern? Yeah, probably. Okay, that's all right. Yep. Okay. Um, so the first agenda item is discussion and possible action of a draft code amendment adus by right low density single family zone. the staff report. Are you on this call? Yeah, sorry.

Actually, you know, Alan, in the interest of time, I can get the presentation going. Um, my bad. on your computer. Sure. [Music] Uh good evening planning commission. Alan Fintown man town planner. Not getting ahead of myself here. Um tonight the first item we want to propose forward a proposed code amendment to allow accessory flowing units into low density single family districts. Um this is coming out of most immediately coming out of a recent discussion that the assistant town manager Farerite um discussed in part with a wider variety of items during the February 19th um affordable housing workshop used. Um we discussed various strategies the town could pursue to address housing affordability and background on the topic. Um some local data um guidance from the state on the topic the department of local affairs and then a little bit of a survey of um some peer communities through the state. We'll be presenting on more of these discussion topics following this item. This specific item was identified as a fairly simple straightforward code amendment that we can right away. So we directed to um to prepare this for the next planning commission meeting and then um assuming all goes well be brought

forward to the boardroom later. So, the current code, um, it's a little bit of a quirk of the code, but accessory dwelling units are permitted in all districts that allow residential, uh, uses except for the low density single family, and that's including the rural density districts. This is an even more kind of limited density district to the left. I use the acronyms for the various housing or various residential zone districts and other fil districts. Um like I said, Department of uh local affairs has kind of issued wider range of guidance on um efforts to increase housing options, housing diversity, ways to um introduce more affordability in communities and ADUs is right at the top of the list is kind of an easy one that communities probably take. They recommend minimal systems on them. And then again it's just they're their kind of easy reference for uh ways to implement gentle density we call it in terms of fitting in with existing neighborhood character. There's smaller units. one of the later slides has the the various development um or the the regulation standards on them but um generally it's they're you know they're seen as a a pretty low impact way to help address the topic. Hi Alan I'm just curious do we have a rural density zone? I don't believe it is actually implemented anywhere. Yeah, I was I was planning on doing that, but it's on the books and I think that would be envisioned. It's something that could

be applied like right away if something came in the annex, I'm guess. Okay. Something that would reflect like an existing development condition likely into something else. Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. It exists in the code, but there's no properties in the trade. Um this slide we just wanted to um kind of outline currently if a property um zoned low density single family wanted to get an ADU it would have to go through conditional use permit process. Um these are the kind of general provisions, but really the conditional use permit process treats specific land uses generally based on mitigating impacts or it's a particularly noisy, dirty, high traffic. There's kind of a wide variety of of more unique land uses that require conditional throughout the building and code. Um and it it's a little interesting that ADUs are treated this way for one specific uh its own district but not for the rest. Um but it does require whereas there they would be allowed by right and all the other residential drone districts which requires review by planning commission board of trustees a public hearing. So just by its nature invites additional scrutiny. Um there's nine review criteria that would have to be reviewed against to an ABU in the zone district. And then probably one of the biggest items that a conditional use permit kind of represents in terms of whether it's friction against or something that doesn't encourage it is that it by nature isn't allowed

outright. So often times there'll be time periods associated with it or even if it's approved um in perpetuity without a a expiration. It could be brought back if there was you know if there's complaints against it kind of the town or the board. So if someone's looking to do a substantial investment in their property building ADU having you know not having certainty that it can persist into the future would be kind of a major detriment or not encouraging that sort of just a zoning map of the existing properties. I was able to zoom in pretty close here because we don't have a lot of this zoning. Um, this is just outlined here in the core Oldtown area. So, it goes from Fires Avenue, there's a elementary school to the north and then Noran to the railroad um on the east and then there's a few properties carved out of that right in the middle that actually medium density single family. Um, so just the the rest of the areas in that very palish yellow or low density single family. believe it's approximately 40 properties and then eight of which are like public property currently is owned by the town or the so pretty minimal number of property here that was okay so these are all the ADU requirements I'm not going to go through these apologies for the slide but if we have any thank you if we have any specific questions on what's included in the ADU we refer to this um because at the high level in general ADUs have to be at least 200 square feet. They can't be more than 1,200 square ft and otherwise they're limited to 50% of the primary unit. So whichever would be

lesser if you have so for example if you have a 2,000 square foot home the maximum a size on your property would be ft. Okay. Okay. So, here's the proposed code amendment. Like I said, as simple as crossing out the C for conditional use and proposing the P for permitted use. Um, and just a little context, at least in terms of Garrett and my experience here, um, we've only had a couple of ADUs in the last couple of years, and I don't believe there were any additional even going back to, you know, 2020. Um, we kind of did the cursory review of building permit records going back to baseline and only had a couple of permits identified at the pressure building. So, it's something that's pretty widely allowed now. It's not fully being utilized. Maybe additional incentives or other ways to encourage that development. But this will, you know, this code amendment will be one thing to encourage more properties. The next steps would be just following any recommendations from planning commission here is it would go to the board of trustees and at that point of the code amendment um that would be the public hearing. So it'll be noticed um I believe it's 15 days out for state statute. Um kind of the quickest this would be able to go forward to the board of trustees would be early May. I believe the first meeting in May and then potentially if this approved go into effect Hopefully that's the last quiet. Okay, I happy to answer any questions. Any questions or discussion? I have a question for our chair. I live in that um area and I kind of feel like because it would benefit me that I'm just going to recuse myself

from the conversation and voting. I don't necessarily have to and there's a the four of you can vote again, but um I I would definitely it serves a self-interest. So I think I should reproach myself from the conversation on this. Most of caution, but I mean we all represent our neighborhoods, too. So yeah. Yeah. But you don't live in this area, but it benefits. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I was I benefited by the Riverwalk district and took part in all those discussions, but um Yeah. Okay. Okay. No worries. Yep. Okay. So, you're talking basically about policy and size and but no addressing how you're going to control uh who lives there, whether it's rented, whether it's rented short-term, long-term grant. This initial code amendment is just to expand the existing allowance as it's treated everywhere else to the zone district. And then that sort of discussion absolutely fair game for a workshop of later topics. I think it's going to come up in a few different forms that you know no reason why additional code amendments could be. I think that needs to be addressed. Should be addressed townwide. Yeah. Yeah, it does. I mean and I you know you're talking low density residential. I'm assuming that if you're in a PUB, unless you have an exception like Clark did when he did his original filings in Grand Park, he that was allowed. But would this low density residential apply to rendevous now? Uh no, it wouldn't is a simple answer. um rendevous and Grand Park since they're zoned PD they're governed by as you know

those PDDs and final plan development plans as those are approved and even um some of the HOA restrictive covenants like I know in rendevous we've had questions about um folks who are just on you know single family zoned property in rendevous but um ADUs are actually prohibited by the HOA um in in most cases I believe I don't want to speak too broadly but um this this code change wouldn't apply to rendevous or Grand Park at all. Just this zone. Yeah. Well, I'll speak. Sure. I want to speak in favor of it. I think this is um just the kind of thing we were talking about at the last meeting where, you know, we said, well, we're going to address all these changes to the code when we do our new master plan, blah blah blah. And we also, you know, discussed, well, what about the straightforward things that we could do now and we don't have to wait a year to do it? And this is a good example of just one of those things. So, I'm in favor of it. Yeah, me too. Yeah, I I am, too. I mean, it is a common sense approach, but Peggy's right. We've got a, you know, we're going to be talking about incentives and and ways to incentivize full-time price controlled housing next. Um, but but this is, you know, yeah, we're we're trying to create density for hopefully for local housing, but yeah, this doesn't doesn't do that. But but it's not really in shouldn't be in the zoning. So, I'm I'm certainly in favor of it. Did we get Joy by chance or? So, I was going to call her and just have her on my speaker phone. Is that okay? Sure. She just unmuted. Can you hear me now? Barely, but

I'll tell you what. Tell her to call. I'll just put her on. I can call you, Katie. When is that microphone on? Okay, good. I'll take it. Do not disturb. How am I doing? Yeah. And then I can just leave it on speaker phone. Yeah. She might be. Hey Joy. Okay. Can you Yes, I can. There's reverb, though. There's reverb. What the heck? Okay. Turn off your volume. On your computer. Okay. What about That's much better. Much better. All right. Thank you so much for accommodating me. Okay. So, I'm just gonna leave you on the speaker. Okay. And um see if hopefully you can hear what's going on. So, Andy, you don't think that it increases the density of that particular zone? Oh, it does increase the No, it definitely increases the density. I was just saying that one of the things we're going to discuss next is in view of increasing density, we're hoping we're improving the local full-time housing situation. So, but that that's a separate discussion from allowing this use in this zone that it's a high traffic area with small children, elementary school, preschool, uh public park, and community center.

So, I just was curious why the ADU would be in this particular zone. Um, I know that we want to increase housing. Um, is this the best zone to do that? Yeah, Joy, I I can kind of maybe speak to that. You know, I I would imagine maybe that kind of logic or that thought process is maybe why ADUs were listed as a conditional use in this zone in the first place. Um I and I think it is a valid point in some ways, but I think in other ways if you um think about the types of um density and uses that would be allowed by right in this zone, which we kind of speak to in the staff report a little bit, but um building a a brand new single family home is allowed by right and also additions to a single family home which could be even larger than the 1,200 square foot cap. um that an ADU is is uh you know restricted to its maximum size at. So um in thinking about you know something like a a large single family home that could have four or five plus bedrooms uh that could have the same number of people living in it as say a more modestly sized uh primary residence and a a smaller ADU. So, some of those impacts behind density um with with traffic and and utility usage and things like that could really be quite similar um with with an ADU on a property. Does that make sense? Totally does. Thank you for clarifying. It uh makes sense to me now. Um I am curious, Katie Souls, as a community member and not a a planning commission member. I mean, what's your initial thought as you live in the area? I do think that would be helpful information.

Okay. Well, um there is some good vacant space in Frasier. The um you still have to meet the parking requirements and there's some really good pedestrian improvements coming to the town. a sidewalk that'll run down Norin and Eisenhower. And we're looking at improving the route along Leonard Lane um in terms of pedestrian traffic. So, I'm okay with it. Thank you so much. I appreciate you all. Thank you, Katie. I I really am grateful for your feedback. And I think it it also um Joy, you bring up a good point, but I I think this gives flexibility. We don't have any regulations, I don't believe, that restrict the number of people that can live in a house or unrelated people. Anything like some towns have those type of restrictions, but a house can't build a separate kitchen and separate unit inside that house without um without as a as a use by right. So it just increases the flexibility of a homeowner to be able to have somebody that's renting but have them separate from their household. So I I think that it both of them have the same impact on traffic and and I'm I'm going to in other business I want to talk some about the side impacts of all this density we're talking about. But um no, your your point's good. But I I think I think what kind of countermands it is that as as um our planner as Garrett was saying, you can double the size of your house, but then you got to have everybody using the same kitchen. So Sure. So and so people aren't are going to be loathed to do that, I think, unless you know they they're fond of that type of living arrangement. So it just gives more

flexibility. Great. Thank you for helping me understand that. So any other discussion? So I guess this would be a motion of support or motion of nonsup support, right? Yeah. And and we do have a a resolution as part of this. Um just as a reminder, I put up on the screen here. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to approve um planning commission resolution number 2025-03-01. I'll second it. I'll second it. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? I enjoy voted. I any opposed. Thank you. Okay. It's a good good step. It is good. So the um second agenda item is amendments for affordable housing workshop discussion. Uh, thank you, Chair Miller and Planning Commission. Uh, I before I dive into this, I kind of want to just pick up on the point that uh, Commissioner Gnusi raised on, um, you know, not waiting until the comprehensive plan update is finished to start tackling some of these things. I think that's certainly staff's desire. Um, I think it's also just a best practice to kind of approach these changes to our land development code in smaller manage manageable bites over time. Um, yes, every so often, you know, a comprehensive rewrite of a town's land development code is probably necessary like what occurred in 2018. Um but but certainly our approach uh around this affordable housing topic and as well as other potential changes to chapter 19 are the intention is to be uh you know

present them in more manageable pieces and implement them over time and not simply just wait until the comp plan is done. Certainly there will be good recommendations and um analysis contained in the comp plan but uh you know this this doesn't have to wait and it and it shouldn't wait frankly. Um so uh with that just a couple goals for today's discussion. I want to briefly spend a few minutes kind of just defining affordable housing. Uh discussing and then understanding those seven strategies that were presented in the staff report. Uh the real ask from you all as planning commissioners is to kind of rank and prioritize these strategies so that Allan and myself can bring them back for further analysis and implementation over the next year and and beyond. Um and additionally brainstorm any other strategies uh that maybe we are not thinking of. So uh affordable housing is defined as housing that costs no more than 30% of a household's monthly income uh including you know rent and utilities or a mortgage plus utilities. Uh Chaffa is a state agency that sets um income levels and maximum rents for a range of household sizes um in every county in the state. Um, I do want to note that for, you know, the Department of Local Affairs and for their grant-making purposes, they actually define affordable housing in communities, uh, such as Frraasier, which are rural resort communities, as um, 140% AMI for rental units and 100 160% for ownership. Uh, this is the current 2024 incomes and rents. I'm sure all of you are at least somewhat familiar with this. Uh this will be updated I believe in April for 2025. Um but it's it's easy to see that you know looking at this that 140 and 10060% AMI

uh I mean those those rents and incomes are really quite high. um certainly not incomes that a I would argue typical um Grand County or Frasier area employee is making and and certainly you know those maximum rent rates are in line or even exceed um current market rents that you could find uh just you know searching kind of right now. So I I would maybe just caveat some of our conversation today that um I I think maybe what's more important than stressing over maximum AMIs in these income levels is uh the requirement for local employment to be tied to these um deed restricted units. I think with a sufficient quantity of you know housing that's deed restricted for the local workforce I think the the rents and uh sales prices for those units that are ultimately you know charged uh will kind of dictate themselves and and uh modulate if you will to local incomes if that makes sense. So, um, so I sure to interrupt, but we've been down that road before with Clark. Sure. And because I'm a local resident, my income counts, and he counted all the realtors that lived in Grand Park. Sure. As residents and they're certainly not in the same ballpark as the guy that's working at the bar or right the list, the ski area. So, That's a caveat because I think that uh you go down that road and then you set this precedent that well anybody that lives here full-time is a local resident, therefore their income doesn't matter. That that that's a very fair point and I I I should have added this to the presentation, but the Frasier River

Valley Housing Partnership uh did a kind of update uh to the housing needs assessment that was done in 2022. just kind of an update on some of the data and they have a couple tables in there that show the uh distribution of households by AMI here in the Frasier area. And to uh Commissioner Smith's point, for home ownership households in Frraasier, there's kind of a barbell effect where there are a significant number of homeowners at the 60 to 100% AMI range, potentially longtime locals, uh maybe folks who are retired now and not making as much income but still, you know, own their residents. um as well as a significant number I think around 20 to 25% uh of homeowners in the 180% AMI and and above. Certainly folks who have maybe higher paying jobs um maybe they they live here year round but can work a remote job and therefore have a higher income. It it's hard to say, you know, but there is that kind of barbell effect in the income distribution for folks who own homes currently. uh there's not that same distribution for households that rent. Um I think a significant majority of households uh in Frraasier that rent their home uh have an income below 100% AMI. So, but it's it's a fair point certainly. Any other thoughts? Yeah. Well, we'll talk more about it later. I'm with you. I still I think we need to have a not to exceed. Mhm. Maybe 120%, maybe 140. And I like for the other communities we're using the average not to exceed you know overall for development an average of let's say 120%. Because then that gives them some

flexibility on um maybe the different income levels that can fit in there. But um I I think that we need to Peggy, I can't hear you. Is your mic on? We need to have, you know, some boundaries on that because just being a local resident can really skew things more force. I agree. That's a fair point. So diving into the seven strategies that were outlined in the staff report starting with the first one um around some additional definitions for what's called middle m missing middle housing uh specifically what are known as clustered housing types such as cottage courts where you have uh numerous detached structures each with a single unit but they're located on the same site and kind of oriented around a common open space. Um these cottagec court style developments um have been success successfully implemented in municipalities across the country through various zoning ordinances. Um I will say that this is likely most appropriate in lower density and lower height zones that are predominantly prevalent in Oldtown, but also the the Tarmaggan area could be appropriate for this style of development as well. Um, partially though, what makes the Oldtown area kind of a natural fit for this is uh the fact that there's alley access for vehicles on the rear of the lot um as well as the depth of the lots being um 130 ft is kind of in the ideal range for providing this type of development. So, I had a conceptual image in the staff report. I wanted to show a couple real life examples. This is in um Washington state. Um it was an infill project done I think in the early

2000s completely surrounded by very typical single family detached lower density type development. But you can see that um this property here has a total of I believe seven detached houses um all oriented facing towards the common courtyard area. I believe these are parking garages accessed off this rear street here. Um, and I think this is like a common shared you know amenity space. Um, so you know some of the pros of this uh folks have their own home uh not attached to other units like in a condo or apartment. there is a need to have some sort of HOA to maintain you know common area spaces and things like that. Um just to give another example um a lot of you know newer developments uh try to implement this in some form I would argue as kind of a tenant of uh what's called new urbanism. This is an example from over in Denver, uh, the Central Park, Stapleton, uh, you know, development of the former airport. Um, so there there's a few areas within Central Park that have this cottage cottage court style. Um, I do want to note here that the depth from the street ride ofway, which is approximately at the back of the sidewalk, to the alley back here, is about 150 ft. So the distance from the street to the alley in this situation is pretty comparable to the lot depth that is prevalent throughout Oldtown Frraasier. Um certainly, you know, in in Oldtown when it was originally platted, those lots were only 25 ft wide. Uh that's certainly not wide enough to accommodate

a cottage court. Most of the lots in Oldtown now are 50 to 100 ft wide. So, I think on that 75 to 100 feet lot width, that's when this starts to become more feasible. Otherwise, then you have to look at combining um adjacent lots into Oldtown in order to implement this kind of this style of development, if that makes sense. You almost have to put snow storage in the courtyard, though, wouldn't you? Yeah, that's a fair point. I think that's certainly the most logical place. Um, I I will say one advantage of this style of development is that the only areas that really need to be cleared of snow storage would be any sidewalks or walking areas through that kind of central courtyard. There's no um surface parking uh per se garages, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. And and typically in this style of development, there's either a shared garage area that can be accessed from the rear or um garages accessed, you know, behind the units, if you will. So, the set setbacks are pretty real. Yes, they they are. Um, and so to implement this here in Frraasier and specifically for some of our, you know, zones in Oldtown, we would need to modify things like our setbacks, our minimum lot sizes, um, and and things like that. So, I I do think that 20 ft makes a big difference. I've lived in a house that was 50 feet by 130 and another one that was 50 feet by 150. Sure. And it's there's a big difference. So I think trying to squeeze that in make it 20 ft less is going to be challenging. So with this question now is just to allow this in our code because we don't we're not addressing it. But I think we need to think practically. I mean we

address things in the code and okay you can't build them. So well probably depends on where the lot was. Maybe it's not going to be in Oldtown. on these these maybe it'll be I think you need to have alley access in order to make this work and so and it needs to probably be flat too so I don't think tarmaggan's logical sure I will say there are some lots off of quail closer to county road 8 that are larger I would say and both in lot depth and lot width that could potentially accommodate this even with a um you know, street uh you know, street parking access from the street and some sort of uh shared driveway um for parking amongst these cottage uh units, but but certainly the majority of Tarmagan isn't um appropriate for this style of development. Certainly um you know all the diagonal lots um the these um zones and these regulations become tools that annexation uh can use. Sure. So it becomes models that that help us when when we're presented with annexations. So and help developers see what's what what we're kind of what some of the things that we're after as a community. So, Mhm. and and to Peggy's point too here, if you look here, the 1, two, three, four, five, six houses along the alley are about half the size of those four houses um on the courtyard. So, that depth could be taken up by making those houses smaller, too. So, uh, yeah, and I'll also add, you know, with this kind of image from Denver, I I would say that the homes shown here are probably larger than what's typical for a cottage court or what's

recommended. Um, generally those homes range from 800 to say 1,200 square feet in size. So, they could be more on the scale of an ADU. Um, just to get a sense of that. I think the main intention behind this as well is that um so for example in some of our multif family zones um where you can build three or four units on a lot um our our code requires that those units be in a single building in a condo type um structure. Um I I guess one of staff's um recommendations or or thoughts is, you know, having three or four small detached single family homes on a on a lot that's zone multif family should be acceptable if you would allow three or four attached, you know, apartment or condo units. Um certainly depending on the context of the site and and appropriate site design and things like that, but and that's the missing middle. I mean, that's you're ready to outgrow your condo and want to live in a single family home. This this is a next step that's not not as severe as a as a large home in Rhonda or Grand Park. So, well, and you know, I really think that Elk Creek kind of would meet this if you Sure. I mean, because those that size house that Yeah. would be really I think well received. Mhm. Clark built some more of those. So, I don't know if that's on his agenda anytime. What are the size of those homes, Peggy? I I don't think they're less than 2,000 square feet, I'm sure. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think they're they're typically in that 1500 to 2,000 square feet range. Yeah, just ballparking. But, and they have a garage, so you don't necessarily have to have an alley. Yeah, this orientation of houses is

nice. I've got well Adam Roth that works for us lives in a courtyard project over in Breen Ridge and it does it's a it's a nice feeling small neighborhood for sure. So, and instead of orienting to the street, it's oriented to a common. Yeah, Breenriidge has a really nice Yeah, he's he's in price controlled housing there. So, well, I think you make a good point in that it's a type of housing that represents that missing middle. Yeah. That is a step between going from a condo say ownership to a big house like in Grand Park or Rendezvous. And if the lot would permit it, that would be the limiting factor, it seems. So, I would say we should have it in our portfolio of homes or residences or housing that we approve and we support, but we may have to have some specifics about what kind of lot would be typically satisfy this courtyard approach. Because you're saying basically the only way it works is if you have alleyway it it can work without a rear alley. Um then you just need a kind of wider lot width on the street frontage to accommodate put together a few lots and have a street and a street like I see up here. Mhm. Yeah, that would work in the case of a new development. Um you could design that would design lots to fit this. Yeah. Have you been down to see Reunion down in Front Range? I have not. That's that's worth a trip. Okay. It's It's really interesting. Where is that Peggy? That's It's about outside of Boulder,

north of Boulder. Okay. And it's it's really interesting. And they, you know, very dense. Um, and you know, different styles of architecture. So, it's not all alike, but they they're all, you know, setbacks are I don't know, maybe five feet that they're not much, but very walkable community. Um, it's it's it'd be worth a trip to go field trip. So um we would need in the future to define what the setbacks would be required for in a cottage court because but this is just the first step to say yes. Yeah I think we want to use this as an option and then we have to work out the details. Yeah I think the intention behind again all of these is just is this something the planning commission would want to pursue more broadly? Um certainly I I think staff listed this as the first strategy because initially we thought maybe this would be a bit more of a lowhanging fruit as we did this initial research. I think it it would require a bit more leg work than just a simple code change. But um certainly if this is something that the planning commission is interested in implementing or even just having in our um code for future annexations, uh that's certainly something we can work to prepare. I don't think so. Yes. No. Yeah. Seems like you've got support. Sure. Um any other thoughts or comments before we move on? Let me start you, Joy. You think this is a better representation for addressing the middle than condos? Um, I think wouldn't we need an alleyway for emergency medical

services and such? Um, just a thought, but yeah, thank you. And for fire, too. Joy, that's a good point. Yep. Yeah, that is a good point. Um certainly, you know, any any units kind of away from the street would still have to have appropriate width of access um for fire and EMS and things like that. And that's that's where the alleyway comes in again. So would be pretty tough to do this without an alley. So because it's got access to every house by vehicle, right? And people getting I think they like that. Yeah. Okay. Uh so strategy two was to expand as well as potentially modify our existing density bonus uh that we have in the Riverwalk district. So if you recall from about a year ago uh after a series of of previous workshops that were kind of put on pause uh over the past year, it was identified that that Riverwalk density bonus could be expanded to the business and highdensity multif family zones. These are our two other zones that have a base density of 20 units per acre. So they allow the same level of density as Riverwalk. It generally would make logical sense to also allow um a density bonus in these zones. Um, the staff report also lays out a couple potential modifications that could be made. Um, such as instead of specifying that all deed restricted units be at the same specific AMI, uh, it could be an average AMI level across units so that there's a bit more flexibility on the developer and and again a range of income level units. Um, another thing that staff has seen implemented in other municipalities is regulating the size of deed restricted

units and specifically the minimum size so that um, you know, in a say apartment complex of all threebedroom units, you're not, you know, just deed restricting some studio units or what have you. And and making sure that um, there's also, you know, a one-bedroom unit has to be at least, you know, 750 ft or what have you. and and having requirements around things like that. Yeah. With with that though, I just want to make sure that we don't um penalize the development of small units, too. I mean, maybe it's tied to bedrooms or something like that. They've got to have two studio units for a two-bedroom. So, we do want those small units as well that are affordable. Yeah, that that's a good point. And and that that could be another potential change. Instead of having a a percentage of all units deed restricted, it could be a percentage of all bedrooms provided such that it it gives flexibility to provide. I like that. Yeah. Yeah. So when you're saying bedrooms walking through this, so somebody that's a big developer, not just, you know, somebody buys a lot and decides they're going to build two units or something to we're talking a big, we're talking a percentage of that whole property. Um I'm looking down the road for annexations, that kind of thing. Um this is yeah I I mean how are density bonuses currently applied it's it's you know 20% of all units constructed have to be deed restricted. Does that answer your question? That's so now if we switch to bedrooms how does that I mean I think we want to do some math before we just go oh let's do that. Well it's 20% possibly of all

bedrooms maybe. So yeah, if they're Yeah. So that would mean the large it might even be by 20% of all bedrooms that could be in our benefit. Yeah. As opposed to 20% of the units or even 20% of of the square footage of the residential development. I mean be somewhere math. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh and then the last point here just has to deal with um other municipalities kind of tied to their density bonus, they also allow exceptions to other zoning standards. Uh I believe the logic behind that is to help facilitate that higher density. Um I will say in the Riverwalk zone, we do have pretty lenient standards. um you know setbacks can be up to zero uh build to lot line um open space is only 5% in the riverwalk. However, if we expanded this density b uh bonus to business and highdensity multif family um those zones have a bit more restrictive setbacks in some cases and a 35% minimum open space. Um and then you know uh other other areas that could also be made exceptions are height and minimum parking. Yeah, we ran into that with our with the variance we did at the last meeting. So yeah, and something interesting that Garrett and I talked about in the past for parking was can we develop covered parking, not garages, but covered parking and then forego the the snow storage area. So because the snow will be on the top of the parking but and you didn't you didn't see anything in the code against that but that covered parking has to meet setbacks whereas parking doesn't have to mean setbacks. So that that would be one one thing holding holding up uh developing covered parking. I think you know snow storage

is a is you know if we can find ways that that we don't have to allocate property to to parking uses and snow storage is being is allocating property to parking basically. Um anyway that's just a just a thought. So I think that's a an interesting idea. Yeah. Yeah. That would help with the cost of development too. So yeah, I I can I I there is a section of our code that speaks to setbacks for car ports. Um I I'm struggling to remember the exact text of it, but I Yeah, I'll research and follow up. Certainly. Yeah. Um I I also just have a map of the zoning here in town just to remind everyone the area zone business are kind of the maroon dark red highdensity multif family is the darker orange almost brown color. Um there are significant number of property zone business that are completely undeveloped right now. um the Meer lots, the Summerall OVR5 parcel. Um there's a lot um adjacent to the Lions Pond uh in the Safeway area, and then the um kind of Riverview condo site, which was approved for development, but um still remains vacant. Um the only significant undeveloped property that's zoned high densely multif family is um off Doc Susie near um El Creek Road right here. Um but certainly expanding the density bonus into these zones uh given that there there are significant parcels yet to be developed. Um you know the the the goal and intention behind this is uh that hopefully this density bonus would be utilized um in the development of those properties.

So, one of the concerns that I've had for a long time is that we do have a considerable amount of what appears to be business zoning, but that can be downzoned to housing. And at some point, this community is going to need commercial property, whether it's for shopping, something. And if we just build that all out, highdensity housing, I think that's a real mistake. And um I'm I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. Well, yeah. Clark's project is taking space and and I just think that that is something that um we can't continue to do because if we do that, we're not going to have any any retail and sales tax and sales tax. So, but but some of these bonuses are tied to commercial and the Riverwalk district are tied to commercial, too. So, seems like that's the balance we need to. But the Riverwalk district as the last when I looked at the last plan, it looked like a suburban office park instead of a highdensity commercial, you know, walkable town square kind of thing that I was hoping it would be. I hope that those plans get redrawn to the point where it looks a little bit more like a place where everybody can live and work and walk to the river and recreate. Yeah, I I think all the those points are valid. I uh I I do think broadly speaking um our our business zone is is similar to other municipalities in that it's kind of the least restrictive in terms of use. Um it I think that's fairly typical to allow you know multif family residential endzones that also allow uh commercial retail type uses. Um kind of

the logic being that multif family housing is somewhat less intensive in terms of you know uh utility needs, traffic generation, etc. than say a retail shopping complex like the Safeway or Murdoch's uh Frasier Valley Center. Um I I but tying the bonuses to the commercial sure is the way to try and balance that. That's what we did in Riverwalk and need to continue that effort into the rest of business. So well and and also you know tying it to the first floor has to be commercial. That's commercial instead of a bunch of Yeah. apartments. Well, it it could become a choice for a developer. Do you want to have an AMI control apartment on the ground level or commercial? you know, and and it should model out that I would assume that the commercial would would be more advantageous for them. So, well, I I really think that that's something that we're going to have to steer because some at some point people are going to come here and they're going to want to shop and eat right now. You know, it's great that the UPS guy can find your house, but you know, but we've got restaurants disappearing and and that's going to change and we're not going to have any space for that. You know, we got to think about our sales tax base. You're exactly right, Peggy. Unless we want to up our mill levy. Nobody seems to have an appetite for that. So, so on that note, I I know um a year ago when we talked about this, uh I I think the proposal at the time was if we did add the density bonus to the business zone to have the same eitheror option that the Riverwalk zone has. It can either be deed restricted units or groundf flooror commercial retail uses. I kind of left that out of today's presentation given the focus on affordable housing, but I staff certainly is not opposed to having that either or in the business zone in order to um incentivize you know commercial

development in addition to you know mixed use commercial um and residential development um if that makes sense. Yep. Got that balance. Mhm. Uh any other thoughts or comments on expanding the density bonus? Any thoughts on um allowing exceptions to other zoning standards? I guess especially with regards to the business district that is, you know, more more restrictive than Riverwalk. I think I think hype is the thing that we've encountered the most in the last six months to a year is people wanting to build four stories, you know, because that's somewhat of an economic tradeoff for them. They get that extra floor and that makes the project funded better. Yeah. Pays for pays for the elevator. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, I I think we need to look at these bonuses, including a height bonus and tie that into this these housing. Absolutely. 20% housing, however, that's going to go. Yeah. Yeah. What what would be great is if we had first floor, you know, commercial space with res restaurants and other amenities, shopping and then housing over the top of that, let them go another floor, you know, 55 ft or so, and get some restricted housing in there. Yeah. And in your documents, you talked about some ways to make that height more palatable, right? happening back buildings um you know ways kind of the what Clark actually was achieving

somewhat with his his project in the last meeting so that it's not not the canyon effect cading right some articulation of the upper floors the floors that step articulation and then you've got yeah some interesting outdoor braids that you know aren't flat just just remember though that the uh the step back building up in Winter Park they did years ago by Cooper Creek Square that where the police station is. Oh yeah. When you when you remove snow from that roof, you have to shovel it five times before it reaches the ground. That's a valid point. Hopefully by then they have good snow melt systems on each level. Yeah. Um I lost my train of thought that on the um giving up open space. I think that would be something that that we shouldn't just build in as an automatic um maybe something that could be negotiated. Sure. Or fees and little parks, right? And trails. Yeah. Yep. I think what's common Oh, sorry. Yeah. What's common with other municipalities that allow those exceptions, it's always subject to site plan review. So, there is, you know, some some degree of negotiation and flexibility. It's not a I saw that number of misses still um subject to approval by the planning commission. Sterling Ranch in in um Denver fairly recent subdivision and they have very very dense residential but each each block I believe has to have a neighborhood has to have a park and then that park is watered with underground system storage from the streets. Oh. So they they they removed most of their landscape water, but some kind of common park, common element type thing to combine that would be a more efficient use of land and also more more valuable for a cohesive neighborhood. Yeah. Oh,

filtering water off. That's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. The gutters just lead to huge underground tanks. So Oh. Yeah, I think certainly some of this um the open space regulations kind of need to be viewed in tandem maybe with our our parkland dedication or fee and loo. I think the hope is with some of the larger parcels that are yet to be developed in town that we would see parkland dedication instead of fee and loo but uh our code certainly does have that option. So yeah, um that could be beefed up some for the when you when they for when they're they don't have to provide all the open space then maybe a larger parkland dedic um of dedication. So um circling back to the height bonus. Um so the staff report kind of lays out two different ways to implement this. One of them, uh, we could utilize the existing Victoria Village overlay, um, as a pathway to a height bonus. Um, that overlay zone allows 55 ft in height. Um, you know, recognizing that even though it's named Victoria Village Overlay, it is a zone district that technically any property can uh seek to reszone into. um kind of if if we want to go down this path uh staff recommends that the height increase be just 10 ft above the base height and not 55 ft automatically. So, for example, in the highdensity multif family zone, which has a maximum height of 40 ft, uh we would suggest a a bonus height of up to 50 feet in that case. But, um so so 10 ft. Yes, that's that's kind of the idea. Um and and currently

with Victoria Village overlay um there is a 80% AMI tied to that height as well as the density bonus compared to 120% AMI. So the suggestion is again if we were to kind of expand this to other zones uh say the business zone you can achieve you know 40 unit per acre density with the 120% AMI you can get an additional 10 ft in height with 80% AMI deed restricted units and I think that that sorry trusty Smith that um AMI level the the ratio of units that can certainly all be tweaked. I think again it's it's just kind of the proposal based on kind of what how our code is currently set up and written. But I think if we were to implement this more broadly, we would we would do some additional analysis and you know fine-tuning of this. So question if if it was on top of the overlay for Victoria Village and Victoria Village is at 55 ft now that would give them 65 ft. So for Victoria Village, that property is zoned business with the Victoria Village overlay. So again, the way this would be implemented if we went this route is the overlay zone would essentially add 10 ft to the underlying zone district if that makes sense. So still the 10 feet would make 50 or 55, not 65. Yeah, correct. Not Victoria Village. They're not going to get an extra 10. Okay. Right. And there's talking here too about um changing the name of that because there is no Victoria Village again. Right. Although it's on the old documents, right? And it's the name of the zone, the overlay. So, Right. Yeah. So I so I

also think if we even if we uh don't go the route of let's use the overlay zone as a height bonus zone quote unquote, I think we would still seek to probably um re at the very least rename it. Um potentially create a new standalone zone district. Uh just because there are some conflicts between the business zone and the overlay zone. Um it probably makes more sense to just have a standalone zone district for the St. Louis landing development anyways. Um but I agree because this is confusing. Yeah. Yeah. And also going zone going zone district by zone district um a little easier for people in that neighborhood to understand and provide feedback and and because high density multifamily and business are very different zones. And um anyways, just break it into pieces so people can get a hold of it and see how it's going to affect their neighborhood. Sure. I think we also have to come to terms with if you're building on a hill like the Summerall property versus being on the valley floor versus rendevous, you know, all of these different where we're going to how where do you measure height? Yeah, that that height measurements. Yeah, it seems like um the way they're doing it over where they're going to build the hotel on the rendevous property next to the bank, they're doing four corners average and then measuring from there, which seems like a better way of doing it than the way we're currently written up in our code. So, is that something that we want to change in our code? What do you think, Garrett? that would be useful. I I think it's certainly worth um trying to revisiting whether you know

that height definition in our code needs to be changed. Um making sure it's more in alignment with what neighboring municipalities in the county do. I mean, even just having two different definitions for height here in the town, one for our PD areas and one for everywhere else is uh hard to implement certainly. Um, so I I think that's definitely something staff will look at in conjunction with implementing a height bonus. Um, you know, one other thing which was kind of left out of the staff report, but to Commissioner uh Gnusi's point is, um, the flexibility that's afforded for development in the PD zone, uh, which helped facilitate the hotel and rendevous. They didn't come in exactly under 45 ft in height. um they came in a few feet over, but there's flexibility at the time of FPDP review to to you know modulate that a bit. Um and and generally there's pretty broad flexibility for some some leeway um in that height. I mean other municipalities have things um like administrative adjustments where building height can be exceeded by five say 10% uh without any sort of variance hardship proven. Um so implementing something like that would kind of be similar to what's on the books for our PD zones. I think what staff is very cognizant of is uh I guess I should say we have no concerns with granting that type of flexibility. But then when you're talking about say a 10% just height flexibility allowance if you will um then is a 10 ft height bonus really that much of an incentive? Do we now have to look at height bonuses of 65 75 feet

even taller? Um that's that's maybe just the uh what what we would raise kind of thinking about those things in conjunction if that makes sense. So and broadly speaking staff has no uh opposition to height taller than 55 ft. say I think it's the planning commission and the board's decision ultimately. I mean it's possible to build taller than 55 ft obviously but do you all as planning commissioners and does the board want that in Frasier? Um yeah depends on location maximum height in Winter Park. Now, so in the town proper, they have a base height of 55 um in their kind of commercial, I think, destination center zone is what it's called. Um I'm not sure if they have any allowances for, you know, height bonuses taller than that. I think, um anything taller than 55 requires a variance. Um, but their base height is 55 whereas ours is 45 everywhere outside of Victoria Village. Um, certainly taller heights are currently permitted at the resort area. I couldn't tell you what they are right now. Um, I do know that the resort is certainly looking as part of their master plan to get approval for heights up to 150 ft. Uh, just for reference. Uh, but again, those hotels at the base have got to be 100 feet, aren't they? probably because they're in the seven story range, I think. Yeah. So, um and again, in that context, it makes sense, I would argue. But, um you know, I I don't think we would look to go that tall here in Frraasier, but

um yeah, well, we do have up to 75 feet, I believe, in PD in the P FDP for the town center there that Clark's planning. Yeah. Yeah. That was proved a long time ago. Yeah. Right. And and we still haven't seen, you know, those 75 ft tall buildings materialize, but certainly, yes, there there are areas of Grand Park that are zoned for that height. It's very dense in there and will be around the hospital and the backup is the railroad tracks, right? And that hillside. Yeah. So, you know, I think the difference is back to being here in the valley floor, right? That's this is our shtick is having our views, right? And granted, you know, 45 to 55 feet, you still aren't going to see it from highway, but that that psychological, you know, box. So, that's something for us to Well, I think take a look at. I also think what Clark's plan is is that the taller buildings are going to be set back further into the lot away from US 40. So you're going to have buildings that are compliant with height along 40 and you get back there, you know, a street or two back, then you might get a 75 project at sometime in the future. But there's a place for them. So I think again up to further analysis and consideration. One of the ideas laid out in the staff report was you know additional amounts of height could be uh granted for increasing ratios of deed restricted units. Um so again if that extra 10 feet gets you a fourth floor um and you have to do 20% of the units or

square footage deed restricted and commercial and yeah and or commercial uh then could you get another 10 feet for an increased rate ratio say 30% or 40%. Yeah, we've had some good discussions about design though and this is some of your last things here and with the bigger and bigger buildings and the more and more density we're doing, we've got to have more robust design um requirements so make this all work. Yeah. And I I think that can even just be um you know maybe greater subjectivity and authority by the planning commission and board around those design elements. I think right now our code language is kind of um weak in that sense. Um so certainly just having language around you know architectural review must be approved by planning commission and if there's concerns raised right at the public hearing phase some of the ele some defined elements though are important because you put a board on the spot. Sure. You know and also people people have a right to know what the expectations are too. That's fair. is the the way way we do zoning is that people know what's going to happen in their neighborhood at least to some extent. So, so I like you know you pres presented those like it was like a a book of of of of options and you know things that you can choose from. So you're not tying somebody to something but you you've got a a uh a book of of of how a how-to book to make it work. So I think I I missed that one. Yeah. Wasn't that Winter Park then? Yeah, that was back in um I think November of 23 when we were kind of talking about just architectural design guidelines more broadly. I shared with the planning commission at that time, winter parks um architectural design guideline standards. Yeah. Um

which I I believe they even require for as uh as as low as you know single family detached residential to kind of comply with that. But certainly things in that um guideline document apply to larger scale development as well is my recollection. So that's certainly something we could you know try to pull from um and and try to implement something similar uh kind of in conjunction with developments that seek this additional height above kind of base allowances. And the geography is important. Katie, you're right. I mean, Winter Park's got hillsides and trees and it's in a different geographical it's different environment. We're we're out here on the flats and and the valley floor, but um a big part of our town is Clark's West Mountain on the other side of the tracks where you get back into terrain that's similar to the winter parks and back into the hills where where you can do more things with heights. So anyway, we've got to kind of keep it keep keep an eye keep options as to what our town really is. So the way it's the way that the uh landscape is. Mhm. Any other thoughts or comments would be good to Okay. So this next strategy um is I will admit kind of a interesting one. Uh the idea behind this is some sort of density bonus provision but in our lower density zones which again are primarily here in Oldtown and up on Tartmagan in that area. The kind of main concept behind this is to allow in one zone district the density level in kind of the next densest zone but subject to the

provision of deed restricted deed restricted uh housing. So kind of just walking through this table in the lowdensity single family zone right now you can build uh a single family detached dwelling and one ADU. Anything above that either requires a conditional use permit or is simply not allowed. Uh kind of the proposal or concept is that under this zoning change in the lowdensity single family zone, you could build a duplex plus an ADU so long as one of the three units are deed restricted. And then kind of just working through the other zones. Um in medium density single family, you could build up to a triplex as well as an ADU. Um that's one more unit than would currently be allowed. Um and then in our multif family zones, both zone districts restrict uh uh they have there's a hard cap of four dwelling units on the property uh regardless if you know your lot size was large enough to accommodate more based on minimum lot area per unit. So part of this would be removing that somewhat arbitrary 4unit cap. Um as well as reducing the minimum lot size. Um so for example in the lowdensity multif family from 3,000 square ft per unit to 2500 ft per unit which is what's required in medium density. Um and uh similarly for medium density from 2500 to 2178 which is what's allowed in highdensity multif family. So it it I think it's a combination of you know that minimum lot size per unit may not move the needle as much as removing the four unit per lot um cap. Um but but this could facilitate

you know additional density. Again in our in our single family zones it would allow one more unit than is allowed currently but that one additional unit would have to be deed restricted. In our multif family zones, it could allow one, two, maybe three depending on the lot size. Um or or four actually um just because there are some larger lots again zone medium density multif family that could have more than four units but are just subject to this kind of arbitrary cap currently. So that's kind of the concept in in a nutshell, but please let me know if there's any questions or comments on this. So, this is going to have to address the height issue because a 50 by150 lot is what 6,250 square ft or something. So, um you got to have parking, you got to have snow storage, you got I don't see how this works unless you go up. Yeah, that's a fair point. So, uh, you know, a 50x uh 50 lot is 7,500 square ft. That's probably something that's typical in in Oldtown a lot that size. Um, so that's, you know, under a quarter of an acre. Um I you know if if this lot is zoned say medium density single family for example uh yeah it is probably hard to fit a triplex and a separate ADU all on that lot but depending on you know the unit sizes uh it it could be feasible. Um, I think, you know, also just broadly speaking, any any lot that can accommodate a large single family home can accommodate, I would argue, a triplex or forplex just

with smaller units, broadly speaking. So, in the the requirement of I know that's pretty tough. Yeah. 2500 square feet lot per unit. Is the ADU a unit? As our code is currently written, the ADU is kind of an exception to our square footage requirement. Correct. Um in in the multif family zones specifically. So because in our multif family zones, that's where it speaks to um you know unit per acre densities maybe more clearly than our single family zones where you can either build a single family or duplex residence. Um, so the the way we interpret our code is like so for example in the lowdensity multif family zone by right currently if you have a large enough lot of at least 12,000 square ft you could build a forplex as well as an ADU and technically that ADU can be attached to the forplex so it's technically a fiveplex or it could be a separate uh detached structure. Um, so it kind of exists outside of this um, minimum lot size requirement is how our code is currently written. Frankly, I don't know if that makes the most sense. I think the designation of ADUs in multif family zones is somewhat atypical. Um but you you could also view it as you know just allowing ADUs as um broadly as possible is is one of the town's goals uh to provide that additional density and you know modestly sized units. So to meet um Peggy's input, could you do some modeling on these existing lots and see if this can actually be done? Yeah. So,

I I did go into that for a few. Um, so these are all um based on actual existing lot sizes here in town. Um, so first scenario, um, this is again a pretty standard size lot around the size uh, Peggy mentioned. Um, for a property that's zone lowdensity single family. Um, right now, again, you can only build a detached um, single family home plus an ADU on that property. Under this proposed bonus, you could build a duplex plus an ADU. And again, that duplex could likely be similar in scale to an existing single family unit, just it would be two separate units. You'd have two kitchens. Um, yes, there would likely be more parking required on site based on how our code is currently written because you'd have to look at um the number of bedrooms in that duplex. Um, so for example, if the duplex is two uh three-bedroom units, then that requires four parking spaces. Whereas a single family home, regardless of its size, two parking spaces. Um, so this size lot is it 50 by what? Uh, I think this is approximately 50 by 130. Maybe a little wider or deeper deeper. So it's really a triplex is what you're proposing potentially or it can be again the ADU can be detached. So, it could be um say there's a detached garage uh that serves some of the parking for the duplexes or the ADU and the ADU is located above the garage. That that could be another arrangement. I would say that's not too dissimilar to um what we have with some existing properties

throughout Frraasier where you have um you know an existing home with a detached garage and maybe that detached garage is also an ADU. Um the difference here is simply that the set of again instead of a single family residence you now have a duplex instead. Okay. It's going to be really skinny cuz I mean 25 ft wide, two two units, that's zero line setbacks. I mean, I have a hard time visuallying visualizing this. Sure. That's a fair point. Um I I guess on a lot that is 25 ft wide itself or even 50 feet, maybe this isn't the most feasible. Um, but there are again lots in Oldtown that are again were combined from those existing 25 feet wide lots from the original plat of East/Fraasier. So you have 75 or even 100 ft of width to work with, but there are lots dimensions currently where the most you can build is, you know, a single family home and a um ADU. So I I think it is dependent on the lot size and um you know certainly in these examples it's it's it it may not be feasible just based on providing an adequate sized unit in the duplex for example and the height regulation in these zones is 35 35 ft is the maximum height. So that's, you know, two stories plus maybe an a loft area. Yeah. Is what's probably typical or achievable. Um just to quickly go through scenario number two. Um so the medium density single family zone is not very prevalent at all. There's a couple

properties just across the street here from town hall that are zoned medium density single family. uh they I believe are essentially all duplexes or single family. Um they may not again these to commissioner uh Smith's point these lots probably aren't feasible for any additional density beyond a duplex and maybe an ADU. But where this would probably apply most clearly as it exists as this zone exists today are the um mobile homes along Mil Avenue. Yeah, those are all zone medium density single family. I think if it's the long-term intention by the commission and town board to see that area redevelop long term. Um this could be something that makes sense. You know, if you think about those mobile home lots combining into larger lots, you do have the possibility where um one um you know the total number of units that currently exist today in those mobile homes actually gets reduced as lots get combined and redeveloped um and and probably gets redeveloped in a way where the frankly the affordability of those homes um is not preserved. So this this is one potential way uh to help ensure that um one the total number of residential units could be preserved as well as um deed restricting some of those units if that were to happen. So is there any way to develop those one lot at a time to pull their mobile home out and build a home or it's got to be a I've been working on this project for a long time. There's a utility line right down the middle of that, right? Or Well, and there's only one water tap and it's Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's it's a it's something that's doable, but it's going to be a big lift. And I think the town

would have to really get involved to make it happen. We just wiped out one more wall park to do it again. Well, yeah, but I think, you know, I mean, I I think there's a way here where you could on the street have threetory town houses basically and in the back have ADUs above garages. Yep. And and that would work. Yeah. But it'd be really hard to do one owner at a time. No, you you've got to kind of talk everybody into it and and maybe you just give them the first right or refusal to get into Victoria Village because that would motivate some of them, I think. Yeah, I'm sure. It's a tough one. It is. Yeah, it's a really tough one. Yeah, that's a home to a lot of people and a lot of those trailers are getting really funky. Yeah, you are. Yeah. Yeah. And some are nice been replaced with double wides or not double wides. Yeah, I I think absent of combining those lots to make them larger, some sort of uh again contiguous town home type development is, you know, would would be the most feasible. Um but otherwise, I I think this strategy could allow um you know, you wouldn't necessarily have to do all of them at once, I guess. Um uh so moving on to a couple examples in the multif family zone. So there is a 17,000 square foot lot in the lowdensity multif family zone that um just uh you know off of uh Muse Drive is the really the only area in Frraasier that has this zone. So, um, even though this is a larger lot and if there wasn't this arbitrary, um, you know, 4unit cap on the

property at a, um, 3,000 square ft of lot area per unit, you could build five uh, units on this property. Uh what's kind of proposed under this scenario is that the density bonus would allow up to six units plus an ADU subject to um you know 20% of the units rounding up which would likely result in two um deed restricted units. So again, the main thing it's it's both removing the kind of arbitrary 4unit cap as well as slightly reducing the um minimum lot area per unit. Uh and then example in medium density. This is a lot off of quail uh you know just over 4/10 of an acre. So it's really quite large but again base density is only four units. um this concept could allow up to eight plus an ADU and then two of those units would be deed restricted. So that's kind of the density changes that are being contemplated here. Certainly this doesn't apply broadly to I would even say certainly not a majority of properties in any of these zone districts, but I would argue you know for ones that can take advantage of this um that's a win. I would say and it gets gets some additional density and some additional deed restricted units. Oh, hy first. Yeah, kind of in a way I I would argue. Yeah. I guess I just, you know, it's all great to put these numbers on, but I have a really hard time visualizing how you're going to get if you had four units and they were, thousand square feet each and then you

got an ADU and you can't and then that's 500 square feet. I mean, and you've got parking and so so now the ADU is that's their use by right right on all these now. Correct. But um they don't have to have an ADU, right? So if they want in their structure to add that extra bedroom or two, that's when this bonus would kick in, right? So they it doesn't mean that they have to have an AVU. That's an option. No, but I'm just trying to visualize, you know, if you've got four units, that's 4,000 square ft of living space, no garage. Mhm. That's a big house. When you add garage and 1,000 square feet is really tiny. That's maybe two bedrooms, maybe. Yeah. So yeah, it's, you know, it just seems to me like when we do this stuff, we have to be able to visualize, does this really work or is this just a concept on paper? Well, they've got to make it work under the regulations when they come in with a plan. So, well, yeah, you know, you you're selling this stuff that doesn't it may not work at all. Yeah. You know, that's what that's my concern is just how how does this lay out? Yeah. And again to Andy's point, it would depend on the piece of property that somebody owns. Well, these are talking specific properties here. And yeah, and um I don't know, it gives them the tools to work with and we do have to look at the regulations to see that that you know the setbacks and parking and you know all the things that we we ponder constantly. Yeah. To see if these would actually work on these sites. But it does give them some more tools in the

toolbox. Is this kind of what your frustration is? You've got property owners coming into you occasionally with what seem like good plans, but they don't quite fit our regulations. That's what you're trying to trying to make work, but also come up with with an ADU that doesn't become a short-term rental. Right. Yeah. Right. So, I I think to Commissioner Smith's point, um it's totally fair that, you know, these are kind of just even beyond or a higher level than I would say conceptual. Um certainly again if this is something that the planning commission generally thinks is a good idea to look at further we can uh provide you know rough concept sketches for an example site in the town you know and and how how it would you know how small would the units have to be or do we would we have to grant some sort of exception to minimum parking to actually make this work because it is a fair help everybody certainly help me um And in this these scenarios, does this ADU have to be rented out the locals, right? Um it's a good segue into our next topic. Um just have this slide here. Um, so you know, in the staff report we laid out, you know, just broadly speaking, ADUs are generally intended to serve as affordable long-term rental housing, right? And um I I would argue that the way they're currently regulated in our code um you know there's no restrictions on short-term rentals and ADUs um for example that kind of undermines that intent. And I I think um there there are certainly arguments either way. Um, you know, it could be argued that someone

who has lived in their home for a long time and really wants to just simply generate extra income from an ADU, certainly more income could probably be generated by a short-term rental in that ADU as compared to long-term rental. Um, so I certainly understand that um, perspective. Uh but I I think just broadly speaking then we have to understand you know if the town is acceptable with allowing that then really ADUs aren't this affordable housing tool right so um so just just generally speaking um you know also given that the way that our code is written with the ADU not counting towards the base density allowance uh I would argue that's a pretty large benefit for the property owner to add this extra per unit that doesn't what does that mean? So I guess going back to um have to have the square footage of the lot to meet the ADU. So Oh yeah, gotcha. So so going back to this table and looking at lowdensity multif family uh low density multif family has a minimum lot area requirement of 3,000 square feet per unit and you can build up to four dwelling units on that lot plus an ADU. So, um, so let's just say, for example, you had a 9,000. So, that's considered the base. Yes. Okay. Got it. Yeah. So, let's just say, for example, you had a 9,000 foot lot. You could only build three dwelling units per code, per the minimum lot area, but you can also build an ADU. So, you can still hit four units. Okay. On a smaller lot. And then on already providing the benefit for there's a new ADU down the alley from me there Katy at Ellen's house. Yeah. That's a short-term rental. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. And it's a short-term rental. Yeah. Mhm.

So to make enough to pay that price, but but again it's a benefit. Um the only only incentive we would have I guess to an ADU right now is that they could put it on a deed restriction and get and do our our indeed type programs and receive cash to to build it. So right that that is true. I mean our our deed restriction kind of program if you will is is open to requests and you know I think they're just simply evaluated on a case-by case basis. So there's certainly nothing preventing a property owner who wants to build an ADU come to the town and say, "I intend to put a deed restriction on it in perpetuity. What kind of financial incentive will the town offer me?" Um that that is allowed certainly. Um so yeah, you could argue that we already kind of have an incentive based approach, but maybe it's not that seem to be enough advertised very well or maybe it's not clear. um you know the actual dollar amount that could be provided from that deed restriction. Um so if it's uh you know spelling that out you know you can get up to this number uh maybe depending on the size of the ADU or something like that. Um I don't know. It seems like we ought to remove this incentive though that we have right now and that the ADU doesn't count towards the base amount of land you need to to build. So we remove that but it but it make it an incentive if you want the if the ADU is going to be full-time um with AMI also then it doesn't count towards your the amount of property you have to have. So, [Music] I mean, I think it's challenging because somebody who lives in the house full-time could put this on VBO, not

involve a property manager, and just turn and burn. It was online, though. We We had pretty Yeah, I mean, I saw online. We'll know that they're doing that, you know. I think it'd be great if we just said because there's a We have a lot of short-term rentals in our valley. Well over 2,000 now. Yeah. And there's no shortage. It's a little we unit. And I think we I'm game for giving it a shot just to say that they have to be used for um long-term rentals, not short-term. And the impacts on the neighborhood. It does make a difference in terms of impacts on the neighborhood because if you've got different people coming and going all the time and um versus someone that's lives there. I don't know. And that would be the we haven't been able to put a check on them at all. Short-term rentals because it models out to be very financial. I can't hear you, Andy. Yeah, it models out to be very financially. It models out to buy a house and turn it into SDR and still make money. So, at least make enough money to pay. Well, and they could if they live there. I think when you turn it over to you're an absentee owner, live in Denver, you have a short-term rental, you you're paying somebody else to clean it, you're paying somebody else to manage it. Yeah. It it's getting skinnier and skinnier now because there's so much competition. Yeah. But if you're living, you know, ft away, you can go over there and clean the house and flip it the same day. But Peggy, do we still have investors buying houses to turn them into STRs? You know, I think there's some people that have that conception that's how they justify buying a second home. The reality is is it's not as lucrative as you think and the wear and tear and the brain damage is way beyond most people's capacity. So, is it still a force in the real estate industry? Oh, yeah. It's always been a force. Everybody thinks that I'd really like to have a second home. I just need a little bit of help. A lot of

people need a lot more help than just a little. Yeah. But I think at least taking a hard look at that at making these s at the that these ADUs have to use that part of the property unless they're going to de restrict them to full-time use. So, right. And I I think you know given that our current short-term rental regulations are again quite quite broad, quite liberal, we don't have hard caps, we don't restrict by zone or anything like that. I think the initial suggestion in order to implement this kind of mandatory approach would be any property that has an ADU, it therefore has some other at least one other unit, the primary unit, right? Um so therefore there both units cannot be short-term rentals. the the the you know resident can live in the primary house and short-term rent the ADU or vice versa if they want to live in the ADU and short-term rent the main house. It's huge. Yeah. I I think that um helps regulate it to a degree and still ensures that on the property there is a full-time resident. Yeah. Right. um while still kind of being consistent with the town's current policies on again being, you know, not not regulating short-term rentals with too heavy of a hand, I would say. So I think that's maybe a good approach and certainly um also gives more flexibility to the property owner and doesn't mandate that the ADU itself has to be the the one that's deed restricted or has to be or cannot be short-term rented if that makes sense. So but I think in short though Garrett it seems like there's support to incentivize the ADUs just as just as much as we incentivize any other increase in density. So, okay, I think that makes sense, right? Yeah.

You know, yeah, that's a good compromise. Yeah. Yeah. So, again, any any property with an ADU, um, basically, if they want to they want an STR, Yeah. a short-term rental, then then they don't get any incentive for it. They've got to use that part of their property, right, for that the 3,000 square feet per unit goes to the ADU also. So, Okay. Well, and then this point, I do like yours. It's just that only one unit on the property may be used as a short-term rental. Yeah, not two. Yeah, that's And that we could do leaving out the incentive just Yeah, that we could do for existing units. So, Right. Yeah. But you could move your mother into the back unit if you wanted to and not do any rental just Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. You have our full-time resident. Sure. Yeah. There there's no restriction on long-term rentals at all, which or your husband or whatever depending on the day. Yeah. Oh, uh so moving on, I'll just touch on these last two pretty briefly. So, expedited review and fee reductions. Um the town if we want to remain eligible for funding through Prop 123, we must implement an expedited review process for affordable housing developments no later than November of next year. This is on staff's radar. Uh this is something that we will seek to tackle after the comp plan is updated. It could involve um utilizing a consultant to help us with this process or not. That's kind of yet to be determined. Uh but the state does have grant dollars available to help hire consultants to kind of do this work, but it is on our radar. It is something that we will uh look to implement, you know, later this year, early next year in order to remain eligible for um that Prop 123 funding. Uh but something that

was discussed um by uh Sarah Katanzerite was um fee reductions or waiverss or rebates. And currently, you know, the the main proposal is simply that if we were to implement those types of fee waiverss, that any project that qualifies for our expedited review process would also qualify for some form of fee reduction or waiver. And again, that could cover, you know, things like the site plan and plat application fees, building permit fees, um, uh, you know, deferral of those TAP fees. Um, we would still generally require those to be paid, but could allow them to be paid over time and and things like that. So, um, any thoughts or comments on this? But this is something that's on our radar, but more of a medium-term horizon, I would say. I think it's a to-do. Yes. Uh, and then last item on inclusionary zoning. So several municipalities across the state including those in um CAST have implemented this um you know beyond just I think it was uh Avon and I forget the second one that was identified in the staff report but Snow Mass Village, Basalt, Aspen um others you know certainly cities in the front range as well have implemented this where all new development um of a certain size typically you know multif family or commercial uh development has to provide some amount of affordable housing as part of their development or a fee in loo. Um that's that's generally the concept be behind inclusionary zoning. Um and so really at this time staff believes that in order to implement this in Frraasier it would it would make the most sense to do this in conjunction with future annexation. Um and this is something that will be explored as part

of the uh comprehensive plan in terms of recommendations uh behind this. So I would argue against the fee and loo. Okay. I think that just doesn't seem to be an effective approach. Sure. I think um in I think it was Avon in researching their code, they only allow fee and loo for like any fractional units. So say your development has to provide you know 4.3 affordable units. you must provide those four units and then you pay a fee in lie for the.3. I think that's a pretty logical way um to implement it. Um certainly so I'm excited about this. Oh great. Yeah, that's good. I I see a future on this. Yeah. So I guess in conclusion, that was my last slide. I kind of have a sense of what things can be brought back first. Uh but I would maybe defer to the planning commission uh on maybe your thoughts. I will take it all. Yeah. Yeah. No, specific laws and specific Yeah. instances make the most sense. So that the lowhanging fruit, the conceptual things. Yeah. I mean, what do you think could be brought back to us first? Sure. So, I would say this strategy here around the density bonus uh would be pretty easy to just expand what's already on the books in the Riverwalk zone to business and highdensity multif family. I think um around you know around this time last year when we were discussing this uh we even prepared the the draft ordinance language. Um I I think further uh modifications kind of the the three bullet points there at the

bottom would require some additional leg work but just to allow 40 units per acre subject to deed restricted housing in in business and highdensity multif family that's pretty achievable. um height bonus would require some more leg work and I think we could at least um you know come up with some conceptual plans behind this concept um you know sooner than later I would say um as well as you know some of the maybe more easy changes around ADUs that that could be brought back fairly quickly I think as well. And how about for ourselves defining deed restricted? What does that mean? You talked about the uh right now it's at 80% of AMI for Victoria Village overlay. I guess we want to look at an average of um and it's a loaded conversation but that's it's incorporate this in there. renewed that definition. CAST had an interesting discussion at one of the meetings that I went to and they were trying to get away from the ai definition. They didn't really come up with a great solution, but part of it was trying to figure out how much it costs to live in a community. groceries, daycare. Couple towns were kind of heading down the path of subsidizing daycare, which then if you don't have kids, everybody's screaming. But it it was kind of an interesting discussion of what people were were focusing on because the AMI stuff is challenging to deal with. I think the mix of AMIs is important in larger projects because we're trying to mix these neighborhoods up, too. So,

right. So that's where the average comes in. Not to exceed like about 140 or 120. I kind of like probably 120 or more um that mix that they had defined in one of the other communities. So anyway, that's a because I'm all for getting some of these incentives. Next time somebody says they want extra height, we can say great, but you have to put in these Yeah. these affordable housing units. And we've got as far as define what that is. working locally, we we really hashed out that definition in the deed restriction program. So So it seems like we've got a good definition there. Yeah, remember we had some long discussions about that. So yeah, I I I agree. I I will say though, I think the the deed restriction language um just requires employment within anywhere in the county. Whereas for the Riverwalk zone, um it requires employment within the Frasier River Valley Housing Partnership boundary, which is essentially Winter Park to Grandb including, you know, unincorporated Grand County in between there. Um so it's slightly more restrictive. Um you know, I But there's no AMI in it for the Riverwalk zone. Yeah, it's a 120%. Oh, it is 120%. Okay, good. So it's Yeah. So, so they're both in there. Those two things. Good. Um, so I think a lot of that work's been done, but I think that's if you're a remote worker, nail, you you don't qualify. No. Okay. That's a tough one, too, because that can bring some high income in. Well, they've got high income. They typically are going to meet an That's why they Yeah. Not to exceed income. Yeah. Comes in for average in Yeah. So for so for a little more heartburn here, we've talked about this in the past, but

a simple and Did you look at Snow Mass Village today? Yes. They have a fee. They have a fee per square foot on any building that goes to housing. And I know he's not sitting in the room right now, but there's one particular person I know of that would say, "We haven't had it in the past. How can we have it now?" I think 2028 would be a really good time. Yeah. Well, but I think that, you know, that's a huge incentive towards towards all of this if they don't have to pay that fee. And, you know, the realtors will say, "Well, you're increasing the cost of building, but if the realtors will open up their books and tell us how much they're making, then maybe I'll buy that buy that." Well, we have such a great slush fund with these metro districts. Yeah. I'm not crying too many tears. What's that? The slush fund. Metro District Fund. Yeah. I don't cry too many tears. Yeah. But anyway, I you know I I Snow Mass Village has I believe 60% of their employees living in the village and they've had this fee for 20 years and they own the housing. They don't they they have a housing department and they're the landlords. So, it's it's a forever deal. And it's they presented at one of the CML meetings. And um I if if I go to the doctor and he says I've I've got cancer and I've had it for two years, I'm still going to get it treated because I want to try and fight it, you know, and if we better now than late than never for getting this feed going. I think it's worth looking up. I think it was definitely worth it. What do you think, Bob? So, explain this to me. You're going to So if you want to build anything in Frraasier, you're going to pay a few bucks a square foot to the park has one building costs are going to be. Yeah. Just levied per square foot. Okay. Or maybe going to go into housing the town building housing housing. Well, any however we choose to use that housing fund. So okay, it's like an impact fee.

We could be land banking and partnering with developers. Yeah. I'm okay with it. Yeah, I mean it's it can be and and again it's an incentive because if you're deed restricting or doing anything to make your your property permanently affordable for locals, then you don't pay that fee and that can include yourself, right? You know, so if I'm building my own home, I'm willing to deed restrict it so that it still has to whoever I sell it to has to has to be full-time resident also. That's the that's the deed restriction. Then I don't pay that fee. Okay. So, I just have to agree that when I sell it, I've got to sell it to a person who works here. But don't you Does that deed restriction continue in perpetuity? Yeah. So, there was a certain percentage that it goes up a year. So, no. No, it's not it's not on the value of it, Peggy. It's just tied to I believe our our deed restriction program that we pay for just says that we have to agree to sell it to a to a Well, then what happens when that guy moves on and sells it, right? Or retires. Well, he we he still has to sell it to somebody that works locally, and that affects the value somewhat. It's going to bring the value of the house down because it's restricted who you can sell it to. And it doesn't it doesn't it's not the the full-blown program where it only goes up by whatever the the national interest rate is, which is what Adam Adam's house over in Breen Ridge just goes up to whatever the national interest rate is. Winter Park students and Winter Park housing 3% per year. So, it gives quite a bit more freedom to the owner, but not complete freedom. You still have to to sell it to somebody who works works as a full-time works locally or is retired, you know. Well, and this is something that Aspen's been really dealing with is they've got all of these people that have lived in this their affordable housing program for 40 years and now retired and so you have to have that provision. You can retire. Yeah. And and that they're

really faced with throwing these people out. Yeah. because now they're not working. But you just had that provision that you can definitely retire in your own home or sell it to a local retired person. But it it is it's something that you have to think about. Well, that's something that we talked about when we're first putting together the restrictions with the housing authority and all that. So hopefully I think I was told that that was in there that if you lived in lived here and been in your home that they can't you could stay. But I don't know. I haven't seen it right. Yeah. Well, it's it's coming back over there big time to bite him. Okay. Any more on this subject? She said it's an impact fee. So, I think that we should look at that. Yeah. Because there are impacts. One of these other communities was doing basically that same thing, making them look at what the impacts are of their development or how many employees it was going to take to support it. So that would be a cleaner way of an easier way to just help facilitate that additional housing. Yeah. And one more incentive. Great. Yeah. Well, thank you all. I think we have some clear direction. Again, um first priorities are some of those density bonus changes, expanding it to other zones, uh average AMI instead of a specific number. um some of the ADU regulations around, you know, maybe greater incentives for them and uh short-term rental restrictions on the property and then also coming up with some more, you know, pencil to paper concepts on kind of the lower density zone density bonus idea. That's kind of the f our first priorities. So, we will bring at least one of those back in April. Good. Yep. Joy, you still there?

I am. Okay, good. Thank you for uh thoughtfulness and uh planning um finding a mid ground there with a a zoning simplifying the town code as far as commercial property with housing. Um I think would help our planning be more efficient and effective. Um, I think we we're in agreement that that's a bonus and may eliminate the need for transportation and parking or some of it. Um, love the uh primary resident in ADU with one being long-term. The other moving target things are hard to predict, but yeah, thank you so much. Thanks, Joy. Yeah. Is there other business? Yeah, I have one I have one thing. So, do we have code enforcement officer? We do. Yes. Okay. So, that next to the fishing carpet place, that lot, you know, there's people living in their RVs there, right? A liquor store, you mean? Or Yeah. I mean, I saw a big flag out there. So, since when was that zoned for RV park? You know, there's a couple people living there. So, that and down on Park Avenue, there's a guy parking his flatbed with tractors on it has nothing to do with the development. Parking there every day. And so, I'm just wondering, and the moving truck's there, too. that the moving truck's still there, but this guy was parking it down in the um cuz cuz I live down there, the Sun River, he was parking it down there and Bob went down

there and said, "Hey, you can't park this here because that's a snow storage area." So now he's moved his stuff up to that where that supposed to be just less than 24-hour parking and that's where and he parks lengthwise. So he's taking up like a bunch of parking places there. So, this is the guy with the trailer. Yeah, he's got a Yeah, he puts a tractor on there and it had nothing to do with the Victoria Village or what thing. It's just cuz he can't find anywhere else to park it. So, code enforcement that's through the police department, is that? Yes. So, do we just let them know or you can give them a call? Is that how is that what what we need to do to I I can provide you with the code enforcement officer's uh contact. Absolutely. Yeah. All right. That that was my other business. Yes. I finally cleaned up the junk on Norren of that. There's a pile of stuff fixed behind the van for months, months and months. And I finally I took a picture of it yesterday and this morning I walked by it was gone. I didn't even have to say anything. I was like, "Yeah, crashed." You just have to leave down patiently. Yeah. That was even just an overnighter. Okay. I' I'd like to talk a little bit about um quality of life with increased density and my speeding discussion and I did talk to Chief Trainer and there is a a company that provides these speed vans and they collect a portion of the ticket that's basically automat automatically with the photograph of the plate and the and the driver that generates a believe it's a $40 ticket and part of that goes to the company that owns the van and part of it comes to to the to the community and um it's a fairly seamless thing. Glenn said they work pretty well. He didn't have any problem with us being a speed trap. But I was I was coming from the heart on my typical back route

from the hardware to home is along railroad avenue there and and some lady was right by the old merkantiel and wasn't talking on her cell phone just walking along kind of singing a little song to herself young woman and she just about stepped out right in front of a car and the guy didn't didn't slow down. didn't. He probably was doing only about 25, but but she just took that that step and just saw him at the last minute and just missed getting hit. And we're going to get some sidewalks. I I get that, but not very many. And we don't have room for very many in the foreseeable future and probably forever in Oldtown, we're going to be sharing our streets with with cars. So I sent some sign uh a sign that I saw in Australia with a person, you know, on the street, you know, pedestrians present and I think we had to lower our speed limit from 20 to 15 and yeah. So I'd like to see if the board might discuss that. So and then noise is the other one. I mean, this town's getting, especially in the summertime with Jake breaks and construction trucks is really getting noisy. And I talked to Lara and she's I'm sure if any of you been in the shoot story, you get an earful about this. But I don't blame her. And um I think we uh we all all we need to do here checked into this today is that the town board needs to pass a noise ordinance and seed dot will provide us with with signage and then Glenn will talk about enforcement and I'll do some more investigation. I believe there is noise c uh noise camera microphone enforcement available similar to these speed vans, but I I need to find out more about that. I thought Fort Collins had those. I know the state legislature is looking at a a a new law that will require that truckers have their mufflers inspected and they were having trouble with it

because they pulled these truckers over in Clear Creek Canyon and they say, "Well, my muffler's in the stack and you can't see it down there, you know." So, the only way to find out is to put a ball on a string and put it down there and see if the muffer is impeding the stack or not. Then you lose the ball in the stack and then the trucker's all upset. So anyway, they they made an exception to that and they don't they can inspect when they pull a truck over, but they also truckers also have to produce evidence of muffler work when they register their vehicles. So that that if the state if the state passes that that'll help with this for sure. And safety is going to be the issue that the truckers will throw at us. And I get that. You know, if they've got to suddenly slow down and got to apply the Jake brake, I'm certain there there's ways that we can can take account for that. But I swear to God, there's one one cement truck driver I hear go by two, three times a week that uses the his muffler, you know, when he's accelerating and then he does it when he slows back down again. You know, it's just it's a manly kind of thing to do and and I suppose women do it too, but it's it's really wrecking this time. No, we don't. You know, there just Yeah. So anyway, I just as we get more density, we get more people, we just got to be have some regulations to have help everybody be more civilized each other. So So question Andy, yeah, these vans that monitor speed, is that is this a company that provides these vans to they just they're just parked in different places? Nobody sits in them or anything. It you wouldn't be able to use that along 40, would you? Because Yep. You can't that's C do. Well, it's through town. It's It's our enforcement at 40 town speed limit. And And Brian's working on 30 miles an hour through town instead of 35. Yeah. So, he's pretty getting pretty close to seat on that is that I'm I'm reading a book called Killed by a Traffic Engineer. It's really good. And it talks about this

this crazy business that the CEO used to use in the state finally changed this that they took the average speed on a stretch. If it was 35 miles an hour and everybody was doing 45, then they raised the speed limit. They didn't enforce they didn't force people to slow down to the damn speed limit. They just raised the speed limit. So everything is carcentric with with traffic engineers. And luckily the state has seen that that's not a good thing to do. You need to slow people down. So Brian is working on 30 instead of 35 on 40. What about the stretch of 40 coming out of Winter Park? Well, let's Yeah. All the way through coming out of Frasier. Yeah. I mean that speed goes up and down. Yeah. About twice. That's our jurisdiction. People are speeding. Yeah. 40 55 to 45. Why can't we have one speed that starts at the beginning of Winter Park and ends when you leave Frasier? Yeah, it is tight. 352. Yeah. But anyway, at least it's I would say in Oldtown 15 instead of 20. And then Brian's working on 30 through downtown. Yeah. And then yeah, then Brian can do some looking at what 40 limit something that would get people's attention. Yeah. You know, I don't think Yeah, they don't think that I know it's going to be 16 mo. Just get their attention. They have to think, whoa, wait a second. Well, you might be able to do that. They have to pay more for signs. So what what you're saying Andy is these speed vans that we could park them wherever we want to even on 40. Yes. Which is C do DOT regulated. But that's but we could give out tickets in that stretch. Sure. That's the county sheriff and well the town. Oh that would be wonderful. I like that idea because people speed down coming out of Winter Park. It's like a you know car race to get to into the

town of Frasier. They just got to get out of here. They got to get to Steamboat. Yeah. But it's I'm mainly concerned about our shared streets in Oldtown. Yeah. And well, when Rhonda was the same way. You guys don't have sidewalks up there either. Grand Park. A fair amount of Grand Park sidewalks. Always complain about the people speeding on walk. I need to get Cheryl Key in here for sure to back up my case. And as you drive around town, pay attention to how many people are putting signs out in their front yard asking people to slow down. So it's a pretty common sign to see that people have out. So we're a lot lot of kids, too. Okay. So just my suggestion. So last week on Wednesday night, Connor premiered his documentary uh Weathered Inside the LA Firestorm on PBS. Um I highly re recommend that everybody watch it. It's um you can watch it on YouTube. You can watch it on the PBS free app. It's an hourong documentary uh about all of the issues that happened in the LA fire and um talked about a lot of the changes that we could do for code to improve construction techniques and landscaping and um I think that this is something that I'd like to encourage all the towns to get together and look at our building codes and I know that we're going to have push back from in the development community, but I think it's we're at a point in our community where we can make a big difference if we address these issues. Now, I'm spent a bunch of money last year putting in wood chips around my house and this year I'll be spending a lot of money taking the wood chips out and putting rock in. So, there's a lot of things that everybody

can do to help save their own homes and we can start hoping enforcing a building code that makes sense in a fire related world. And it was fascinating because it's the urban fires. Yeah. I mean, it's the one thing about the shrubbery, but because of everything our homes are made out of now, when it burns, it's not just flakes of ash. It's balls of burning embers that embers that your husband was telling me about that grand a nightmare. Yeah, it is a nightmare. Pieces of logs this big flying in the air burning up. Yeah. And floating for long distances and that whole weathered series that I've been listening to all of it on PBS Passport. She's really good. And that's neat that Connor Connor. Congratulations Connor too. That's great. So pretty amazing that he was behind the fire line and he took all of the video. Yeah. Wow. Did all the interviews? Yeah. You think it's not okay that HOAs require wood sighting? Well, I I kind of feel like walking through rendevous with a cigarette is a really scary concept. So out there, Peggy, I'm working a project out by the Grand Lake Golf Course and we're trying to do some river work out there. All those houses are being rebuilt and almost all of them are being rebuilt with with wood siding. And I asked an owner, I said, 'What are you doing? And he said, 'Well, all the trees are gone, but 60% of fires are these grass fires and shrubbery fires. I mean, you just go, "This is going to be that's superior. I mean, those all those houses burned up because of grass, not not trees." Well, and things like spray foam insulation in the roof, so you don't have to have roof vents and Yeah. And if you do have like drier vents, you put mesh over them. And I mean, all of the pipes in your roof are PVC. You got to figure out how to maybe put a sheeting over that so that it those, you know,

don't melt. So, there's things that can be done. And I I think this concrete cement sighting is something that start Yeah. Mhm. And you know, and then Wayne's coating with some metal at the base. Yeah. or rock. I mean, are you guys getting metal around these buildings over there in St. Louis or Yes, I they they did put that in a little bottle. But a little bottle for short. Yeah, they Yeah. Anyway. Okay. Anything else, folks? Thanks, Peggy. Okay, I move to adjourn. Sucks. All in favor? I thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Good presentation, guys.