Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You want to make sure your mic is on. All right. The time is 6:35. I'd like to call the planning commission meeting to order for April the 23rd, 2025. come to order, please. And we'll start with roll call beginning with staff. I don't see this as a town planner, MC Bay, town clerk. All right. And then commissioners Peggy Smith, Joy McCoy, Katie Souls, and I'm chairing tonight Bob Gusi. All right. Uh, do we have an approval of the agenda minus the part that's been pulled? We we have a consent agenda that you're saying we're not going to be able to uh we would not be able to do the comprehensive plan update presentation. Okay. So, I'll move to approve the consent agenda. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second. All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? and I'll move to approve the agenda, but we have to remove the comp plan update because we have no internet. So, they can't present to us here and that's why this is being recorded verbally. Okay, I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? uh minutes for the March 26th meeting. Has everyone had a chance to look at

those? And do we have any uh That's in the consent agenda. That's in the consent. So, we're all set there. Sorry. Open forum then since we have nobody but ourselves. Okay. Nothing for open forum. Discussion of possible actions. Uh we will not be presenting the comprehensive plan tonight. uh the updates on that. So, we'll move to the second a item on the possible discussion and actions agenda, which is Grand Park West Mountain Filing 2 sketch plan. And I'll turn it over to Garrett. Yeah. And if Anthony, if I could just get the presentation up so we can see it here in the room. It's good thing we got art copies. Yeah, I must have had a premonition because I actually printed out some of the stuff for for this this presentation. Okay, there you go. Thank you. Just the center button. So, this evening we're discussing a sketch plan for the Grand Park West Mountain Filing 2 application. Um, just as a reminder, here's the purpose of sketch plans. uh essentially just to you know provide feedback to the applicant uh for the applicant to provide their kind of intended development plan kind of at a early stage uh very conceptual level um ahead of any formal land use application for approval. So as I mentioned this is a sketch plan for filing two of West

Mountain and Grand Park. This is located um to the north of a proposed extension of Grand Park Drive that is west of the railroad. Uh the land uses include a mix of residential lodging and commercials uh uses um as well as a uh clubhouse building and uh other associated recreation uses. And this is uh zone plan development or PD in Grand Park. So we'll look at some maps next. Uh this shows the general uh location of the development kind of in dark gray again on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad. Uh this kind of shows the general area of the sketch plan in relation to the Grand Park PDDP. Um this sketch plan covers the planning areas that are highlighted here 8WB, 9, 10, and 11W. Uh but this sketch plan uh these are the actual boundaries uh as depicted here. You know, slightly different than what was shown in the previous slide from Grand Park PDD. Um the area to the south directly adjacent to Grand Park Drive is areas that are part of West Mountain filing one uh which is already approved. So it's the areas to the north of that um that are covered by this uh sketchbook. So this kind of helps visualize that area slightly better. Everything in color is part of this West Mountain filing 2 sketch plan uh and and labeled by planning area. The table at the bottom right further notes the different uses that are proposed in these various planning areas. Again, a mixed a mix of residential, commercial, and lodging. This further just shows the the proposed uses in each planning area. Um again

this view kind of shows proposed parking areas, building footprints um lots for um single family uh residential as well as multifamily residential uh kind of in 9W and 8WB kind of up to the top right of this map. So this is uh the open space plan from the sk uh sketch plan. Everything shown in dark gray is a open space area. Uh again this also shows areas within West Mountain filing one to the south. Um but the sketch plan does meet the open space requirements of the PDD which are 15% in each planning area. Um again just conceptually this appears to to meet that This is uh representative of the landscaping that's displayed in the sketch plan. Again, generally consistent with uh town code requirements uh as well as requirements of the PDD. This specifically shows the clubhouse area as well as uh other recreation uses located adjacent to the clubhouse. These uses include things such as um various sport courts, uh tennis, pickle ball, etc. Um an event lawn that turns into an ice skating rink in the winter. Uh an amphitheater. Um and then the clubhouse building itself, which has an attached kind of outdoor pool area, playground, um lounge, restaurant areas, etc. So that kind of gives an overview of what's proposed in the sketch plan. I wanted to spend the most time though talking about some of the inconsistencies uh that are in this plan when compared to the overall grant PD. Uh the first one was that the applicant requested a increase in uh the maximum allowed

height in planning areas 9W and 10W from 50 ft to 75 ft. So the table on the right comes from the 2005 Grand Prix PDD clearly shows that the maximum height in these planning areas is 50 feet. Um and in in town staff's review of uh our our code and uh applicable provisions of the PDD and the annexation agreement that governs it, uh a height increase of this magnitude could only be allowed through a major amendment to the PDD. Um this is because any any change to these measurable standards including height that would result in a greater than 30% increase from that original standard uh can only be approved through that major amendment process. So what is that process? Yeah. So essentially it's like a resoning. Uh our code outlines I believe seven criteria that must be I believe the language is considered. They are not um hard criteria like our variances variance criteria. I I believe the criteria just simply must be considered and evaluated in the context of that request. So same criteria as a resoning. Um the process by which it would be achieved um again major amendment is similar to resoning. There would be a public hearing. uh it would go before the planning commission ultimately subject to board approval and then it would be uh if approved it's approved via an ordinance not a resolution. Any other question? Yeah. Any other questions on this major amendment process? So, just to be clear, uh, Garrett, if they came in and requested a height variance that was only

29% increase, what would that do for us? Right. So, great. Uh, leading question to my next slide. Any increase in height of 30% or less. So I guess the the criteria here is is it above 30%, because any request 30% or below has to follow one of these two separate processes. So the first process that could be done is a what's called a minor PDD amendment. Essentially uh that request would be evaluated based on the same criteria as a major amendment, but there's less kind of hurdles to jump through. I would say it only goes to the planning commission for approval. um and it doesn't advance to the board. Um it's not adopted via an ordinance and I believe it doesn't even require noticing as a public hearing per our code. So um it's it's a little bit less of a burden I would say administratively, but certainly staff and the planning commission would evaluate that request against the same criteria as a major amendment, which again is the same as our reasonzoning criteria. Uh the second option uh is that a height increase of up to 30% or less could be approved as part of uh a final plan development plan or FPDP approval uh in these planning areas. So that section of our code 194190B allows the height the final height of buildings to be negotiated at that FPDP stage in relation to 10 characteristics that are identified in our code. Um so slightly different set of criteria by which you know this proposed height would be evaluated compared to the minor PDD amendment. The other distinction is that um as part of the FPDP the applicant would be required to provide more detailed design of their site of

their buildings as compared to at the minor PDD amendment stage. Again it's kind of option one. The PDD amendment is like a reszoning. Option two is the FPDP is most similar to like a site plan. So uh again we would have to evaluate that proposed building height in relation to you know how the site would be graded um uses adjacent to it etc. Those are those are some of the things that are covered by those 10 characteristics. Um go ahead. So my understanding is the 30% was really largely about density transfers and um I think this is a total change of use. Well, I think so. The density transfer 30% cap is I would say kind of identified separately from this um more general um increase or change to development standards such as building height. This could also cover open space or setbacks for example. I think what's being proposed as part of the sketch plan is not a change in use per se. as it relates to the building height. Um I think the if I recall correctly and the applicant can maybe correct me I do think the amount of lodging uses were increased uh but stay within that 30% density transfer cap for these planning areas but there was no lodging in 9W or 10W. So, so there is and actually I I do want to speak to the sheet that you provided and maybe if I could go to another slide real quick that so this uh development standards

table on the right. Yeah. So if if we can compare the development standards table shown on the right here against the table from sheet five which uh uh Peggy has so kindly printed out for all of us here in the room. The table from sheet five of the PDD is not consistent. I apologize. We should be looking at the table on the left on the slide which has the densities. These two tables don't exactly match up. um and where the mismatch is, it starts with um planning area 6W. So on the slide, if you look at planning area 6W, you will note that it doesn't have any residential or lodging or commercial square footage is noted as public site. Planning area 6W is where uh land has been dedicated to the town for proposed public works facility. Um, and if you compare that to the table that we have printed out here, planning area 8W is identified as the public site. Uh, staff believes this is a typo on sheet five of the Grand Park PDD. Uh, the table that we're looking at on the slide comes from sheet six. Um so so just to to be perfectly clear, planning areas 9W and 10W are allotted um a total of 550 lodging units per the PDDart correct as it slid down. Yeah. Yeah. It's just another sheet which has similar information as Yeah. kind of a row mismatch. Okay. But it it's a good comment. It's uh it is it's perfectly valid.

Um so um the last thing I just want to note with this is that you know these two separate processes the kind of minor PDD amendment effectively reszoning process and then a subsequent FPDP submitt these couldn't be combined to you know get a increase of building height greater than 30%. that would just effectively circumvent the major PDD process. You know, something that would be, you know, a possible say a minor PDD amendment for a building height of 60 ft and then at the FPDP stage, you know, based on the site design and the grading, well, actually our building comes out to say 62 feet. I think that would be allowable. You know, it's under that 30% cap. Does that make sense? But we won't know until the final design is in place. Correct. Right. So, basically what we're talking about is if they want 75 ft, they have to go through the major. U Correct. Okay. Yeah. But they could get 65 ft with the minor. Correct. Okay. or uh just as part of their FPDP approval process with negotiate, right, based on the 10 characteristics and based on their site design and their ability. But when we say negotiate, does that mean that it could be greater than the 30%. I do not think that a greater than 30% building height would be allowed as part of the FPDP approval. Well, then we're stuck with 65 ft or 75 ft depending on which route they want to take. Correct. So, when is 65 the correct number? Well, yes. 50 ft is what they're allowed. 15% more would be another 15

ft. Okay. Or 30% more would be 15 ft. So, that's 65, right? I I'll also just add to your point, Bob. the applicant can request higher than 75 feet um I mean 80 feet 90 feet that would be subject to a major amendment process. Okay. The the threshold here for these planning areas is 30% of 50 which is the 65 ft that you noted. So 65 ft or less you have these two options. Anything above 65 is the major PDD amendment. Okay. So yeah, it's back to their in their court to decide which way they want to go. Do do their plans work at 65 or do they have to have 75? Right. So all right, that's the height discussion. Yes, there's still a change of use discussion. There is. Yes. Okay. So this exactly so the change in use that staff has identified is is uh related to the proposed clubhouse building which they're calling the outpost clubhouse. Um the sketch point identifies this building um as being located in planning area 23W. Uh however this is not consistent with the Grand Park PDDD um which clearly shows both graphically and in text descriptions that uh the clubhouse should be in area 9W. So we'll take a look at that. The image on the left is from I believe sheet six of the Grand Park PDDD. There's this asterk in planning area 9W. The legend on the right hand side of the screen is from that same sheet clearly showing that the clubhouse site that asterisk is within 9W. And then I believe it's on sheet

three of the Grand Park PDDD um that has these planning area character descriptions. The character description for planning area 9W clearly says the clubhouse is planned for this enclave. So just taking these two things together, I mean to locate the clubhouse um outside of 9W um within 23W is could be considered a change in use, which is what staff's opinion is. So one other thing I wanted to note is that um the PDD doesn't permit any residential lodging or commercial uses within 23W. However, it does allow for a I would argue undefined land use of facilities. Um, but 23W does also include height and setback standards. So, if you look at these tables here, table on the left within that red box, you can see 23W. There's no residential, commercial, or lodging uses associated with 23W. But the table on the right does note that facilities is the land use. there's a maximum building or structure height of 50 feet and then there are some setback requirements associated with the planning area. So, okay. So, to speak to those um and and just some some considerations around staff's determination of what the appropriate land use for the clubhouse is. Um the annexation agreement and town code do not clearly define the word facilities. Um but in context and in speaking to the annexation agreement, the word facilities is used in association with other descriptors uh such as recreation facilities, public

facilities, roadway facilities, etc. Um, you know, I think the applicant is arguing that the clubhouse can be and should be considered a recreation facility. Um, however, staff has noted that there are uses proposed within the clubhouse, things such as a a restaurant, bar, lounge areas, etc. that more closely fit the definition of a a commercial use. One other thing that the applicant has raised is that uh within the town code in our schedule of uses table um under the category of an institutional land use things like schools or government facilities there is a uh a line item that lists private clubs, private dining areas and civic cultural and fraternal organizations. So things within that definition per our code are considered institutional land uses and not commercial. Um and I think the applicant has made the argument that this clubhouse should be considered a private club. Um I I think you know staff's interpretation I guess I'll first say that none of these terms private club uh etc are not defined in our code. Um, you know, I think the inclusion of something like civic, cultural, and fraternal organizations. I think of something like an Elks lodge or something like that. Um, but I I do concede and staff conceded at a private club. I think the general intention behind that is something like a country club um or a clubhouse for a golf facility. Um, I do think though at this time we don't have enough information to really consider this to really meet that definition or or that intention of the phrase. Uh, the applicant has also made the argument that uh the planning area character descriptions that we looked at

here for 9W um the PDD does say that these are a guide and may change based on market conditions and other factors. So staff recognizes that that language does allow for some flexibility in those character descriptions. Uh our determination though at this time is that locating the clubhouse which we consider commercial use um locating that within 23W is not you know a reasonable degree of flexibility afforded by this kind of provision. Um and finally, um any change in permitted land uses within a planning area would require a major PDD amendment for approval. So that's why, you know, locating something such as a clubhouse, which we consider commercial use within 23W, that would constitute a change in use for the PD. And that if it was a change in use, that would be a major. Correct. So it would have to go back to the fortifying commission and public hearing. Correct. The um 23W on this is how big on their proposal was filing too. Yeah. Can you go back and show us? Yeah. Where that that is exactly? So, all the areas shown in green are proposed to be included in 23W with the clubhouse um and other recreation areas shown on the left side. So, and I'd like to point out that I think that that's a misleading graphic because filing number one is really much closer to Leland Creek and there's no open space between filing number one, which was supposed to be a wildlife quarter. And so now we're going to have

moose trapesing through the neighborhood when they want to go get some water. Yeah. And um so that's a misleading graphic. Sure. Um, um, so would it be appropriate to ask for an exchange for another piece of actual designated open land somewhere in exchange for letting them develop on that section at cell 23W? That could be useful for somebody. It still be a change of use. stuff to a major PD. Okay. So, um as far as the uses that are currently proposed in 23W, um the clubhouse itself and things adjacent to it. Um so currently staff's determination is that the clubhouse should be considered a commercial use and I think part of the intention of today's meeting is and discussion is whether or not the planning commission agrees with this determination. Um there are again some of the adjacent uses around the clubhouse um you know I I think are perfectly reasonable to be considered recreation facilities. things such as the lawn, amphitheater, the uh tennis courts, etc. Um those I think those are perfectly allowable within 23W as recreation facilities. Uh, one area that's maybe a bit more gray or ambiguous are uses that are, you know, directly attached to the clubhouse

building, but are exterior and more recreational in nature as opposed to commercial things like the pool area, the outdoor deck, playground, etc. Um, outdoor seating areas associated with the restaurant. I think generally speaking because of the difficulty in making a distinction between you know these areas as a recreation facility or not um I think this is in support of town staff's view that the square footage of the clubhouse building itself should be counted as commercial use. any exterior uses um such as the deck and pool area don't count towards development entitlements like commercial square footage, but that whole the the lot that the clubhouse sits on, all of that should be included in planning area 9W. I think that's kind of where staff is landing on this ambiguous gray area. Again, the intention was that the clubhouse would be in 9W so that maybe there wouldn't be this ambiguity and this kind of, you know, trying to draw a line between what's a recreation facility and what's not. So, so I have another question about if this clubhouse is in 9W, how does that play with the metro district for 9W and who's paying for this facility? Is this the residents of Grand Park? Is this um how does this play out with the new metro district regime? Yeah, I think that's an question better suited to the applicant, but um certainly certainly I'll let them answer that. Um just wrapping up this presentation. Um so really building height and

clubhouse location are some of the primary things that we wanted to just identify and discuss with you all. Um some of the other major comments are just kind of highlighted uh here. Um you know one thing to note um we we don't currently have a uh a plan for water source facilities necessary to serve this development. Uh this is a requirement for the annexation agreement. Water source facilities include not just uh the water rights which are already you know uh identified through the augmentation plan um and and water court decree. Uh but it also includes you know possible well locations, timing of when water uh groundwater wells would be constructed based on you know development occurring uh location of any potential you know water treatment facilities needed to treat and distribute that water to this development. So, uh, that is something that town staff has identified as an annexation agreement requirement that we, um, you know, will certainly want to see, um, as part of this future FPD submittal, but can certainly be reviewed in tandem with that. Um, you know, a more detailed schedule wasn't provided for this filing to area, recognizing that we're at the sketch plan stage right now. It's very high level and conceptual, but that's something staff would like to see moving forward. Um all the proposed density transfers uh appeared within that 30% allowance uh but again would be verified moving forward in further review. Um some of the acreages of the planning areas were not a perfect match to the Grand Park PDD. Um staff does believe there is a degree of flexibility allowed per the annexation agreements on

the acreage of these planning areas. Uh but staff believes it should be based on the original uh approved density for each planning area prior to any density transfers into. So you know we've made the determination that you know a density transfer of 30% into a planning area doesn't just allow the acreage of that planning area to expand by 30%. Um I'll just touch on the last one briefly as well. Um the sketchbook did note uh some of the lodging uses also having uh commercial square footage associated with them. you know, staff has noted that um a lodging use a hotel um generally something like a you know, connected restaurant bar area or some other kind of connected retail facility in that hotel would likely not be counted against the commercial square footage uh density for that planning area. Um, I mean, subject to final site design and FPDP review, but you know, typically something like a restaurant in a hotel, staff would consider that an accessory use to the hotel itself and not a separate independent commercial square footage. So, um, staff believes that concession gives the applicant a bit more flexibility with regards to the total square footage that is approved for planning area 9W and 10W and the ability to locate the clubhouse within 9W and therefore allocate it as a commercial use. Um, I I won't spend a lot of time on these here. Again, this sketch plan did have a full referral. um town attorney, town engineer, east grand fire, mountain parks, excel, Colorado parks and wildlife and seed dot all provided comments which are um provided in the packet. So um the next steps in

general generally speaking for this development um staff will work with the applicant to uh you know create and finalize review approve this plan for water source facilities that would serve West Mountain. Um and then we do expect you know a forthcoming FPDP and subdivision plan application for this area. So is there any way to add in addition I mean it sounds like you've talked to C dot and everybody else but um talking to Colorado wildlife and about migration paths for animals that move along Leland Creek. Yeah. I I mean I I guess I'll speak to maybe CPW's comments. I think in general um a lot of CP CPW's comments are provided as guidance and best practices um which certainly town staff will take into consideration in our own review from a planning perspective. Um I can do some research as far as what uh our code might say with regards to things like preserving wildlife corridors and things like that. Um, but I I think CPW doesn't necessarily have the authority to enforce certain requirements is my understanding. But certainly I think we we'd like to see the development be as uh responsive and and sensitive to wildlife needs and um migration corridors and things like that. Any further questions? Um just a question I have is is town staff concerned that there isn't a migration uh corridor identified clearly identified uh in

this particular plan. I would say at this plan Sure. I would say at this time it's not something that town staff has reviewed in great detail. Um, I know that this was a discussion that we had with uh Grand Park Development uh when they were were looking at the village and how the elk or moose or whatever was going to come down Leland Creek, get across the highway and get to the meadows, Cosman's Meadows. Mhm. And I know that they worked on the plan to try to connect Leland Creek with the Meadows. So, is this not happening in the sketch plan to your opinion? Well, I I mean, maybe a couple things I would just say to that. Um, first I do think that the way West Mountain filing one and this sketchbook for filing two are laid out kind of together is is generally consistent with the location of um those planning areas from the PDD. Um I guess maybe with the exception of in the PDD you can see that um part of the golf course was envisioned you know one whole of it was originally envisioned to be kind of directly adjacent to Grand Park Drive and then the collector roadway that accesses these planning areas 910 and 11W is not proposed to be uh constructed in that exact location. Um, I would say maybe outside of that, um, that's maybe the biggest difference. Um, I I recognize having that golf course open space area does create more of a open space buffer, um, adjacent to Grand Park Drive and Leland Creek.

Um, I I I will say that the location of Grant Park Drive here does appear to be wholly consistent with what's on the PDD. um whether the open space, you know, between Grand Park Drive and the Leland Creek subdivision kind of at the bottom right of the screen, whether that's kind of sufficient open space for Elk Migration Corridor. I I mean, that's certainly not my area of expertise. Uh there are open space areas um on kind of the opposite side of Grand Park Drive and and certainly you know some of these areas uh that are platted or to be platted as you know single family residential lots I mean they're larger lots they wouldn't be completely covered with buildings. I mean, I think it's it's kind of similar to what is currently existing up in rendevous where um you have open space areas in between these larger lot um you know home sites which certainly I think wildlife could could move through. Yes, there's more, you know, potential for human wildlife interaction, but um yeah, and then just as far as like the impact of the railroad itself on wildlife migration, I mean, I'm certainly not qualified to speak on that, but um yeah. Yeah, I'm wondering how they're going to get across the railroad track, too, but um Okay. Any further questions before we hand it over to the applicant? Well, I have just one other question and that is you went through a description of what a commercial space would be versus uh a recreation or a private space. Um if this is a private club,

then would it be a commercial activity if it's not open to the public? Yeah, I think that's a good because it's like a country club. The way I read it, it's going to be like a private exclusive country club. Not everybody's going to get to join this. I think that's a valid assumption to make at this time. I think, you know, maybe it's just splitting hairs um between private or semi-private and what what degree of public access there is. I think staff is also leaning on the fact that um some of the identified uses within the building itself are are are commercial uses such as a restaurant. But you could make that argument about a restaurant and a hotel too. I mean, as you were going through and describing how you wouldn't count the restaurant in a hotel or lodging facility uh necessarily as a commercial space if this is a private club, I'm not sure you could turn around and say, "Well, that's a commercial activity." If it's if the dining area is strictly for the use of the members, I I'm I don't know what the real answer is. I'm just pointing that out that there there seems to be some inconsistencies here in the way we define things and the way we're looking at things and I that's why we're having this meeting to discuss this. But it seems to me that the definition of commercial would be an endeavor to make a profit and whether it's private or public wouldn't really play into that motivation. In other words, either one could be to make profit. Yeah. A private club would make

a profit. People get paid. I I would also just add to that that again um looking at the second bullet point here, the private club, private dining area, etc. is is not defined in our code. Um I I think it is it is a fair argument to stand on, but I think there are other pieces of evidence um primarily from the PDD itself showing the clubhouse within 9W um that I support staff's assertion that it is a commercial use and should be located in 9W. And let's say down the road start out with a private club but down the road it's not getting the members so they decide to open it to the public then it's a commercial use. Well that's true. So there's no it's crystal ball. Tell us about that. Well we don't know what the uh we don't know what the application to join this private club is going to be. Is it going to be limited to only members, only people who live in Grand Park, the greater Grand Park uh development, or is it open to anybody in Frraasier that has enough money? Interesting. Yeah. So I I think just to close the loop on that, I think, you know, again, we're talking about details that are not finalized by any means and can change over time, which is why staff also is relying on documents like the PDD, the governing document for Grand Park to interpret um this proposal. And did you originally point out that the clubhouse was originally mentioned to be located in 6W? So that is and so there has been a

change from where it was originally thought to be located to where it is now 9W. So I I guess just to clarify that point, I I kind of excluded this from the slide here, but um right beneath the legend, there's an asterisk that looks the exact same right beneath the one for clubhouse site and the legend says um public facility or public works facility and there's an asterisk located in planning area 6W. So the two symbols are functionally identical. It could be construed well which one is the clubhouse? which one is um the maintenance facility or public works facility. Um so I would argue you have to look back to the planning area character descriptions. I don't have 6W up here on the screen, but I am fairly certain that the planning area character description for 6W speaks to its uh use as a maintenance public public works types facility. um as well as the annexation agreement spoke to requirements um from the developer to um dedicate planning area 6W to give that land over to the town for the purpose of the public works facility. So, I do believe the clubhouse um per the 2005 Grand Park PDD as well as the previous 2003 rendevous PDD and the associated annexation agreement uh the clubhouse was always planned for planning 9W. Okay. All right. Um, are we ready for we ready for you to present for me? Yes. Okay, I think we are. All right. Good evening. Thanks for hanging out and letting us do this and not

having to wait until the next meeting when we're on public because that would have made me sad. Yeah, I do like I do like my car, but I don't know if I like it that much. Okay. Um, so I'm going to skip the context map. You kind of know where we are. Uh, but what I kind of want to start with is kind of talking about what it what it is we're planning or envisioning here because all you guys have kind of got to see so far is some black and white lines on paper. So, what we've done here is, you know, we're trying to create the resort, right? I mean, I know that you guys all know that this location was kind of meant to be the resort, which is why it has all the lodging, has the higher building heights. It has the clubhouse and all of those things associated with it. So, what we've done here is we started to really try to create that. And that's going to be the first thing that we're going to do in Grand Park. And with that, we have um you'll see I don't have a little pointer, unfortunately, but um if you kind of look starting at the lower left there where all those homes are, those are going to be single family homes. And as you work towards the middle, you kind of have you kind of have a loop road with with some larger buildings in there. Those are going to be your lodging buildings. And the idea there is it's going to become some sort of resort type feeling to them um as part of that those lodging buildings there. And as you continue kind of towards the west towards um the railroad, you've got town homes that kind of flank down down that um hillside here. And then obviously up on that high point there, we've got the clubhouse and the facilities that we've been talking about. And I'll get into that in more detail here in a minute. Um, as I've got some different plans to kind of show you some of the details around that. But, um, I will say that, you know, I kind of took off all the planning area boundaries. Kind of wanted you guys just kind of see what this was really going to be on the ground. Um, we are, uh, like I said, 9W10WB. The acreages and everything are within the confines. I'm not going to get into that today, um, because I think we'll make all that work. That's not a big deal on our part. Um, so we've got

53 single family detached, 108 town homes, and then the 600 lodging units, which are actually all um, we do have 600 lodging units in the PDD in the combination of 9, 10, and 11W. So, it is consistent with PDD, which showed 600 lodging units in this area up here, as well as the 50,000 ft of commercial, and then obviously the clubhouse. So, and we'll talk more about that here in a minute. All right. Could I interrupt just to ask a quick question? Yes. Now that you have this nice uh drawing up here. Yes. Which buildings is it exactly that you want 75 ft of height on? The lodging buildings. Lodging buildings. Only the lodging. Only the lodging buildings. And so those are the ones in the middle. And I'll get to that here in a minute. But we we actually are going to um change our request. We you know heard from what Garrett said. And so we're going to make the request of 65 ft on that. But I'll get to that in a minute. Oh, and um one more thing since we've got this up and we're talking about Leland Creek. Wish I had a um but if you look where the Grand Park Drive label is on the plans. So Leland Creek is actually on the on the bottom right of that. Right. So Grant Park Drive is is built in in existence and the Leland Creek corridor actually runs um Yep. just to that location. You got it. Thank you. in that location. And you know, you can kind of see the green across the street there that we've got. We're kind of, you know, um Garrett was kind of alluding to in the PED there was a golf hole there. Um so we do kind of still have that kind of green corridor relatively large. It's probably 100 feet or more corridor there. But the migration along Creek is actually on the other side of Grand Park Drive. Yeah. And it's Yeah. And it's below Land Creek.

All right. So, um, we're talking a lot about a private club versus commercial versus we don't know what, right? And so, I guess one of the comments that Garrett made is he doesn't have sufficient information. So, what kind of information would you be looking for specifically to qualify this as a private club? I mean what what what right I mean we're talking land use and FPDP stuff here right so I mean like at what point do I I mean it's the intent here is that this will be a private club will have dues it'll be you know I don't know there's there's one in Steamboat called Catamount same idea you live there you've got to pay your fees your annual fees into it you basically pay to play um and that's the intent here is that this is a private club private dining facility um you can only you know guests of members ers can obviously come in and use the facilities, but you have to come in with a member. Um, and so, you know, I guess the question that I'm just going to put out there is, you know, what what information do you need for this to be considered a private club versus commercial square footage? And I I don't know that we have the answer to that, but I'm just, you know, if you're looking for sufficient information, what are you looking for? I'd like to know if the people in the lodging buildings are going to have access to the private club. Hey, you read my mind. That was just what I was going to ask because Yep. If uh that would if they can all use it, that would make it more of a commercial for-profit endeavor. I would imagine you'd be charging them for cocktails and dinner and, you know, Yeah, I would imagine that's the case. So that's that's a perfect that's a great question. I don't have your answer, but that helps me with that. You know, because um I think Clark has more of his head

around that. And so we'll leave that up to Clark to help make that determination, but that's that's a good good fair question on that one. And I mean, I love the the diagram. It's beautiful obviously and but excited about it. I think you're at least 15 years ahead. I mean, I moved here in 1999 expecting something really exciting to happen at the ski area. Now, 26 years later, we're still talking about it. It's getting closer. Maybe in my ski lifetime, there will be some new runs. But I think that this is so far in the future that um it's a little premature because I don't think the market's here for anything that beautiful at this point. Oh, I appreciate your feedback. Clark, I guess disagrees because he wants to blow and go on this. He'd like to start construction relatively quickly. So um so again going back to the recreational facility conversation um so if you look at kind of the definition of recreation facilities um you know it really talks about leisure physical activity and social gatherings right I mean if you kind of look up at the definition dictionary and so you know uh I think that Garrett had mentioned that there were some uses in here that he thought were clearly commercial. I read this. I see fitness gym, a wellness studio, um bar and lounge, fireplace, spa area, pool. Um you know, those all feel very recreational uses to me. Um the dining piece, you know, you go back and forth depending on what you want to call it, but um again, private dining facilities associated with private club are considered institutional uses. So, you

know, we feel really strongly that this entire plan that you're looking at on on this paper is all recreational facilities, is all about leisure, social interaction, physical activity, all of those things, right? Um not necessarily about, you know, commerce and exchange of goods for that purpose. So again, we really think that, you know, the private club is not a commercial use. Um, commercial uses, you know, relating to commerce, exchange of buying of gooding or goods or services. Commercial uses in Fraser's code include stuff like business office, banks, retail, hotels. I mean, if you go through Fraser's code, um, and institutional uses in Fraser's code include private club, private dining areas already mentioned. So again, you know, we we feel pretty strongly that this is not a commercial use. Um, and you know really where I'm coming back and and some of you on call you guys should care about this but you know why would you as town board want to limit the amount of commercial that we were able to do up there? It it doesn't behoove city council or town board to limit our commercial because that's where your tax base comes from. And so why are you taking potentially 20,000 square feet of commercial uses that could be actual, you know, some some something that's got some more retail applications to it will get you a lot more tax revenue and converting it to this clubhouse which won't necessarily have that. And so it's really just a question of of why um and is it in the best interest of the town to kind of take that 20,000 ft of commercial off the table? So I think either I think it's more of the designation of commercial versus not commercial in 23W

which was intended to be not necessarily commercial recreational. So that's and that's where the stick is for me. Yeah, but because I think it'll be a great facility and it'll bring a lot of people in and, you know, honestly I would tell you that, you know, really it's being able to preserve that commercial square footage is really our highest priority. Being able to maintain that, you know, that 50,000 square feet that were allowed up there for true commercial uses for that opportunity. I mean, I'd hate to limit us from that, right? And so, you know, if we can come to, you know, an agreement where we can hold on to that 50,000 square feet of commercial um for the good of all of us, I think, um, you know, I think that's really where where we really are focused from that perspective. Does that make sense to you? And I'm a little bit we can work through numbers and figure out the logistics of what goes in what planning area that honestly those are lines on paper. I'm not hugely concerned about that. It's really more about the commercial square footage and being able to maintain that for true potential commercial uses. Does that make sense what I'm asking? I I guess I'm I agree with Katie. It's it's the 23W piece that's causing the most heartburn for me. Um I do think that if you manage to put this all in 9W, you get a better response. I think it would also be better if you were more forthcoming because you and I both know that anybody that's staying at a hotel that's surrounded by all of these amenities is going to be very upset when they're told that they can't play when that's what they thought they were getting. So to me, it's a commercial use and it's going to be a commercial club. And whether you couch it as time share or how you fill these rooms, there's going to be a commercial component in the hotels and they're going to want to

use the facilities. Well, that there's difference between them wanting to use it and us allowing them to use it. And that's not a decision that you or I actually need to make, right? Allow them to use it. Why don't you put them somewhere else? I mean, well, you know, there's nothing to say that there won't be some spec I mean, that's a large resort area in that in that resort. I mean, that's what you're trying to sell. And so, if you look at at this plan here where it's kind of that resort that's in the middle, I mean, there's plenty of opportunities in that to put, you know, including some commercial uses, like you said, if we want to put a spa in that resort, we've got the commercial uses to do that, right? I mean that that would be where those types of uses would likely end up going for those commercial users. Um we'll put a pool in there. I mean there's all sorts of we got a lot of we got some land and we've got some ability to do all of that as part of that specific resort which is different from the outpost clubhouse. Right. I mean you put the resort portion in and then you move the outpost somewhere else not on 23W and you can and the clubhouse outpost is commerce generating correct it's a private clubhouse right yeah so it's a private club with private dining member from a land use perspective that's that's what we think sales tax revenue for memberships well you most certainly you'll have a pro shop if there's a golf course involved. Yeah, there'll be a pro shop. So there'll be a pro shop. So they'll be selling merchandise. It's going to be it's going to be a flip of the coin as to whether you want to call a private club or a commercial um ongoing activity. Um, I think private clubs still have to pay

sales tax for I'm not saying they don't. I not saying they don't. I I don't know those those rules. Well, this kind of gets back to a discussion that I recall we've had multiple times about what Clark considers the definition of 23W and what many of us have thought the definition of 23W was. And he goes back to it's private land. It's open space, but it can have other things in it. Facilities. That's that's the thing. We come back to this every time. So, you know, if we buy into Clark's definition of what 23W is, he's put together a very nice plan. If we say, "Well, we're not sure that we agree with your definition of 23W and what facilities can be in a 23W platted land or plot of land." Then that's where we get into this, you know, conundrum that we have with this sketch plan. There's the originally intended facilities um conversation that happened to consider of what was the original intention of the facilities public works um for that area. You know, I would um you know, I think a good example of facilities for the golf course would be the maintenance maintenance building for the golf course. Uh restrooms, halfway house. Um right. I mean, I think we all can agree that those are facilities that would be appropriate for 23W, right? Um and you know, we feel clubhouse is is part of that as well. Um, but before I want to bring Jack up here in just a second, but can we can we go to the um

building height conversation building height conversation real quick and then come back to this if that's okay. Um, okay. So, we are uh we we saw what Garrett said. We didn't even see that part of the 30% to be counted with you. So, um, so 65 ft is what we would like to request for the lodging units within this plan that's shown on here. Um, and one of the reasons why this is kind of a big deal for us is that there's like 50 ft of fall across this site. It has got some serious topography on it. And so being able to increase that height allows us to have the building take up some grade, right? and be able to reduce the footprint because when you're dealing with that much grade and you have these massive footprints and trying to do flat pads, I mean, you are just decimating everything that's up there, right? And so the biggest reason why we are kind of requesting this is to try to help deal with some of that grade that when we originally did this PDD, we kind of just I don't know, we were thinking 2D. I don't know. I can't explain it more. Um, but see all, right? We can't see it all. We don't have a crystal ball. Um so so we you know we are requesting that I guess um we will go through the process of probably the FPDP with some elevations and some but we will follow one of the two processes that Garrett brought up on the screen that's not you know we'll move forward with that. I guess my question to you would be in general do you guys have any serious heartburn about increasing the heights up there? Um, generally if we come up with plans that seem to work, I mean, I just kind of want to get just a temperature of a of a, you know, either Well, it's not being recorded, right? A a heck no or a maybe if it's the right plan or Yeah, that's probably okay.

I like the Mexican architect much better than that. So, bring him on board. Is this I can bring him on board, but this is just to show you kind of what 65 ft looks like, a number of stories, right? I mean, that's really all this is meant to show. Yeah, you're saying that that particular schematic you're showing is based on 65 ft. You got it. Okay. Yeah. So, it's five stories. Um, it also allows us to potentially do some change of plane. As you can kind of see, the roof p the roof heights on these kind of vary a little bit. It allows us to just have a little bit more flexibility dealing with both the grade and then just again, mostly it's the footprint. I mean, the bigger the footprints get on this steep land that becomes lots of walls and lots of other things that we prefer not to do. if we can figure out a way to do it architecturally. It just looks better. So, um just want a general temperature from you guys. Um I don't need an absolute yes or absolute no, but just, you know, uh some, you know, we consider it kind of feedback would be great for us as we move this forward. You want to offer feedback? Well, and I I can also just briefly interject. I can list off some of the um the characteristics by which this request would be evaluated if it's provided as part of an FPDP. Um and I can also list off some of the criteria that this would be considered against if this is a resoning PDD amendment if that's they just said FDPD. So let's focus on that. Sure. So those 10 characteristics include uh the geographic location of the site, uh the probable effect on slopes, soils, and other hazardous terrain, um any adverse visual effects to adjacent properties, uh potential problems for um casting shadows or closing of views. Um influence uh on vistas and open space. Um the extent to which potential adverse

effects are eliminated are reduced uh by such factors as spacing between buildings and limitation of the ground areas occupied by such buildings. The extent to which building height will contribute to the environmental amenities and increased efficiency of the development. Uh the potential for improving the level of privacy in adjacent residential areas. the potential for being compatible with the scale of the surrounding natural environment and public safety considerations. So, it's it's a lot of different things. Um, some of which are certainly relevant and applicable to what Laya was speaking to. So, I know we have a different um height measurement in rendevous. I'm assuming that that carries over here where you're building on a slope that that all is taken into consideration. Based on the finish, the average of the four corners. Well, it's going to be on up on top of the hill pretty much. The high point. The high point is actually where the clubhouse is. Is actually what? Where the clubhouse is. Thank you. You know my hearing is the rubber. I love the clubhouse. The clubhouse. Lisa. Here you go. So the high point on this plan is where the clubhouse is and then it kind of all kind of starts to radiate down. There is a ridge that kind of runs through that um resort site, but it's lower than the clubhouse. What's the height of the clubhouse? I don't have that elevation off the top of my head. I'm sorry. I mean, that's the high point for this area. I mean, as you continue south and up the mountain, it obviously continues to get higher, right? That's just the

high point for this particular messa area. and heading down. And then and then if you go actually to the left of the clubhouse, you actually go down into the valley there, which is where the golf course is potential is, you know, the is proposed to be routed. Yep. Well, I'll give you my personal Yeah. All I'm looking for, and that is that I think if you're going to do the lodging units, you put them in a pretty good spot because the clubhouse is the highest point. fairly familiar with that land up there. And uh you can work into those slopes because you do have quite a bit of relief coming off of that clubhouse elevation down to the railroad tracks. So you can work those buildings to where 65 ft isn't going to look that bad. And it's your property surrounding the whole thing. So, it's not like we're going to be infringing on anybody's uh property that they currently have a development or a house built on and they're saying, "Well, you've ruined my view of the mountain. You basically are offering a development. People that are going to buy in there, this is going to probably be one of your early projects. So, the people that are going to buy in there, they're going to accept it and live with it." That's my opinion. So I I I don't have a problem with the 65 ft. That's the 30% rule we were talking about. Yep. Okay. That's my personal opinion. Thank you, Bob. Appreciate that. Yeah. And the only stick for me, you could guess what it is. Tra do it in some kind of a trade for some other land somewhere. 23W where it won't have full-blown development on it. Even though this is facilities, multiple

facilities, clubhouse and all that. Yeah. Well, this is someday it might not be. This is 25 acres of our 468 acres. So, the rest is coming. You'll see it. I promise. But hopefully, you know, also open. But so that transfers So that there's a density there's a transfer of 23W that 25 acres to another. Okay. You're saying give me 25 acres somewhere else and call it 23W and you can develop this. Yeah. But that's a change of use. Yeah. But you're So you're back to the clubhouse. Okay. And then that requires a public hearing if there's a change of use. Right. Y yes. If we if we consider it commercial. So yeah. Right. I mean that's true. Right. I mean, if if it's considered commercial, I mean, that's I think we throw that out there and say, "Hey, you know, yeah, we're not we're we're looking for open space 23W. We're going to develop all of this 25 acres or whatever with the clubhouse and facilities facilities. Uh maybe there's 25 acres you could we could trade and we get 25 acres at 23W somewhere else." Okay. only and and I kind of misspoke. Scratching this I misspoke a little bit on you guys. 20 25 acres was all the 23W on this plan which included some of the stuff along the railroad and all of that and all of that. So was it just the clubhouse itself is seven. The clubhouse building itself is probably two to three at the most. Okay. Yeah, we're not talking very much acreage. Um, and then and then the um courts and stuff would be another, you know, few acres, but I think we've kind of I think that's not really part of the conversation today. Well, that could be. So, um, anyway, building height. I was asking about building

height. Can we go back to that for a second? I don't really have heartburn over the building height if it stays at 65 ft. And I think that it stays in 9W. Yep. I think there is discussions to be had on what 23W's used were and what facilities are. And if we were so generous to make trade, it'll have to be compensated with public open space, not Clark's preferred definition of private open space, which was never part of the deal to begin with, but he just likes to use that word. Well, 23W is private open space in the documents. And you'd like to tell us that. I mean, it is. It just is over there. It's not mine. We never had it. It's not mine. They're memorialized. Yep. Not mine. The lodges. Yeah. Are is there do you know whether those are going to be built before the personal residences, the single family homes? Probably probably not. But, you know, again, once once we have a plan set, you know, anybody who moves in here is gonna know what's coming, right? I mean, right. Okay. So, so there won't be any surprises. It's not like we're going to do a bait and switch. If we get this all approved at once, then then it would it would be common knowledge, right? Thank you. Well, I would hope that when you get this all resolved that we have really defined information about how the metro district plays into this. Yeah. Again, that's that's going to have to be a Clark question. So, next next time we come in front of you, he'll be here. So, he'll be happy to and I'll let him know that maybe he'll be willing to share some information with you via email or some other when you guys run into each other at Safeway. Okay. Do you have anything else for us?

Me? No, that was all I had. I mean, it's really really just the same items that Garrett was asking for feedback on. we are asking for the same feedback and just wanted to give you both both opinions. I think maybe if I could briefly respond to Lea's point regarding um you know allowing more commercial use in this area. I mean I think everyone in this room is aware of the fact that the town's finances live and die on sales tax revenue. um you know so yes obviously the town would be interested in more commercial uses uh just more broadly but you know something I'll say is that in the Grand Park PDDD there are planning areas um outside of West Mountain kind of in the meadow area um closer to Highway 40 that um were approved for commercial uses but um have not yet been realized have probably uh will probably never be realized uh planning area 4W and 3WC. These are Elk Creek condos and uh Hay Meadow Drive. Between those two planning areas, there is nearly 180,000 square feet of commercial uses approved, which um again have not been built, have not been have not even received planning approval. And based on the way those planning areas have developed, we'll likely never see the full buildout of those commercial uses. So, I would just like to present to the applicant like there is a way to get approval for additional square footage uh commercial square footage in these planning areas in West Mountain and that process is a major PDD amendment to the Grand Park PDD. Um and I think uh without providing any sort of you know guarantee or you know I I I think

there's a fair argument to be made that we were not able to develop commercial uses in other areas where they were approved. Uh can we have additional commercial uses elsewhere? I think that's a valid argument to make and if you want to seek that through the major PDD amendment process that would be the appropriate way to do so. Well, I just still just fundamentally disagree that a private club is a commercial use. I think your code is pretty clear on that. So, but we can we'll go back and um real quick I want to bring up um introduce some of you may know Jack Best. Um he recognize you. He is there. He's back in the fray helping us out. This I'm older. Me, too. We're not. Unfortunately, that happens. He's just as young as I recall. No, not a day. And uh Jack was instrumental in um developing the PDD back in the early 2000s. And I was just the minion doing the, you know, grunt work. So, I'll let him because I'm I still cover up my gray. You can't see. Thank Thank God for Leila. That's what I say. Um I have been away. I left in 2006. I've come back a couple times to work on a few things when when there was a need for some help maybe. Um and I I still have a I went I was fortunate. I went when I when I left I was asked to go down and be development director for the Meadows in Castle Rock. And so I did that for two and a half years. And then we we had a recession, you may recall, and our our staff went from 17 to 2 and a half at the Meadows. Uh and it was it

was kind of a typical private sector reaction. uh but uh Bessel Collaborative is my firm and I've been practicing I had it actually in 1999 available to me but I've been consulting and doing my own development projects since since uh 200 uh I guess since the recession about 2009. Um so anyway I'm glad to be up here. I have some fond memories. I still have the t-shirt about um leaving planet Earth. It's one and it's in framed in my office. Uh and I was fortunate to get that when I left. But so just a couple things and I'd really like to talk a little bit more to Garrett because his interpretations were not the intent of what we worked through. Uh I joined the project in 1999 when there was no bridge across the Frasier. There was nothing. and we were working that winter on wells. So, it was kind of kind of it's there's been a lot of change even in the time that I was here. But, um I would only say that it commercial is not defined by profit or nonprofit. And I know Ken knows that. Um, it's a land use definition and and you I think Garrett indicated very very precisely why this isn't a commercial by citing your own code and the definitions that are there. Um, so I don't know how you lean towards that, but I I think we've really gotten great input from you guys tonight and I that's what I appreciate. It was really good to listen to it. Um and I think uh facilities were were identified in the definition of 23W just for this purpose recreation related facilities and that's why the development standards were established at 50 ft and with the setbacks that Leila's already covered

but um I think we can do a lot to refine what we've submitted and I think that Leila's already got that cooking. Uh, but we look forward to maybe having some more discussions because um I know we did a lot of work, had a lot of public input. Uh, and I think I think that it's really this I'm really excited to see West Mountain start to move forward. Uh, and and you may be right, Peggy. She's usually right. That's you always say that. See, it's good. Um, and you know more about resorts than anyone. all your days at Vale and you know how you met the Globals, you know, the whole history is is wonderful and um it we thought we didn't think it would take this long to get us this far probably when we started out, but we didn't expect to sell uh up on the mountain where you live. We didn't expect to see pricing go like it did after what three years or something. So this became more of a less of a day tripper place and has now become more of a destination place and it's not quite there but this is maybe the next step that it should take. So we appreciate your support of the plan frankly. So it's it's good to see you guys. Thank you. Well thank you Jack. I I've I've heard about you by the way and you've been described as the kinder gentler version of Clark. [Laughter] No, it's I think there's Yeah, it's been fun by the way to work with Dennis. Good. Yeah, you know, we worked on sizing for West Mountain. Okay. So, we had to work

through all that. That's all in the That's all public works public sizing the water source is a phase issue. Okay. Um, I'll open it up. Any other comments from the commissioners before we leave this issue? We We don't have anything to vote on tonight, so we'll just uh There's no other comments to I I have one more. Okay, go ahead. Uh I'm looking at the annexation agreement and uh 10.5 developer agrees that public trails shall be dedicated in con in and constructed in accordance with 23 2020 2003 PDD trails with individual within individual subdivisions and any off-site trails as necessary to serve such subdivision as determined by Frraasier in consultation with the developer. And I didn't see any trails on this and I think that would be a great ad when you're So the public trails actually run along Grand Park Drive and so there's a detached trail that will run all along Grand Park Drive as part of that. That's kind of known as a sidewalk. No, it's a detached 8 foot. It's either eight or 10 foot trail that runs along there that tie that goes under the underpass and ties into the old victory road that then takes you to highway 40 to to take you out. So that is the public trail that is included in I guess it's technically not in in West Mountain filing too because we're not adjacent to Grand Park Drive in that particular filing, but you'll see that coming forward along. But this refers to

off-site trails necessary to serve such subdivisions and individual planning areas. Sidewalks well more than sidewalks like real trails like you could ride your bike and go for a walk and you know you know That would also be a huge amenity. It would be a huge amenity because I live in a trailside living community and everybody loves it. Even the people that don't live there love it. Thank you, Jack. You were part of that. Yeah, we all love it. Um, no, I I think trails are are terrific. I One more comment was on the whole issue of Leland Creek and a migration corridor. Um to get this plan approved, we had to go through core of engineers obviously who approved the the the permitting of the of the uh 404 permit and then of course it was refined in subsequent years. As a part of that, we were we were um we had a nexus with Division of Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and we were the first one to have the opportunity to do a biological assessment of 300,000 acres presented because the lynx was released in southern Colorado and they were concerned about where the lynx was going to go. So, as a part of that, we had one of the top biologists of unullet. I've been wanting to use that word for a while. That almost messed it up, but and he he was the one that tracked links on on the Veil Lodge, the um what was it, you know, the one that burned down, the one that Yeah. Two Elks. Two elks. And so we use we utilize SAM as a part of our work on that which which then the core you know US fish approved and

realized there was no impact with the links but as a part of that unullet large animals were also looked at and the plan was reviewed as a part of that process. So we have not shied away from where the open space corridors were then and are now. Uh there is open space. It's hard to read that map, but there there is open space on the other side of of uh the parkway there, the Grand Park Drive, and it is below the housing at Leel Creek. Yes. So I think there's a big bluff up creek. Yeah. And that trails on the other side of of the creek, right? And that's Denver. There's quite a bit of elevation difference between the creek and Grand Park Drive. Yeah. Well, I think yeah, Denver water is farther up, but I think all along that there's that there's a natural corridor along the creek. I know we used to walk through there and try to hope that the the moose weren't there with their babies at the time because they can really drive you off quickly. So, I think it actually works better to get the metal in fact that's where they want to go because of the railroad overpass, you know, and the underpass that works quarter-wise. I forgot. I just wanted to bring that up. And uh it's been this stuff has been studied pretty carefully. Um, we can always learn more though. Thank you. Okay. Um, if you guys don't have anything further, I hope you got some good input from us. We look forward to seeing you back soon. So, do we need to address some of these points to um asked if we Well, yeah. They wanted us to look at three things, didn't they? So, I think that the main thing that staff wanted was maybe for the benefit of staff and the applicant, a more clear determination on the planning

commission's stance on the 23W clubhouse issue. Um, I think we we do have a pretty clear path forward with regards to the building height. Um, if the applicant provides that with their FPDP submitt, uh, staff will be able to review that. Um, you know, I I I think really, uh, I think there hasn't really been a clear direction either way from the planning commission on the clubhouse issue. Um, certainly you all don't need to make a firm decision either way tonight. I think that was certainly one of the goals that staff wanted to have coming out of this meeting. Again, just to provide a clear direction on that item for both the applicant and staff. So, come back to the private home versus commercial use. So to do some research to see if there is any preced. Sure. That would be interesting to know. And then um the next question is if it is if it is determined that it's just a private club then would that be considered a facility okay to be in 23W? Yeah. Yeah. That's Yeah. Obviously, if it's commercial, if we we go with the definition that says it's commercial in use, um then we probably have issue with 23W. So, the location, the general definition of commercial is making or intended to make a profit. And with there being ample area for commercial use in

different places, um I think their originally intended uh use of that area was for a facilities public works purpose. So that's where I lay with the clubhouse being there. it's uh can it be somewhere else? I think there's an additional hurdle that needs to be addressed as well in addition to whether or not this is commercial or institutional and that is there's an asterk on 9w that says the clubhouse goes here. So that obviously was the intent that went with the approval of the PDD in 2005. Okay. And so we use that and the determination that has to go through the major. It's a change of use. Whether it's commercial or private, it's still a change of use. Well, we have 15 years, so Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We really appreciate your input. I want to know who this guy is you brought in with you in the orange jumpsuit. Is Is he one of the uh El Salvador prisoners y'all extracted from the Rober? He kind of looks like a terrorist. Thank you, Parnell, for coming tonight. We're just a little joke.

All right. So, um, with that done, I guess you're going to give us an update on regulations. Yeah. Can you pull up the presentation? Okay. So, if you all recall from last month, we kind of had a workshop discussion around various code amendments that we could make to chapter 19 to better uh incentivize affordable housing um being built through private development projects. Um, so we don't have too much uh to discuss today. I just wanted uh Allan and I wanted to recap kind of the priority of the things that were discussed a month ago and then talk a bit more on details for this density bonus amendment that we plan to bring forward next month as well as some ADU regulations. Um, so Al and I will kind of tag team this. Just as a reminder, these are the definitions of affordable housing for the state. Uh, Jaffa and Dola, various um, income and rent

levels. Um, so a month ago, we talked about these seven priorities or different uh, seven different strategies that were roughly ranked in this level priority. So, our first priority is expanding our existing density bonus, introducing the height bonus, and then having a density bonus in our lower density zones. and going down the line from there. Uh so uh the staff staff recommendation was that the riverwalk density bonus be expanded to the business and highdensity multif family zones. They have the same base density as the riverwalk. Um so some of the modifications that we propose to make as we expand this are having a average AMI level for these deed restricted units instead of a hard AMI level that they all must meet. Um, we also propose regulating the minimum size of deed restricted units so that they're not significantly smaller than comparable market rate units in the project. And we also plan to propose some exceptions to other zoning standards in conjunction with the density bonus. So, this table summarizes again what's in our code right now. I won't spend too much time on it. I know we've talked about this quite a bit. Um so as we looked into this more what we felt was the best way to implement this um instead of having uh you know some language in the business zone district and the highdensity multif family zone district and the riverwalk zone etc that speak to this bonus. We feel the best way to implement this would to be adding uh a new section in our code that serves as kind of the one section that land owners, developers can look to for the types of bonuses and incentives related related to zoning uh that they can receive related to affordable housing

development. So that way it's all in one location. and it's a little bit easier to, you know, find in our code and and understand any differences that may be um adopted for different zone districts. Um we also want to align some of these income thresholds with some of the work that Sarah Kanzerite has been doing to formalize fee reductions and waiverss associated with um you know new development that incorporates affordable housing. um have separate AMI thresholds for product that would be for rent or for sale. Um and then be a bit more uniform in the employment requirement because right now we kind of have two different um requirements. The Riverwalk zone requires employment within the housing partnership boundary. Um whereas uh for Victoria Village and uh the overlay zone for Victoria Village as well as just our general deed restriction, it's just employment in Grand County more broadly. So to speak to those just more specifically what we're considering um for any units that would be for rent um the average AMI for those deed restricted units should be no more than 100%. um that would allow again some flexibility so that the deed restricted units can be at a range of AMIs and we would set a maximum AMI of 140% for any individual unit. That 140% is uh again it comes from Dola um their recommended um you know affordable housing level for a rural resort community like Frasier. Similarly, we would also break out a average AMI for any deed restricted units that would be for sale. We we proposed to set that higher at 140% um

again could be achieved through a mix of AMIs um and maximum of 160 for any individual. So, are there any questions on this? So, So, uh, item one is for rent. Item two is for sale. Sure. Yeah. So, so the individual bullet points, I I guess I'll just talk through those more slowly. Starting with the second one, any deedrestricted unit in a for rent residential development, the maximum AMI on those deed restricted units can be is 140% AMI. However, but the average of all of them has to come out to 100%. So, correct at 140 you'd have to have a 60, right? For for a development that only has two deeprestricted units, right? So, um Yeah. Yeah. And then the second one again it's that would uh apply to for sale just at slightly higher amis uh but still in line with Dola's u you know recommendations. Uh we would also you know add a provision in this section of the code that specifically says that deed restricted units should be you know similar in in size and in bedroom count to market rate units. Again, we can refine this language, but something like um you know, a similar ratio, say a development of 5050 one bed and two bed

units, the deed restricted units have to be at that same ratio. Um and their size has to be comparable. Some other communities have language like no uh no smaller than, you know, 15% less than the size of a, you know, the average market rate unit or something like that. Um, two items that staff wanted uh the planning commission's thoughts on are items four and five. Um, so four was something that we've discussed previously where our current density bonus just doubles the unit per acre cap. It goes from 20 units per acre to 40 units per acre. Um but recognizing that unless there's some flexibility in other zoning standards like height um required open space and setbacks uh it could be challenging to even hit that 40 unit per acre density. Um so four and five should kind of be taken together. Um and and it could be an eitheror in terms of implementation. So four is proposing that the unit per acre cap be removed entirely when a density bonus is achieved which uh backing up the density bonus is achieved when at least 20% of all units in the development are deed restricted. Um so as long as that is met then four would allow as many units on the site subject to all other zoning requirements. Um what five would allow is a deviation of up to 10% from any current standard. So staff identify 10% because that is the current um allowance of an of an administrative variance. So essentially what this could achieve is if you provide deed restricted housing and you meet the density bonus requirement, you

kind of just get a blanket administrative variance to height setbacks and open space. Um so that could help um you know allow these developments to achieve those higher densities because they can go a little bit taller, they don't have to have quite as much open space, etc. Any thoughts or concerns on this? But you if you wanted to exceed the 10% you'd have to just come to employment commission and make a payment, right? I I think anything beyond a 10% variation, we would still consider uh like a normal variance a variance and it would be subject to that more stringent hardship criteria. Whereas I think what we're proposing here is it just needs to meet the restriction requirements and would have to prove hardship. So if you're going to build 10 units, 10% of that one unit is deed restricted. Is that what you're saying? So the deed restriction requirement that ratio is 20%. So a development with 10 units, two of them would have to be deed restricted. So back go back a slide. So what are you saying here? Uh allow flexibility to other zoning standards of up to 10% from current standards. Let's take height as an example. Are you saying a 10% you can get a 10% increase in height over what? 40 ft. It it would be whatever the base maximum height is for that zoning district. So, in business and Riverwalk, it's 45 ft. So, that'd be a 4 and 1/2t increase. Uh, I don't think that's really going to help anybody. I'm I'm thinking instead of 10%, it's 10 ft. That's because you add a floor. If you want to get more density, you go

vertical, you add another floor. That's about the time you get your joists and beams and floors poured and everything and you got maybe a 9 foot ceiling and that's a floor. I will add we just did a 4 and 1/2t height variance for a recent request over at the ski bro and that's what they're requesting to get the fourth foot for Yeah. No, that was four. The in order to accommodate it had a roof pitch like this at the top of the pitch. They were going to be like what was it 49.5 ft or something? But but without it, it would have only accommodated three stories and this got him a fourth story on that one. It was it was for the ascent uh condominiums by uh export skier. Yeah. So that again floor to ceiling heights could vary from project to project, right? But again with that proposal uh they were requesting 4 1/2 ft essentially to achieve a fourth floor based on their floor to ceiling heights I would argue. So that was ultimately granted through an administrative variance and appeal by the board of adjustment. Um essentially we could just codify okay you can get that 10% height bonus when you meet the density bonus. Uh, so that's that's kind of one just proposal that we're putting forward right now where that I I think certainly not in all cases to your point, Bob, but in some cases that 10% can make the difference between a third and a fourth floor on a project. Okay. Um, uh, but yeah, I think certainly 10 feet would absolutely make the difference. That is a, you know, an additional story kind of no matter how you slice it, I would argue. But um yeah,

it sure does. I mean to me that four and a half sounds like an architectural detail. Sure. It was. And it really was. Yeah. It's not adding any usable square footage. We're not getting a whole lot more density for that four and a half feet or so. It it lets gives us flex flexibility on the measurement like getting into the weeds on the measurement maybe. I mean yeah all these are more I think for flexibility if there's a specific site constraint but yeah maybe not a bigger um incentive which is going to be addressed here in another slide. So on that note, uh we've talked about, you know, separate from the density bonus, a height bonus type thing. Again, that 10% flexibility could kind of be viewed in that way, but it already sounds like, you know, you all kind of think that's not really enough of an incentive. Um, so again, a couple different things. Our existing Victoria Village overlay zone allows 55 ft in height. That's a 10t height increase above the business zone. So this could be viewed as a tool to implement a height bonus, but it would be subject to the reszoning process. Essentially, a property owner would have to apply to reszone to into the Victoria Village overlay and we would also, you know, seek to rename it. So if we just said 10 ft instead, that would be no issue, right? I I would say that that is fairly consistent with what the town did in creation of the Victoria Village overlay zone. This was 45 to 55. Correct. I think the approach that probably makes more sense uh is to you know codify it as a standard of these various zone districts i.e. the riverwalk zone the business zone highdensity multif family so that it's not subject to this reszoning approval.

Um it it would again be similar to the density bonus where um going back to this table if you provide 20% of the units uh you know on your development are deed restricted you get this height bonus or or whatever that ratio is right so it's it's a known thing and it's not subject to any additional process um again so go ahead so right Victoria, correct? And 40 in the multi high density multif family. Correct. But slightly different in different zones. It's just 40 in the multifamily zone. I like it too. And I think that's the consensus we had our last planning commission meeting of it would eliminate the need to have an abortive adjustment. A lot of t time from staff and and board members. I think that and it just makes it you know simplifies and we Yeah. And we also did that for the around the ski depot or that area. I'm not even sure what it's called now. But um the area uh that we discussed the last last planning commission meeting or one of them where someone had to formally request a height variance and let's eliminate that. We're all in consensus of that being necessary due to the market currently. So I think it would save some time which is also how about this you get four and a half

ft at 20%. You get 10% at 30%. So so to clarify maybe a 10% height increase at 20% deed restricted. So essentially, you hit the density bonus, you get the administrative variance, but plus 10 ft at at 30% dude restricted because that would clearly get you that additional floor. I will say at least for like the feed discussion that Sarah's um helping lead, a lot of those fees only kick in at 50%, right, of units being dee restriction, I believe, and not 20%. The zoning one was a lower threshold is already into our code, right? But a lot of those fees start getting waved more wholly starting at 50% of units. At least that's the current proposal. That helps a little. I guess what what I could foresee is um you know having these kind of different incentives at different ratios of deed restricted units. I mean, obviously 20 and 30% is easier to achieve than 50%. Is the incentive at 50% worth it compared to these potential hype bonuses? But again, I think I think it's a discussion because it it moves you closer to well, I got the 30, now I've added a whole another floor. So, I just get two more and I get all this other stuff. Sure. So you you've built up a incentive program really right. I I think yeah

the the types of fees that we could wave around you know planning approval and building permits and things like that. I think in the grand scheme of things are relatively small compared to um you know the the profit that can be made from market rate units. Um, so I again I think we'll just kind of further consider and think about these different ratios, but broadly speaking, it sounds like if you hit that whatever our density bonuses, you get some flexibility on height and then at a higher ratio you can get greater height flexibility say 10 feet above. Yeah. Okay. And I mean if somebody comes in and they want want to do 50% Are there funding mechanisms to help them with that besides just us giving them breaks on the water and sewer and all this other stuff? Is there grant money or some other source of funding out there? Um, so I mean broadly speaking, something that has outside funding, whether it be like a lit type of application or other funding from state or federal sources in order to achieve a 50% deed restriction ratio or or higher. Um, I mean that that I I guess from a planning and zoning perspective, it it doesn't matter where if they're getting, you know, outside funding, if that makes sense. But I'm not sure what the town could necessarily offer on top of just waving some of those fees associated with new development. I think as part of the board discussion, it was acknowledged that um the Frasier deed restriction program for like existing residential units, any new development could also request that um kind of lump sum payment per deed restricted unit. Um, but again, I think that's, you know, subject to negotiation to a degree, right? I mean,

I'm thinking kind of if we decide that we're going to be proactive in purchasing land and then the developer comes to us and we say, "Okay, we can put the land underneath you. Now, you build it to the 50%." we've partnered in this deal and you know you've really encouraged this development as opposed to us being doing what we're doing in this eviction state. Yeah, I mean I think that's certainly a strategy that can be considered moving forward. I think it gives us gives us the options to build in all these incentives that you know we want to be we want to encourage this and how do we do it the most effective way that doesn't tie up the most cash that we have right okay um last thing we'll talk about is some of the use restrictions for properties with ADUs um again with the idea that if ADUs are to be you affordable and long-term rental type housing, then there should be some kind of either a deed restriction or prohibition on short-term rental licensing on those properties. Um, as a reminder, as our code is currently written, uh, an accessory dwelling unit doesn't actually count towards the base density allowance on a site. Um and again I think we kind of arrived on some sort of incentive based approach as opposed to mandatory um requirements. Um so kind of what we are currently envisioning is a code amendment that would likely more affect our short-term rent rental licensing section of the code. um but something that would restrict licensing of short-term rentals on properties with

ADUs such that at least one of the units on the property cannot be short-term rental. So just a couple examples, a lot that has a single family home and an ADU can only be issued one short-term rental license in total for one of those two units. If you have a lot with a duplex and a separate ADU, then they can have up to two short-term rental license um that cover say a duplex unit and the ADU or both of the duplex units or or what have you. So essentially any property that has an ADU, there must be one at least one unit on the property that is not allowed to have a short-term rental license. Um, we can certainly add additional things uh like uh again requiring a deed restriction on the property, local employment requirements or income AMI restrictions, but uh ultimately you know trying to find a balance again uh again you know between not disincentivizing ADUs um just more broadly. So, I have a question about employment requirements. I know Aspen is really struggling with this and I think it's something that we need to be proactively thinking about, but it's a challenge. You've got somebody that's worked in the community. They're 30 years old now. They either bought a house or they're in a long-term rental. And now fast forward fast forward really fast 30 years or 40 years and now they're ready to retire and they're embedded in this community and now we're not providing the unit for somebody who is employed and you're basically telling

which is Gaspin's saying okay guess what you get to move to Grand Junction because you can't afford to live here anymore. more and all your friends and all your every your whole life has been here. So I think it's something that it's not an easy solution but I think it's a dialogue that needs to happen. I don't know, but I thought we had talked about keeping that in our code and it does we'd have to clarify it with Sarah the Tanzite because I believe we do have something that states that if someone has lived and worked in the community for over five years or something that they're um allowed to apply or maybe that's through the um housing authority, but I agree wholeheartedly. Well, it's just it's I mean I see both sides of it. I mean obviously all my friends are leaving because they're too old, but um the reality is is um a lot of people would like to stay and then but they're taking up a spot that we need for somebody to work at the grocery store. Yeah. So it's but they're also filling all those nonprofit roles and volunteer roles because they're bored. That's good. You know, so they're working and just not being paid. Anyway, yeah, I I think these are all good points. I think it's best addressed, you know, in the actual deed restriction agreement. Um, and certainly as we hopefully do more of that in the future, I think it's just something we need to be cognizant of as we enter into those types of agreements, whether it's an existing residential unit that, you know, the town is paying to put this heat restriction on or if it's a new development coming in and seeking these bonuses and incentives. and um and things like that. So, but it's a it's a valid point. We definitely need to clarify. I I would like to state our deed restriction program does state if you've been if you've worked in Grand County, you're retired and you've worked

here for 5 years, you can stay in the deed restricted unit. Okay, perfect. Yeah. Thank you. Um yeah, and that concluded our presentation. So, we will bring some actual code amendment language back in May to you all to consider um and just keep this discussion and dialogue moving forward. So, Parnell Quinn from 12 Hilton. Um the uh AMI is not the best tool to use for resort communities. The reason is it doesn't uh include the people that are non-related in the assessments. So when they look at who's being tallied for uh the AMI, which is currently 83,000 for the town of Frasier, um it doesn't look at the people that are non-related living together as roommates. So the people making $15 to $25 an hour are excluded from that AMI. That's why it seems a little off base. To help you out, 100% of AMI is $40 an hour. 140% would be $55 an hour. Who in this room knows companies that are paying $55 an hour to their employees, their frontline employees, the ones that need the housing. Uh, currently there's six units for rent in Frraasier and Winter Park. Um, the rents are 1,400 to,700 for a one-bedroom. They are vacant. Nobody's looking at those units. Uh, most seasonal or short-term renters, uh, 1 to 5 years. They're not wanting to share rooms anymore, especially after CO. Uh they are tired of the college dorm life. You'll talk to any of the younger people here. Uh two

bedrooms require you sharing space. They're really looking for their own private spaces. Um most come single. Uh current jobs if you go on Indeed are ranging from $15 to $25 an hour. That's who's looking. Um the mayor has posted $20 an hour for his drivers to give you an idea of what is out on Indeed. Um, I do agree. I like the floor better than the feet because the floor actually gives you more housing. Uh, to the ADUs, uh, one of the largest developments in Grand C Frasier does not allow ADUs and that's Rhdee. Um, Frasier, uh, the middle income, low to middle income is what the housing was supposed to be. That's what we all voted for back in 2022 for St. Louis. And uh if these are the rules that you're going to follow that is middle to high income an average of 100% would be middle to high. So that doesn't create the need that the Fraser housing project was supposed to be thank some good information. Okay. Do we have anything else we want to add to Garrett's last uh presentation? If not, I'll ask is there other business we need to take up? Hearing no other business, I move to a journ. Well, how about future agenda? Oh, jeez. I don't cheat. I actually have a quick question. So some of the demographic information that you gave um Arnell uh was there a particular place that you did that research or you're getting it off of the you know the current statistics at the Frasier Valley. Um would you clarify

please? Yes. Pardon again. So the AMI I got from the HUD housing authority. I went and checked on how they actually analyze that cuz right when I looked up that Fraser was at $83,000 for an average employment and I know all the locals that work here. Um I couldn't figure out how we're getting to that. Plus I looked at the jobs on Indeed and other local postings that are in town. So that's where I got the postings for uh what jobs are being offered and they're 15 to $25 an hour. So the uh person who is single is uh the demographic that is coming here that um is less likely to want to share that space since co you know I guess those are just you know like logical deductions of you know that is who is coming here. Yeah living here since I was 12 years old I found most come in and through the valley. Um, if you talk to the kids, um, uh, adult who runs the birdie lounge, he's looking for a single place to live now. His roommate, which is, um, uh, Durk Eler's son, he's trying to find a place that's around 1,400 or less per month to live in by himself because he can't afford anymore. Um, the bartenders and waiters at Fisers, they had asked me if I had any rentals that were under um, $1,000 a month. for them to move into because they wanted to get out of the roommate situations they were in. Um the employees that we had even with our company being as successful as it was the highest we could pay somebody was 60,000 a year. So Carnell basically if you're you mentioned one employer who's paying drivers $20 an hour that's what they're offering to pay him. Well, that's roughly $40,000 a year, correct? And you're saying the average AMI for

Frasier is 83? 83,000. So, that's the kind of uh wages that our service industry employees are making. I mean, unless you're sharing a room with somebody. Yeah. I mean, I don't know how anybody making $40,000 a year could live here and be able to afford a place on their own. That's what's happening. And that's why the workforce housing that Frasier voted on in 2022 St. Louis was supposed to be low to middle income, which meant the height of that would be 80%, not 120 or 140. And right now, the medium income for that is 102% which puts you at about 85,000. Well, and a lot has changed in three years. You know, it's just so rapidly changing that it's impossible to keep up with as far as workforce wages. So, trying to address that is hard to predict. It's a moving target. And so, who by the time some of these things are built, it might be considered affordable because it is going in that direction. Who knows what is actually going to happen. Yeah. But the AMI will keep adjusting up, not down, unless we'd run out of jobs. Yeah. A lot of unemployment, right? Well, and I also think that not getting that LITC probably skewed it higher. I mean, I think the goal was hoping that we could get some funding or the feds. Yes. I the LITC would help considerably. Um Matt had the opportunity to go after LITC in 2022. they said they didn't need it, so they didn't go after it. Um, that's how Graanby ended up getting it instead of us. Um, the project itself, I, you know, I I love the concept and the idea and and I want it to work, but I want it to

be successful and we have enough people that are willing to build mid to high income housing for the locals. We what we don't have and what the town of Frasier can get that nobody else can get is the 8 to12 million in grants that you've gotten so far. Yeah. No, no private developer can get those grants. So, if we're not using that to build the lowest of the housing that we need, and I'm not talking to the 30%, the people that don't work um Grand Park and Clark took care of some of that already, but they haven't taken care of all of it. And you know, the middle income stuff that Grammy's now moved their lowincome housing into our workforce housing. Um they just put that as middle income. We can wait and see how that works out. And if there's a waiting list, right, move forward with St. Louis Landing. If there's not a waiting list, the worst thing to happen is to have all those units vacant because the town of Frraasier only has a total budget of 20 million and you have a vacant building. There's not going to be enough money to keep it. Then it goes into foreclosure and once it goes into foreclosure, it's sold and it goes back to market rate. So, so hard engage me here with the history of the mill apartments. because best I can sure because get into it. Well, no Apartments was built or was planned to be affordable housing. Now, my understanding was that they had a hard time finding people that could meet the qualifications to rent there. Yes. So, is that because they we couldn't find enough people with low enough AMI? No. Come up. You've got to come up and Come on, Lisa. You can do it. introduce yourself. This ties together with what Parnell was talking about. It does. But now they're all uh they're all rented now. Yeah. We have tenants at every unit and lists for a lot of initially that we couldn't find

people, but now we can we can uh still if we had a 60% unit that's vacated right now, we might not be able to fill it immediately. And the reason why is there's 60 units in the building. Not only is the building specific to be restriction on different income levels, but also specific units are dee restricted. So basically there's a certain set number of three bedrooms, two bedrooms that are associated with that income level. So yes, it was a very very hard challenge to find people that could fit that need. What fits great for that need? a single mom who has three kids, who has a job, she meets that 60% because of her dependence that she has, all of that to fill a one-bedroom 60%. You're looking for a retired person that's living off social security that doesn't make any money to fit that. So that they are there was some units that were very challenging for us to fill. However, in the 80% we have a wait list that could go on for ever of people trying to get into those units, but because of the way that the deal is structured, certainly. So, it's just how it's divided out. But we've found that the need for the market is 80%. It is 80 70 to 80% of like what people say MI 70 to 80% of what they say is MI. We also skewed because they take it by county. So they're looking at it from a Grand County perspective, not even going into the Fraser Valley, which actually even skews us even more because obviously people are not making what the liftes are making here. So lifties are actually making more money to not even qualify for those because our deed restriction was uh sorry, not our deed restriction, our AMI was based off the county, not necessarily the operation valley. So we even had a bigger skew to kind of work with if that makes sense.

Did you guys also have to do a thing where you worked on employment not being 365 days it's two years a week? Yeah. You had to go through lots of hoops to help people get qualified as well because they were looking at you know seasonal employment year because they're having to prove their income to get into these places. So yeah it was it was definitely a lot of moves to get through probably hindsight now, it probably wasn't the best approach or the program that we did to make it work because the government system is so broken on how they look at affordable housing, especially in demographics like this where the county is spread out so far and you have such a big range from what people earn from one valley to the other. But looking at Fraser Valley and the need here, like I think the assumption of using AMI or the data that's coming out is great, but like I also think there should be a study around like what what are the jobs that need to be fulfilled? Like the current jobs that need to be fulfilled, the people that really need workers to come here, what can those people afford to pay them and like what do they need to live here? So we found that was like the 80 percentile people that's like our servers the services that we need here to be sustainable. So well well thank you but could could you answer one more question for I've heard a rumor rumors as many as I can. I've heard a rumor uh over at that end of the county that y'all may be uh building more units. We are in the middle. We are uh in procurement right now 60 more units over at that place. And there was a project that you were going to do next to the mill that was

these sort of uh zero lot line almost uh kind of like what micro cottage. The micro cottage. That's right. Yes. That would have been a great project. Uh would have been I heard a rumor that that's probably not going to happen now. No, it's not. And that you're going to build more mill apartments instead. But they're not de they're um not deed restricted. No, we're not going to build any more date restricted build apartments, but we're targeting like 80 to 110 is what we're targeting for our rents on those buildings. So to hopefully help, but no, we're not going to restrict them. And what height what height are you trying to build to? They're the same. The buildings are identical. Okay. So the two buildings that you see over there, there's just two more. coming. We've cleaned up the floor plans, not the floor plans, some construction things that'll make them easier. They're going to have radi heating. We're going back to some more of our stuff that we can definitely build at more affordable and easier pricing than what we did in some of those units. But it will be very nice product. Okay. Well, good. Thanks for filling us in. And thing you guys talked about was parking. Um if you take now would be a bad time to go because nobody's there. But um if you looked at the um units across the street, Coast Lake building where the perk is um that parking lot was full throughout the winter because that's the uh free market kind of units with the exception to them. If you went over to Mills, uh I would say 50% of the parking lot was empty throughout the year. I I've notic I've noticed that there's hardly a full parking lot ever over there. Yeah. So, it's very rare even during Christmas and the holidays

there was even with their friends up those parking spaces didn't fill up. So, it shows that the people that are in those working class lower jobs, they don't have the money for a car. So, we could greatly reduce the need for parking or come up with a shared parking idea. Especially the St. Louis works out and there's a lot of empty parking there. And then when somebody goes to do density increases, hey, we have a parking space over here you can use if you want to do workforce. So is that a something we should consider as a a incentive if if change our uh required parking spaces based on restricted properties. It would be good help parking spaces expensive. what you were saying is, you know, we give them a height benefit, but also give them a break on parking spaces so they don't have to have as many parking spaces, especially if they're in the 80 60% AMI. There's restrict Sorry, sir. Uh there's units that are called um I units and the idea of them or they're individual units of course, but you build 40 of them and for every 20 units you give a parking a car that's rentable from anybody in the complex. And the idea is that then people don't need a cart because they can take the bus and they can walk everywhere. But if it's an emergency or they need to go to Denver or they got something that's a little bit bigger of a trip, they can rent that car by the hour and then return it and it gets inspected and that way you don't have as much parking. And they were down in Denver. Um they tried to bring them up here at one point. They got shot down right away because nobody understood how the unit would work out. But that's something to consider. And as soon as we get self-driving cars, we won't need parking services at all. I think that's it's interesting. And you know, Cornell, we we do have a notice to

proceed obligation to the developer. And so I No, no. Right. I I'm not trying to I'm not trying to stop now. I'm just saying we've got to I just want it to work. No. And I I think we all do. And I think, you know, obviously if we can get more grants and the better we're all going to feel about saying proceed. Yeah. I I just think the rents that they're shooting for at 102% AMI right now is going to be hard to do. So again, it's average. Yeah. Right. It's not flat. It's we're going for an average. So they'll be able to have I know. But 2% average is tough in my opinion. I could be wrong. I run for run for mayor. things happen. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Um any future agenda items that anybody would like to see on our agenda? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I move to adjurnn. Second. All right. All those in favor? I let the record show the meeting was adjourned at 8:50. Thank you all.