Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This way, that's great.

So microphones on I'd like to call this meeting of the Frasier Planning Commission to order please for the roll call.

Margaret Bowles. Katie Soles. Brian Sirkovenic.

Bob Dinesi.

Amanda Ira.

Andy Miller. And just to announce Amanda is joining us tonight for the first time. Welcome her to the Planning Commission. So we do need to appoint a chair and vice chair tonight. I'm willing to keep going, but I'm always happy to be replaced. And Bob, are you in a similar state?

I'm willing to chair one or two meetings, which will likely happen.

Your schedule is so crazy. Yeah, well.

Any interest, Owen?

But I mean.

Margaret, are you interested in? No.

I think it might be good to have somebody.

Sure. How about you?

How about you? You, is that Bob? Yeah.

Bob? Bob, the chair? I'm happy being the co-chair, but, you know.

Okay with me.

Okay, who would coach her?

Switch. Switch.

You can take more vacation that way.

When Samantha's got her feet under her, we can throw her into the hot seat.

Well, let's give her a night or two. So if we're going to, let's see, that would require a motion and a vote. I would assume so.

I'll make a motion to appoint Bob. As our chair for the present commission and Andy Miller as co-chair.

Second. Hi. Hi.

Hi.

All right. There you go, bud. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Take over right now.

Oh, wow. I've been so agreeable. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, fellas. Thanks, Bob. You're welcome. Andy, help me out along the way.

Don't worry. Katie, well, actually, she's invested.

All right. We've gone through roll call. And have we approved the agenda? I don't think we have.

No, we haven't.

I skipped one. You skipped one.

Yeah. Okay.

Do I have a motion to approve the agenda for tonight? So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. We've appointed the chair and vice chair. The consent agenda. We have a consent agenda in front of us, which basically composes the minutes from the previous meeting. Do I have a motion to accept those?

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All opposed?

Good.

Well, that went pretty smooth. All right. Open forum. we have anyone that wants to contribute to open forum tonight okay i guess not okay uh oh thank you so we have a public hearing and possible action on the fraser public works facility fpdp and forgive me if i get confused with all these f's and d's and p's tonight but this is the fpdp And I guess we'll have a presentation.

So, so Bobby was, I was told before the meeting that I guess we've got a notice. Yeah. So, yeah, I can update there.

We're going to have to ask for a continuance. It was brought to our attention that the public notice was not conducted completely. We left off the adjacent meeting. Railroad from the, um, the property mailings, um, reason being is our address. Paul, um, the, the county site that we use for that doesn't have separate parcel data for the railroad right away. So it's just depicted as right away. It's basically a gap in, um, in any kind of contact or owner when you click on the railroad. So that wasn't included in the address list and. wasn't flagged or noted, wasn't caught by, by anyone. So we did double check this morning with, with the town attorney and the guidance is to continue it to properly notice the railroad for being the adjacent property owner, even though it's the right of way.

And what's the adjustment in me though, Bob, if there's anybody here to talk about it, that we might open the store for them just so they don't make a wasted trip. All right.

Well, can we, if this is a public, it's supposed to be a public. Right. um so it'd be a public hearing because there was a proper notification right if could it could the public comment be opened but then just closed and opened again at the next meeting not sure so where's our attorney we need to ask him about this because i know if prior to there you are yeah you don't look like the other guy i don't look like i know what i'm talking about but we'll see if i do oh yeah um

So without the proper public notice, I mean, we shouldn't be holding public hearings. So opening it at this point would be improper. The code states that all adjacent property owners within 200 feet should be noticed. Since we missed it here, the recommendation is just to continue in compliance with the code.

Could they just invite public comment without going into a public hearing?

I don't know. We're not supposed to discuss it with anybody prior to the hearing. Is that correct?

If there's someone so inclined for the open forum, which was previously open to address this, that would be one thing, but to open it for public comment at this point, that would be tantamount to a public hearing.

An open forum is business not on the agenda.

Since you'll be continuing this item... I mean, I would think it would be appropriate just if you wanted to revisit the open forum with the understanding that we will not be discussing the public works facility.

So, but how about the 2nd public regarding. West mountain, because the railroad is their adjacent property owner. They were not notified either.

Not yet. I believe I believe not. Um, yeah, I believe they confirmed that right this afternoon. So, yeah, the same issue just for that specific area for the rest of it. Yeah.

all of us to get here and make this happen.

But we could eliminate that section that borders.

We'll still be discussing it all as a whole. I think we'd still want to go through the presentation and discuss and we're just not going to be able to make any final action on that one that wasn't properly noticed. So Katie.

They both, were they both not properly noticed?

But that's my Katie, you have multiple with the West mountain. Okay. Um, the that are right there adjacent to the railroad right of way. Yeah, those will be continued, but you have other that do not require notification process to the railroad. Gotcha. That can continue to be discussed for tonight and approve potentially for tonight.

No, I'm not going to be able to split that out and not talk about that 1. it's all kind of combined with the staff report and the overview.

Right? But if a resolution is made, we can.

Make that point. Potentially we can split those out.

But as far as inviting public comment, I don't see any liability with providing more public comment than what is necessary. We will still properly notice with the notification to the railroad for the next meeting where you will have to hold the official public hearing and you could have potentially additional public comment for that Public Works FPDP. But I don't see any reason not to move forward just with open comment. If you would like to invite anyone who showed up tonight that has comment on the Public Works facility, For that, and then you can move on. Okay. All right.

Yeah, sounds like a good idea. So we will go back to our agenda item open forum. And if there's anyone here tonight came specifically to, uh, make comment or address. The, uh, item that's going to be continued over, which is the Frazier public works facility. Uh, and you would like to make comment. Please come forward or raise your hand. Do we have people online?

Oh, yeah.

Go ahead. I just was asking Antoinette, do we have one person online? All right. State your name, please. Harnell Quinn.

Talk to some other people in the audience here. The fact that you left out the railroad is completely common. Every member on the board should be removed. Every staff member involved should be removed. The railroad is something that is known and has been known since the beginning of Frazier. To leave them off the list is a huge violation. Katie, you can smile and joke about it all you want. We all drove, there's folks that drove from Denver at this meeting. From Denver. And you guys are so incompetent, you left out the railroad. It's been in every meeting you've ever had about any property. That is insane.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment or specifically about the public works?

Anyone online would like to speak, please raise your hand.

Hearing none.

I assume then that... Is this open forum just for the public works?

It's open forum for any comments you might like to make. That are not on the agenda.

So, West Mountain's still on the agenda?

You'll have the opportunity. Yes.

Okay.

Now, I take it that when we get to the presentation and discussion of West Mountain, we can't talk about or have public comment concerning any of the FTDPs that join the railroad or adjacent to the railroad.

Well, as Alan said, you can't really separate it because they were all applied for at the same time in the presentation and the arguments. I might be incorrect with that, but... It's not that I want to stop this. I just don't want to get in trouble later. Because I've been chewed on for every year about the proper protocols for public hearings.

So I don't know. Well, we'll deal with it as we get to it. If there's comments that apply to those plans that are adjacent to the alignment of the railroad. We'll just have to not hear those.

But, Alan, can you, you can't. Yeah, I mean, I've got. The other properties, right?

I could try to overlook them. Some of the discussion interview was kind of looking at the whole submittal holistically, too. I mean.

But we can have a resolution that separates out some of the PDPs or not.

Thank you. So with this, these came in as a package, much of the criteria is pertaining to the area as a whole. Um, the individualized. Really well, Alan can further. Answer this, but most of the have the same criteria applicable. So, looking at this as 1 overall application. I don't see any issue with that. The thing that we will have to do is with this specific that had failure to properly notice the railroad, we'll have to come back for a separate public hearing. And so comments specifically directed for that area should be withheld. Most of this stuff, in my understanding, is going to be blanket statements for the package. And, I mean, if it happens to apply to this FPDP that needs to be continued, we're just going to hear the same things at that second public hearing. It's very difficult to separate when most of this is all under one umbrella.

Okay, I think we can do it because... What I saw was that the only kind of overarching concern that was raised in the staff report was the trail system. So the trail system along the railroad or the right of way of the railroad, we cannot make a motion on that tonight. We cannot discuss that.

I will not approve anything tonight. because there's too many overlaps if we're not allowed to talk about them. So if we're looking at their legal descriptions and general notes, there are a number on each one That applies to each 1 of these. 1 of my, and I have some concerns that apply to each 1 of these. So, can I bring that up individually or I think we're walking a tightrope and. I would like to make a motion to continue this.

So so 1st, I would ask Alan for. understanding which planning areas are within this area that was improperly noted.

You put up a bigger drawing that shows those areas so we can all look at it.

And I think the thought was we could still discuss, I guess, not move forward. But let me share. I'll go ahead and start sharing my presentation at full screen, and then I'll just jump ahead.

All right. Well, wait a minute.

We might be able to go back to it.

I guess before we do that, we should open the public hearing for West Mountain. FPDPs as a package. And then as we deal with individual FPDPs, it's not a package.

I don't know. What do you think Amanda? Welcome to the Planning Commission.

Andy, what is your wisdom here?

I'm reluctant to. I mean, it's just, you know, we just kind of got rid of the Riot Act and maybe rightly so, but I understand too that the You know, our lovely computer that gives the list of owners didn't recognize the railroad as an owner. That's a tough one. And it wasn't just us. The applicant had a similar one that they found. Yeah, applicant. Yeah, I missed this one, too. And I hate to have people here that have driven all the way up from Denver. I would hope that we could, again, at least open it to public comment, have a brief discussion so that the applicant's got good direction when he comes back. But this is a package. No, it's not individual subdivisions. That's kind of it. Now, wait a minute.

Let's let Andy finish what he was going to say.

That's all right. I'm done. This is a package. All right.

Clark Lipscomb, for the record, representing the applicant, Cornerstone Water Park Holdings, Grand Park Development. There are five separate applications that were submitted that are the subject tonight. And only one of those is within the 200 feet distance of the railroad, which is planning area 7W, 8W. The trail that you mentioned actually relates to a whole other area, and we can discuss that. there's very little overlap and we plan on discussing that because we have a presentation to address that. Unfortunately, I wasn't here the last time that item was discussed and no one had the history and I have the history. So we would like to continue, not continue the hearing, we would like to have the public hearing recognizing that no action would be taken on the FPDP pertaining to 7W, 8W. As far as I'm concerned, in the conditions that I've seen from the staff, there's nothing specific to 7W8W that's a concern. And I am fully comfortable listening to comments, concerns, questions pertaining to the overall plan. And then we'll come back with that one application, Alan, on 7W8W that is the one that is adjacent to the railroad. Okay. And I think that's completely appropriate and is what the law requires. So because if it was all one application, Katie, I agree with you and Andy, but it's not. It's five different applications and that was what was required by us. Okay. So legally, and I think Cooper will back me up here, we can cover all four applications that are not within 200 feet of the railroad, which is where I think the meat of any comments from the town.

Well, and those are basically, continuation of comments or holdover comments from filings one and two. Exactly. Yeah. So now it's eight W and seven W that we can't really make a recommendation on. Right.

Okay.

Yep, we agree.

All right, we agree. And I believe that just so long as the resolution, I mean, looking at the draft we have now, very simple to take out any references to the portions of this application that weren't properly noticed. We're just going to come back at another time, basically have the same conversation. But at that time, these will be properly noticed and we can fully discuss some WNAW.

Okay. So in that case, we do need to have a motion to open public hearing.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Let's begin with our staff report. Alan?

Thank you, Chair Knutsy. I'll introduce myself here in a second. Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm Alan Seeliff, Assistant Town Planner. Obviously a large presentation or a large application tonight. I'll go through the presentation. Kind of the first half is going to be some basics about the collection of applications. I guess any additional adjacent planning areas that weren't properly noticed will be discussed for context, but not for action. And then go through some more details about some of the staff review comments and ultimately the recommended conditions of approval. So Cornerstone Winter Park Holdings is the applicant representing Grand Park here. The collection of FPDPs, and I've got a bunch of maps and graphics on later slides, generally located west of the railroad tracks of the proposed extension of Grand Park Drive. The applications tonight are five separate FPDPs, Final Plan Development Plans. They include residential lodging and open space uses for the existing PD development grand park. Just a brief history overall here. The Grand Park PDDP was approved in June 2005. Excuse me. Fast forward, our first submittal from West Mountain filing one. I do make several references in the presentation here to filing one and filing two. Again, just for context, you get the next subsequent applications. Filing one was first submitted to the town in 2022. It advanced to the Planning Commission and the Board, I believe it was 2024 originally. There was a recent amendment most recently went to the Planning Commission in January and then to the Board of Trustees in February 2026. The FPDPs tonight that we're discussing were received originally it was a collection of six FPDPs in April of last year was the first submittal. What became filing 2 was subsequently resubmitted with a preliminary plat in June of 2026, so that put it on a bit of a faster track. That was resubmitted and addressed by the applicant sooner than the rest of these. So that advanced to the planning commission in February 2026. And then these FPDB packages tonight, the remaining five from that previous, the middle last year of six, were resubmitted in March 2026. So we're bringing forth the balance of that original application. A high-level overview, and I'm probably going to breeze through some of these. Let me know if there's any questions or comments. But again, the PDDP that we're referencing was approved in 2005. It's the high-level overall kind of master plan document. Um, it requires that final development plans, final plan development plan for. All the acronyms are submitted before individual. Uh, areas are developed, um, additional submittals of subdivision plants will be required. Those traditionally have been provided with the, and these cases, they have not been. Um, so this is just the. The kind of the zoning level, overall development plans, but subsequent preliminary plans and final plans will still need to be provided as they already have been for the 1st, 2 filings on West mountain. Oh, here's our topic of the night. The public notice was noticed in the newspaper by town staff and then mailed notices are sent to adjacent property owners and right of way owners, I'll say for the railroad will need to confirm receipt by the adjacent railroad for one specific planning area seven w and eight wa before final approval of that planning area. uh overall context with the town um this is the approximate outline of the fpdps that we're reviewing tonight on west mountain again west of ferrero tracks it's roughly the kind of the southwest third of the town um a few more contact slides the satellite imagery on the left here and then the the pddp document on the right just showing the general Land use layout, the planning areas and the road alignment. Well, following up with these, um, these 2 graphics again is the full balance of the West mountain, um, planning areas and the. 2005, and then this overall site plan, which was provided as part of the. Application materials, um, we could go back and reference this as needed. I'll have kind of zoomed in a screenshot for the different areas, but. This just kind of generally shows the, the original master plan layout and then what's being proposed. General locations of these being consistent of the planning areas, the. The road network, et cetera, um, in the open space uses.

Alan, if I could interrupt for a second. Could you explain what's going on with 20W? Because there's some comments to be made about that. I'll have some later slides on that. And is that a PDP that we're going to include in the five?

Or is that a separate? No, 20W is outside of the discussion tonight because it wasn't provided as part of the application material.

All right.

But the discussion, and we'll get to it later, is all the surrounding FPDPs are being defined so it effectively forms the boundary of it. So we'll dive into that in a few slides. This slide is just kind of a summary overall of all of West Mountain. So this includes filings 1 and 2 in addition to the planning areas in discussion of tonight. Just for an overall kind of comparison of what was depicted in the PDDP and what's proposed in these specific FPDPs. So, overall jump into the middle there, the total residential units is very close. It's. A slight increase the applicant has provided a density transfer chart that. Tracks and logs kind of where things are being added, where they're being taken from, um, some of these densities are being pulled from. Planning areas east of the railroad tracks, but within the grand park development. It does show that overall there's more detached housing than attached housing compared to what was originally contemplated. But there isn't an explicit kind of prohibition on that. We're just pointing it out for context. That there's additional detached housing as part of this overall units. Lodging overall is a bit of a decrease, 10%. Most of this is in filing 2, which has already been discussed. But there are some lodging component in 12W tonight. And then the commercial allowance is over, but this is all included in the filing 2 area. So none of the FPDPs tonight include commercial space. And then acreage, there's a slight reduction in acreage being shown compared to the documented amounts in the PDDP. Those were approximate. The planning areas are approximate. And then also it doesn't include 20W and 6W, which is the public works facility site. not going to go through this chart it's just a kind of an excerpt from the pdp that that includes the required development standards for each planning area these have been taken forward verbatim i believe in these fpdps so there's been no proposed revisions to any of these standards in terms of open space height or setbacks um And then just a note on the future land use area or. Planning area character descriptions, these are included in the PDP. There's not a whole lot specific to the planning areas tonight. Frankly, um. It's kind of very high level general description language about what they're going to include. And then the comprehensive plan, you know, we had plenty of discussion on this as part of that adoption, but it depicts this area. consistent with the PDP and that includes an overlay area that specifically allows flexibility of landings and design. So nothing to flag in terms of what's being proposed. These two slides, and these are included as separate attachments in the packet, just help overall understand the overall roadway plan and the trails network. I know it's probably going to be a little hard to pick apart too much right here, but we can always go back to this. And then I've got some zoomed in slides in the FPT areas, but generally shows the hierarchy, the planned hierarchy of roads and trails. Grand Park Drive is the main arterial. There's a couple of collector roads that are depicted on the PDDP. So it's generally in conformance with that. And then the smaller local roads, pretty minimal inclusion of shared private drives and emergency access easements required mostly further south in the residential residential. And then for the trails, the trails exhibit shows the adjacent Leland Creek Trail the proposed attached trails, the eight foot trails to the larger roads, and then the attached sidewalks being depicted as five foot trails for all the local roads. I briefly showed this previously, but this outlines the different shapes of the FPDP area. So again, we can go back to reference this just to kind of compare, but these two filings here on the upper right have already gone through to the Planning Commission. These five in the different colors will be kind of what we're discussing tonight. And then there's a small area Moose Holloway just wanted to point out at the end of the left corner of... Four.

We will not be discussing five tonight. Right, correct. We'll be discussing four.

The 5th will be context. And then Moose Hollow was a previously approved, um, and subdivision 5. Residential laws back in 2005, so it's a bit of a. Existing outlaw essentially being integrated into these plans.

Wait, so the 5 lots and Moose Hollow were approved.

Yeah, those were previous money when he was in 2005. I think only 1 of them is actually developed. Okay, so John's family.

The Jones family? Johns. Oh, Frank Jones.

These are just a couple of borrowed slides if we need to reference them, but filings one and two is showing in a little bit more detail. Filing one was residential, single family attached and detached. And then filing two is the outpost club, the more core center of lodging development and recreational uses. It's got the clubhouse for the golf course and then some attached housing, townhome housing on the east side of it.

Well, one and two are approved. Sorry? One and two have been approved.

One has been fully approved by the Planning Commission and the Board. Two has only gone to the Planning Commission. And there are conditions of approval related to the water master plan and submittal of the final plat, which we have just received the final plat, but it hasn't yet advanced.

Does two need notice to the railroad?

I'll double check. But yeah, whether that happened previously, I'm not sure at this point.

I'll skip the slide.

Okay.

So to your point, Andy, if the railroad wasn't noticed when we took up filing two, do we have to bring it back?

No.

Even though we approved it to go to the board?

I don't know if I have an answer off the top here. We might have to follow up on that.

I believe we probably would have to.

I mean, it'll have to go. forward as a final plat anyway yeah whether it needs to be re-noticed and confirmed we can kind of research and confirm maybe with our sort of final class stage to go to yeah right yeah and the final plat was just received um so we haven't conducted a referral or our schedule that yeah notice can happen there yeah and we'll definitely be noticing for that public hearing or the applicant will be in that case for the adjacent property owners okay um the next set of slides is just detailing these different fpdps i know it's going to be a lot of detail kind of breeze over it but we could always um follow up if needed but this is just showing more detail about the proposed layout um the the conceptual golf course is shown in the open space area and then Mostly single family uses, um, some attached, I believe in this planning area and then the lodging use is kind of tucked in there in the middle of 12 W adjacent to. Grand park drive.

So, Alan, if I remember right in your comments, you often noted places where trail linkages might be logical. Could you kind of point to those as you go through these?

I'll attempt to. I don't know if I have a whole lot of detail here, but I do have a separate slide later on where I point out some of those larger comments that we could also circle back on the topic at that point.

And I believe I do have an excerpt from this one that shows it.

And here's just an overview of the proposed uses and densities. Again, it's mostly detached if you look at the total, or yeah, mostly detached, but 24 attached units are included in this overall FPDP. The next group is 14W through 16W, W.1. Again, related to kind of surrounded by the golf course use and the road layout. Really the core interior of West Mountain, all single family, I believe. Yes. That's one. The next planning area is 15W, 16.2, and then 17W. These are the further south and west, kind of the larger lot, detached housing proposed. And then overall, it's all single-family detached as well. And then the last planning area to discuss, this is along the east side, 18W, 19W, 21. As kind of referenced previously, it doesn't include 20W, but it forms the balance of the boundary with it. So it is depicted on the plans as the adjacent planning area. This one does include more attached housing, I believe in 21W, but mostly single family detached further south. So the staff report outlines what most of the higher level or kind of the larger staff review comments or referral agency comments. I'll provide a brief discussion here on these and they'll help inform the recommended conditions of approval. So regarding the planning area 20W, just flagging that there's an existing subdivision exemption plat that delineates the extent of it. We noticed it as the parcel lines currently did not match the shape on the FPDP area. I believe the applicant stated that The there's notes in the exemption plot that may pertain to this. Um, I haven't had a chance to. To discuss in more detail with our legal counsel, so we might have to follow up in more detail with that. But regardless, I believe there's a process where they'll be able to amend those. boundaries outside of the town process anyway, because the size of the site being 40 acres, it's technically exempt under state law from requiring to go through town subdivision processes. If it's over, I believe it's 35 acres. So that could be a fairly easy fix to have this line. And then this is just showing the overlay here. I attempted to trace it and then show over it. The east boundary line is pretty consistent, but then interior, kind of that exemption plot, add some more, I'll say, drastic curves and shapes to it that I'm sure made planning for it difficult. I don't know the original reasoning behind that. This slide covers some ground, but it discusses the annexation agreement request that's noted in our staff review. We've been kind of flagging and tracking these larger items from the annexation agreement regarding potential dedication, conveyance, financial contribution requests within the annexation agreement that the town has available to request. Section 9.10 pertains to road maintenance equipment. Section 10.6 pertains to a five-acre site to be conveyed for public use. There's some background to this that it was originally intended to serve to be the recreation center, which ultimately was built, but it wasn't completed within the timeframes required in the annexation agreement. So the town at that time did not utilize that and have the recreation center satisfy this so that it's still available for the town to request. And then 10.7, um, discusses a small 0.3 acre. Public satellite facility, essentially, uh. I believe like a snow plow day or material storage somewhere. On the different, um, these mountain and West mountain to be available to. Um, for public works operations, so these comments have started to be addressed, um, through the initial submittals, um. The satellite facility, I know the discussion is to. kind of tag that along with location of some of the water infrastructure, water tanks or pump house to be proposed for West Mountain. So that's progressing. We're, you know, we're flagging this for really highlighting it, making sure it's on everyone's radar and that we work towards kind of satisfying it one way or another through these review processes if the town so chooses. The water master plan we've previously discussed this requirement with filing to specifically, at least, and we're caring for that recommendation of our condition of approval. But this requires, and this one's a little bit more specific in the annexation agreement that there's. Language that specifically states that subdivision. Shall not be approved or approved with conditions. Until the water master plans and associated documents are. Fully approved by the town, so that was included with filing too. Um, and we're recommending this be carried forward. To the as well, just so that we have some master. Utilities, um, the water accounted for before. We provide zoning approvals of these different densities.

Um.

The trail discussion, I guess I could fast forward to this one yet because it really only pertains to 7W and 8WA, but it was also included with the filing too. So we can discuss this one further in the future. The next several slides are more staff level review comments. that we flagged initially and we just want to kind of bring to light, bring awareness of the request and maybe look for direction on whether to require it going forward or not in terms of staff review. But this first one regards floodplain mapping. Just the acknowledgement that there's kind of a large swath of West Mountain that's outside of any currently mapped FEMA floodplains. So it's not necessarily stating it is within it or it's likely to be within it, but it's documenting that no mapping has been conducted. So the flood hazard risk is undetermined. Staff had recommended that a note to this effect be included on the FPDPs that this pertains to and the subsequent subdivision plats. We've gotten some pushback from the applicant on that. So I wanted to flag it here that it's currently in the staff review and comment request for being addressed. Pause for a breath. Any questions or thoughts while I rifle through this? Okay. We're mostly through it though, actually. So we should have some good time for discussion. Trash enclosures. So this one and these depictions are filing one. So full disclosure, this says these are not being depicted in any of the proposed FPDPs tonight. We just noticed in filing one, they were included. previously. So we were looking for them in these filings. They were not included anywhere. And then we've since noticed that when filing one got amended, they were removed. So there was a conscious decision to remove these. We just wanted to mention it because community trash enclosures have been a recent hot topic a bit with other developments in town and planning ahead and being able to facilitate these after the fact if they're needed. but they're not currently proposed there's nothing in the annexation agreement or the development standards that require this necessarily um but they'll have to program and account for it for individual lot service if that's the route that ultimately is chosen and we want to ensure we're flagging it with the fpdb because obviously it's helping reserve space in the future for once these subdivisions actually get built Street lighting is another topic we wanted to mention to the planning commission. Again, this is 1 that previously had been provided in earlier filings of West mountain. Um, this image on the left, it was sense removed in the most recent submittal and unfortunately wasn't. caught or flagged by staff. So this one has gone through and been approved already without the lighting. Previously, it was depicted. It's not shown in any of the proposed FPDPs except for multifamily development or lodging development. So they are showing it on site generally in association with parking areas, but no street lighting is proposed. And there is a code requirement or a code citation at least that we could point to in Chapter 14 that addresses street lighting and just stating that it should be designed to address locations that receive heavy pedestrian or vehicular use, such as roundabouts, intersections, ramps, etc. Staff's initial review on this is we recommend that it be included at least with intersections of Grand Park Drive as the main arterial and possibly on the collector roads, but understand community sensitivity towards lighting possible light pollution um so this is one also that we could potentially discuss further and indicate whether we're okay to move forward without street lighting um and for contact street lighting is not included in a rendezvous as far as i'm aware so there is a precedent already Pedestrian connectivity, I believe Bob or Andy, you referenced this earlier. The initial submittal of the FPDPs, this was an item we flagged in several circumstances where there's these very long blocks. There's code language that discusses in residential areas that block lengths greater than 2,200 feet linear should include additional reservation for utilities, trails, et cetera, may be requested or required. We provided that comment, and the applicant was responsive in several circumstances and did add these trails, and I've got a few additional slides on that. But I'm still flagging at least two circumstances where these very large Um, kind of roads once going around the golf course. Kind of mid mountain there, I've highlighted it in yellow and then another 1. In a planning area, we'll discuss next month.

Alan, as far as we can see from these documents, there's no connections. With the legal and creek trail, other than the 1 at the very bottom, right?

that is a comment i had made regarding the overall trails master plan and we go back to that so the leland creek trail is adjacent to this off-site um slightly off-site to the east um these individual planning areas i believe they don't show it um we could get pointed to at the right if they do i know there were connections showing into 2020w um for future connections but yeah let's go ahead and scroll back here to that trail master plan and I haven't heard a little bit. So yeah, so this is the trails master plan. The red is the Leland Creek Trail all along here on the eastern boundary. I believe that's all that's depicted at this level is the street trails, the large one on Grant Park Drive and the collector and the individual local streets. So yeah, I would agree. If there was a connection to Leland Creek, it wasn't clear at least. And that was a comment that we wanted to follow up on and confirm if that's something to hold the line on.

So, Alan, explain to me something. So the annexation agreement and the design of this overall development are pretty inclusive as far as what's going to happen. How does it intersect with our development standards? In other words, if we have a standard for public trails on these long streets or connections, Does it actually apply to this? Because this annexation agreement doesn't really, how do our current regulations intersect with that?

The annexation agreement, my understanding, outlines the specific circumstances where these need to be dedicated at a certain date and it states that they're at a certain.

In other words, we have requirements for material connections, but it doesn't pertain to this development.

There is other overall, more overall language that that references existing subdivision standards and town standards. We may need to pull that from the annexation agreement if you guys are aware of that, but I'm generally aware of sections where um where those standards do apply i apologize i don't have that's okay yeah that's something we could follow that's yeah but i know overall like the process is the um you know with the code requirements about block length that's what we pointed to in terms of still allowing that because it was still referenced in the overall subdivision designer but it may not pertain because of their I believe the annexation agreement does defer to those.

I'm not sure, though.

Alan, going back to your slide you were on, the trail system. As far as I'm aware, the only way to get to the Leyland Creek trail system now would be to come down to almost the railroad trestle where Grand Park Drive comes on to West Mountain.

On the north side here.

That's the trailhead, yes.

Yeah, that's the trailhead. So whatever trail system is interior to West Mountain, you'd have to walk that trail system to get down to that entry point on Grand Park Drive where you're coming into West Mountain development and then kind of go around the road and get on Leland Creek Trail. That's the only place I see.

And so, Bob, I mean, realistically, you live in the upper end of the subdivision. You want to go hike the Leland Creek Trail. You're probably going to get in your car and drive down there, and I can tell you there's no real parking at that trailhead. Plus, we're trying to really hopefully avoid that.

Yeah, I mean, I think as we get to 20W, perhaps that provides an opportunity to connect through 20W to the Leland Creek. So we can talk about that later. But I think right now, you're right, Andy, the only way somebody at the upper end on the western end of the development could get to the Leland Creek Trail would be to come all the way back down, coming out of West Mountain on to Grant Park Drive.

So we spent about 12 years connecting the bench trail so that Winter Park Ranch users could connect to the Rendezvous trails. It took that long because unfortunately in that situation, Coble and Rendezvous owned a lot in Winter Park Ranch. It was originally going to be a street, but that was objected to by the neighbors, but now it's a trail. these little connections are just so thorny and so problematic once the subdivision has flooded and people live there and they have bought without that trail being there. So I'm just trying to look forward to a town where we don't have to get in our dang car to drive to a trailhead. So anyway, just saying.

Good point. We'll take that up in the future. Alan?

Yes, I'm I'm going to add, okay, this is the last slide on these specific topics. A little hard to pick out here with the dark gray and the black, but these excerpts are from the various open space plans in these different FPDP areas. Ignore the one on the top left. But 12W and 14W do show some cut through trails being depicted through these open spaces. connecting various segments of streets. Staff provided some additional suggestions to help prove usability, but they're not necessarily, we can't cite a code requirement if there are areas less than 2,200 feet between the street connections. And then these aren't depicted on the overall trails map either, so it's a little hard to be aware of them until you dive into the FPDP submittals. So that does conclude the overall planning comments. I just want to reference referral agency comments are still outstanding. Engineering, legal has review, obviously, and then kind of a bigger one that we're flagging and still tracking is from the Colorado Geological Survey. They're included on all developments over 5 acres in size, I believe, and. Um, they had flagged some concerns regarding an existing mapped, uh, landslide area on West mountain, kind of a historic 1. And requested additional geotechnical study, the additional studies been provided. They've since is requiring kind of some of the underlying data to confirm it and confirm where it overlaps. So, at this point, they still haven't provided kind of a. A final documentation that they can confirm that there aren't that these are safely developable. So we wanted to flag it. It's included in the referral comments. Cgs provided reviews for each of the individual areas. and i guess ultimately is if there's these large unstable areas it may potentially affect the land use layout i know there's plenty of engineering um that can be done to address most of these circumstances so hopefully it's just providing this data that suggests it's comfortable yeah overlay there was a there was a landslide map in one of the early early mappings of this do we do you know where that area is or um i don't have it here i believe it was included in the referral comments by cgs potentially but i believe it's generally the west side of the mountain um and it just it overlaps several planning areas it wasn't like a single consolidated um fully defined area i think for the most part they've tried to accommodate it for the open space areas but there's some question on whether it's overlapping the proposed lots or not but we don't have those comments back from our geological survey then Well, they ultimately, we're going to need additional submittal or additional information from the applicant to provide that because it wasn't provided in this. Little, and then there are additional comments generally, we would be tracking these still for the planning, but since we don't have plants at hand, we could. Kind of put a pause on some of these more technical review items regarding final design and location. Um, there's been a request to us at staff regarding preliminary. Construction documents and, um. Not tie those to these, but to kind of revisit them and continue to process them at time of planning. We're generally agreeable to that outside of the large master plans. So, um, things about mountain parks and Excel and you scratch fire for some of those final designs, I think, can be held off until we're at the planning stage. So that brings us to our recommended conditions of approval. These are provided in the staff report. These are the current ones that are drafted, although we have since had additional discussions with the applicant and he's going to come up to speak about these and potentially request to revise these. But number one is our general one that we almost always include to, you know, address outstanding review comments. It includes additional statement here about the preliminary construction documents can be paused until preliminary plots are included. Number two, this is carried forward from the previous filing to that we brought forward, but it's regarding approval of the smart and the master plan. He's made the water master plan. Number 3 is written to kind of capture all those different sections of public conveyances or funding, um, regarding the 5 acre site, the satellite. Public works facility site and the road maintenance equipment currently it's written to. You know, solve these prior to approval of the FPDPs. We hopefully will be working with the applicant here to address this, but the request is not to necessarily tie these to FPDP approvals, you know, start working on them now requiring them at time of plotting kind of like some of the final design work. So we'll discuss that further. And then the final two here, number four, we could ignore because it pertains to the 7W and 8WA in the trail. Number five pertains to the 20W, just the boundary inconsistency and making sure that's revised properly. So currently drafted in there, I believe the applicant's going to request or explain if we don't need it. We'll need to look into further potentially before we can confirm that on the spot, but currently staff is requesting that that one is addressed at the next submittal. So that gets through the presentation. I know there's a lot of ground to cover. Thank you for humoring me and asking questions throughout, but we can follow up on anything. We can open it up to the applicant, kind of up to you, Bob.

At this time, Clark, you and your team have reviewed everything that Alan's presented, and would you like to make a presentation or comments?

Yeah, thank you, Bob. Clark Lipscomb, for the record, and I've got Laila Rosales here, and I think our presentation will address Uh, probably a number of questions, uh, that people have. Um, so whether you want to. Are you linked in with you want to stand up here? What do you want to do? I'm happy to call. We can double team it. I don't care.

Uh, so, uh.

So, this is a slide presentation that, uh, put together as a land planner for the project and, um. It addresses the staff memo and provides an overview from our perspective. And I'm also prepared to address several of the annexation agreement comments and questions that are made. So I'll go to the next slide. Can you come up here and do it? Because it's easier for me to read that. Sorry.

I can't read that far.

Absolutely.

But I'm getting old, unfortunately.

So this depicts the five applications that you have. And obviously filing one and two has already been through. And then the rest of the stuff that's not shaded is either built, developed, or planned, but not pertinent to the discussion tonight. So just the stuff shaded in charcoal is relevant. This is the overall land plan for Grand Park. Yeah, there's the overall land plan for Grant Park. And I think, you know, there was a lot, this took a long time to put together and design and take into account, you know, the terrain we have, the planning area designs, development intent, so and so forth. I'm very happy with how it ultimately ended up. This one we'll skip. This is the notorious 7W8W parcel. This is basically the area near and around the landslide. So to address Andy's comment, and we do have a review letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey, And CTL Thompson, who is the engineer on this, a geotech engineer, is responding. Previously, ground engineering did extensive work here in 36 test pits. And if you may recall, we developed the Moose Hollow subdivision many years ago. And there was a question then. And so we've now furthered ground studies in this effort and also took steps to just simply avoid the landslide area, recognizing that CTL and ground both are comfortable that it's developable if you want to deal with doing certain things. We think it's a really cool area to do some nice open space components and integrate golf And so we pulled development significantly away from the identified boundary that CTL Thompson came up with. So we don't have any development in the landslide area today. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but we did remove houses and things like that. It just felt good and felt like the right thing to do.

Can you orient me on this map?

Yeah, so... Yeah. So up on, um, so Moose Hollow to the left is County Road 72, Brian, uh, and the Colorado Venture Park tubing hill, for instance. Um, and, uh, we're, we have the neighbor, the Johns family neighbors, uh, are in the bottom left corner on this map. So we're kind of oriented. It's not facing north. Unfortunately, it's just how it fit on the slide. Um, And the landslide area is largely where the three golf holes, I can't read the numbers.

Can you see that cursor up there by chance guys? There you go. Right in this area.

Well, it's actually not even back that far. So there was originally on the golf hole that red golf hole to the furthest right closest to a red line that was originally houses and and there's a ridge there. And that's where you can clearly see it's a several thousand year old landslide that broke off at some point and enormous trees and all kinds of stuff in there now. But rather than put homes on that and potentially loaded and have to deal with a whole bunch of geotech, we worked with CTL and said, let's pull it back. And instead of having two returning golf holes, we separated them with residential development. So we pulled a hole over along that bluff edge, which I think will be really nice. And then homes in between and then another hole.

Where in an earlier version, there were two,

parallel holes, basically returning, you know, one going out, one coming back. So I think it turned out pretty nicely in that regard. So this is 12W, 13W, A, 0.1, 0.2, and 13WB, okay, as far as the planting areas. This next slide is further up the hill planting area, 14W and 16W, and all single-family. has golf running through it. And one of the things that we did that I felt was kind of important, if you look at some of our earlier versions of this plan dating back to the early 2000s, the entire top of the property is lots and there's no green space in between them. We came up with the idea, and part of that was always fighting this golf course design and returning nine. And so I came up with the idea of, you know what, forget a returning nine and let's just do a link saw course.

And it creates a bit of green melt that breaks up and segregates the development up there.

And I think it really adds nicely to the upper portion of the property. by creating that green space between homes. This is the very top of the property. On the right side of this slide is US Forest Service land. I want to comment on one of the trail comments that you guys had. This is 15W, 16W, and 17W. You'll note, you can see on the far right side of this, there's actually a road going out. It's a Jeep road. And today, you can see where Layla just highlighted it with red. So we actually have the cul-de-sac touching that, which means there's a sidewalk touching it. That directly connects to WTV. That's over to Leland Street, Sunset Peak. I ride through that trail often. We allow... the Grand Adventure snowmobile operation to use that trail during the winter. And they groom their snowcat through that area. But we think it's a pretty prime connection to keep once we're up there. And it integrates with a trail map that you'll see here shortly. So you'll see the hundreds of miles of trails that are back there. Here we're moving closer to Winter Park on more of the southern boundary, and it's planning area 18W, 19W, and 21W. Planning area 20W will require another FPDP, so we're not finished with FPDPs here. And this is generally following our boundary along Leland Creek. And generally, that boundary line, which is, we run cattle here, but it's fenced, that line more or less runs down to the center of the creek. And it's, you know, there's not any really great locations to cross over for a trail. I think if one were connected there, it needs to be in that 20W area, more likely than not. There is an old... There's an old crossing that we used when we were building Leland Creek subdivision and did the Leland Creek trail that is still kind of there. It's kind of grown over, but there is a crossing there that is generally in that kind of on the left side of 20 W here that, you know, would be a nice connection to the Leland Creek trail. Yeah.

So, Clark, on that previous slide, so there would be a provision for one of the cul-de-sacs or something to connect across the land that you're making approval for?

Yeah, Andy, the trail or the sidewalk on the cul-de-sac connects to the Forest Service Trail right there.

No, up at the top. At the top. At the top. I'll show you a trail map. No, no, but I'm sorry. I'm talking about the Tony W.

Oh, and 20W, we would just, when the FPDP is done for that, need to provide for a connection across that. Literally, it's kind of a wooden log bridge of sorts. It's there.

It's there.

Oh, yeah, it's there. I actually have a gate on it.

If it were in the plat, though, it would help guarantee that that wouldn't be landlocked, you know, that you'd have a connection across while you're platting.

Right, yeah. No, I agree with that, but you can't plat it until after we do the MPDP with the process that we have.

Well, that's what you're doing here.

No, we're doing it. We're not doing a plan. Well, we're doing a final plan development plan, right? Then we have to still do a preliminary plan and a final plan, which is the subdivision process. So this is more setting the zoning right in place. Kind of this is what we're doing. And I'll remind you guys, I mean, a good example. The Spring Hill Suites Hotel. That was done by Coble back around the time that we split up our partnership around 2004. And they had to amend it in order to accommodate the spring Hill suites. Just as an example, so this is purely really a zoning document that says, here's what we're going to do. And then the next step is a preliminary plat, which you already have on filing 1 and filing 2. which is where we are going, but we prefer, and you can see what we've done, we prefer to build from existing infrastructure in and up, rather than, I think when we did rendezvous, looking back, going to the top of the mountain, was not the best decision for lots of reasons, right? And it gets to the heart of road maintenance and your annexation agreement and property tax-based development, et cetera. But we fell in love with the lots up there and wanted to do the lots. And in hindsight, I think most people involved in that would say we probably should have started at the bottom and worked our way up. But we did what we did, so.

Can I ask something real quick, Clark? Andy, just to answer your question, 20W will have its own separate FPDP for that zoning and then that final plan in the future.

There still needs to connect into this, but you're right, it's conceptual, so the final plan would show that.

Yeah, and we provided road connections to that parcel here too, in and out. that are in our FPDPs.

Say for you guys, the advantage of us doing all of these FPDPs at once is you really can see how this whole thing works as opposed to us coming in with pieces, right? I mean, really this gives you as the town really opportunity to really understand what we're doing as a whole, that which is advantageous over us bringing in just little pieces as we go for all of us.

How come 20W is not a part of this?

We just haven't planned 20W yet, and we own it. It's one of those things, I think, what do you want to do there?

We're not sure yet. It's got some challenging terrain.

Well, it's an interesting area, and it has just kind of, I don't know, it's in a hole. It's a little bit strange. I think, ultimately... It's just one that we decided we kind of didn't need it for golf course routing, which is one of the key components. We really didn't need it for our 23W planning area, which includes the golf area, which was one of our key components we're trying to satisfy. It's one of these that we'll just visit down the road.

Where's the road connection, Clark?

So on this, you see this, can you see that pencil up there? Yeah. So there's a connection right here. Okay. Right here, the roundabout. We've got a roundabout here, Andy. And then there's another road connection right here.

Okay.

Okay. Coming in. Okay. So what this math depicts is our planning area 23W as a whole. And I've been in too many debates about where's 23W and what's it going to be and all of this stuff. So... Here it is. This is 23W. Now, this is bigger than what we're required to have. We're required for the annexation agreement at 468.1 acres minus the 4.3 acres. 4.8. Sorry. Thank you, Leah. 4.8 acres that we donated to the Pritchard Valley Recreation District for the rec center. Okay.

We actually have...

497.6 acres in planning area 23W today, which is substantially larger than what is required. And that does, so basically we could tighten it up, we could expand areas, but that is generally, we're going to be probably over the 463 that we are required to be. when it's all said and done, okay? So I think this is a good graphic for you all to, for those that had questions about where's 23W, it's all the green that's on this map.

And the blue.

And the blue, yeah, the green and the blue. Okay. So this gets to the heart of some of the conditions, this slide. This is about public dedication. So Article 10, Section 10 of the Annexation Agreement, covers public dedication requirements. And there's a number of them. It's Article 10.0 through 10.12, really. But I'm going to touch on what we have completed and dedicated or donated or handled and what remains on this slide. So Planning Area 40, is just kind of to preface this slide and kind of give a bigger picture overview to the audience and everyone else here. The way this project was conceived and has been for a very long time was the public spaces were predominantly on the east side of Highway 40. That is the 57-acre Fraser River Park that we deeded to the town of Fraser. That is the Planning Area 4E, that rendezvous, I think around 2020-ish, 2019, dedicated to the town of Frayser for public purpose. That is a specific requirement of the Article 10. So 10.2 specifically is the Frayser River Park satisfied, done, 57 acres we gave to the town. 10.3 was a public parking area near the trailhead of the Fraser River Park. That's the parking lot that today is by the Rendezvous Bridge to be able to access the trail connection through there and park cars there. That's been given to the town. The Highway 40 trail easement is on the west side of 40, so that's on the Grand Park side. That's been dedicated to the town. You guys still maintain and care for that trail to this day. The Leland Creek Trail dedication. We're going to come back to that. I'm going to explain that to you, but that has been dedicated, finished, and done. That's section 10.5. Section 10.6 is the community rec center. That's an awkward one. Despite them not passing the vote and despite Frazier saying we don't want to give the land for the rec center anymore, our company Cornerstone and Grand Park elected to go ahead and give 4.8 acres to the rec center. And the net result of that is Frazier relied upon provision at the end of it to leave this floating five acres for public purpose that they could request from us at some point in the future. Now, we can say no, but we were going to be reasonable about that. But to date, we've had one request that was probably 12 years ago. And that request was denied because it was in a location where we had already engineered an augmentation pond. And we're under construction, I think, at the time on the augmentation pond. It had a bunch of money invested in it. And it wasn't that we, there were really two issues. We weren't opposed to it, but we said, well, wish you would ask for this sooner. We wouldn't have invested all this money into it. But uh more importantly it was part of our augmentation plan requirements and where we had designated the needs for about 30 acre feet of water that we still we built a lot of water storage we still have more water storage to build for the overall project of grand park and so all those blue dots you see on here are either built constructed ponds or planned ponds that are detention ponds water augmentation ponds irrigation storage ponds you know they're decreed ponds for various uses, some of which are to the benefit of the town of Fraser, with the domestic water, in particular the augmentation. So that request was, unfortunately, we said, no, we can't do that. You could pay us what we've spent on it, and we would do it. They didn't want to do that. So we went on our happy ways, and they acknowledged that was reasonable, Clark, understand. That five acres is not something that an approval of an FPDP can be conditioned on in this annexation agreement, very specifically. And you can imagine that if it were, well, then you just never asked for the five acres and then we never record another FPDP. And that's not how the document works. And that's not what's intended. Now, we are... fully committed to satisfying what is one of the last few remaining public dedications, but we need the Frazier board to tell us what do you want and where do you want it? Okay. And that hasn't happened since the one that was with Jeff and Jeff Durbin and Rod McGowan many, many years ago. Okay. So just understand that's on y'all's plate, not ours. Um, and, um,

But, Clark, just to be clear, this roughly five acres you're talking about has nothing to do with 6W, which is the public. That's separate, and that's being done.

6W was dedicated already, as you know.

Yeah, so section 10.6 A developer agrees to dedicate or convey a site consisting of not less than five acres for use as a community rec center or Fraser Valley Metropolitan Rec District. It goes on to say if it's not done by a date certain due to the vote, they were literally, it says if such district obtains voter approval of the issuance by a date certain, then it would happen. If they didn't, then all bets are off. And they didn't obtain their voter approval in the time stipulated here. They still came to us. We still agree to donate it to them. But it left Frazier with, in the event voter approval is not obtained or proof of adequate funding is not provided by the district, it's set forth above. And after, this is key, after written request by Frazier for a site designated by Frazier, and it excludes some planning areas, unless otherwise approved by developer and considered by developer, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld, five acres shall be conveyed to Frayser for a public purpose. We acknowledge that Frayser needs to identify where it would like five acres for a public purpose. And it just, they just need to work with us on it. We just haven't had a request. But nowhere in that section 10.6 does it say prior to approval of an FPDP or a subdivision, which some of the other ones do. So we think that condition should be removed. We're committed to working with your staff. Can everybody comment on that?

So I've spoken with staff on this and to our legal team. We do have a draft change for that condition. Essentially, before any type of, if this is approved before the planning commission tonight or in the future, Cooper is ready to present what that condition could look like. That essentially would allow us to set meetings and discussion, be intentional about talking through the conveyances that are outlined in that third condition on this resolution for approval. Um, so that we're not holding up the FP process, but that we are starting conversations and being intentional and bringing forth recommendations. They're agreeable to both parties to to satisfy these conditions for that conveyance. So. After a discussion with the applicant, Mr. Lipscomb and staff, we feel comfortable being able to present this option to you, which Cooper will present in a little bit, I think, including their presentation, just as far as getting the conversation started and engaging with the town and their staff as far as what are some good options for that conveyance that makes sense to bring those back to you in the future.

Okay. So, the next 1, um, it is 10.7, um, that is planning area 6 W, uh, which we gave to the Donna. For a public works facility, uh, for public purpose. et cetera, pursuant to 10.7. So that's been satisfied. Then there's a caveat that is not, which I think we have kind of an understanding now that says, in addition, if requested by Frazier, developer agrees to convey two sites for public works satellite facilities, one within Rendezvous East Mountain and another within Rendezvous West Mountain, each to consist of approximately 0.3 acres. Now, since we submitted this, we had a request from Frazier to identify the 0.3-acre site, and we're going to put it in conjunction with what your public works director agrees with near one of the pump facilities that were conveying to the town. There's three pump stations that'll have parcels that they sit on, or one of the tank sites. There's three water tanks that are underground water tanks that are going in as well. So those parcels will be conveyed to Frasier as part of the overall water system. And so the uniqueness of that is I have no problem identifying it on the FEDPs. We just can't give it to you until it's subdivided. But in order to facilitate the water system, the water system construction, et cetera, our plan is to provide an easement for to Frayser for the water system where we're going to build it because a lot of it's cross country and not necessarily, you know, exactly under roads and things like that nature. And it's really not a pertinent to a subdivision. It's like building a master, it's called the master water system. So you're putting three water tanks in and a big pipeline and three pump stations. That will have an easement, which we would include those parcels in. And as we subdivide around those areas, then that parcel will be created. And then we would dedicate it to the town of Frazier. And that can be very easily specified in the LPDT. Yeah. So just kind of the mechanics of how we physically go build the water system that is nearly finished design and nearly finished approved. And be able to have the town be able to have access to operate it when we don't have roads to all of the locations that it will be at. So it's kind of an interim stage that we'll be working through with the town. The next one is 10.8 was conveyance of the Cousin Museum site that was given to the Grand County Historical Association. So that's satisfied. 10.9 is a cemetery in Planning Area 11E. Some of you might know about Mary Cousin's burial site. That, I understand, was given to the Grand County Historical Association as well. by rendezvous. And planning area 4E is section 1010. That is the biggest public park kind of for public purpose dedication that was satisfied by rendezvous given to the town. I want to say, you know, right around 2020, 2019. And today that's got a number of trails on it that it did not have when they gave it to you. I think the town's built trowels and you guys have maintained trowels in there and good job. And then 1011 is an easement for U.S. Forest Service access east of Rendezvous. Now that is tying over to the Forest Service on the east side of Florida at the top of Rendezvous. And I believe, I know when I was still involved, we gave a temporary easement, and I'm sure it's been permanently put in place today for the connectivity. So that's been satisfied. So we really have... from a public dedication perspective and some of the conditions that staff had put on some of this stuff, there's really the five-acre floating dedication, which shouldn't have a bearing on FPPs, and that's really in the Townsport. We have a .3-acre site that we've gotten a request. We're going to incorporate it in an FPP plan. We'll have a revised agreement. That'll be good, and that'll take care of that. And aside from that, there's no other requirements for public dedications. Okay. Now, I would like to touch on, though, and I hate to belabor this, section 10.5, and this gets to the point of the public press. Okay. And this very succinctly describes public trials to be dedicated in this annexation agreement, to your point, Andy. So perhaps I should, let's see. Well, I'm going to, I'll hold on to this and let's get to a trail slide because I've got one coming up. What this depicts somewhat I think was touched on by Alan. This is our density transfer table that we have used from the beginning of time here to document and provide to the town staff and to coordinate where units are going. where there's a reserve bank and when we transferred units. And so this ties out exactly to the PDD. I know it's probably hard to read, but if you want a copy, Alan can get it to you. We're happy to provide it.

So this is lighting, briefly. So after talking to Clark, we have decided that HAB-Juliette Boone, Probably a few lights along grand park drive might be appropriate so here you're looking at nine lights at various intersections along grand park drive spaced fairly far apart, but you know. HAB-Juliette Boone, I think this should satisfy the request that Alan had. but we don't want to do any more than this. I know the town probably doesn't want to see a whole bunch of lights up the mountain either. So, so this is really the most that we really are willing to, to provide at this time.

I mean, I think, you know, kind of reflect on rendezvous elk Creek where you live. Uh, we decided to suspend doing street lights. Um, and you know, there's, you know, one of your board members likes to complain a lot about lights and, uh, I frankly think that, you know, having kind of a dark, very dark sky scenario on the West Mountain is quite nice. I don't really even love this because I can see kind of a line of lights coming perfectly up and over. And I personally would rather see like something like Think about like our entry monument with the you know, nice lantern like light pictures and doing something like that at major intersections.

As an identification to a major intersection it's very undersold those are very nice so they have a very subtle very dark sky effect, and I think.

I personally would rather do that than like the big streetlights like we have down in the village. It was appropriate, right? It's a commercial. I get it. It makes sense. Just we're going up a mountain here. And, you know, it's intended to be more residential mountainesque. And I don't want to urbanize it too much. So I don't have a feeling one way or the other about yes on lights or no on lights. I mean, like I said, I'm fine. doing like I think devils on ranch did a nice job with their parking lots is a good example with they have like four foot high very subtle lamps that kind of light up the parking lot but it's not lighting up the entirety of the parking lot but it's not that you can kind of feel comfortable and see I'm something like that at major intersections off of grand park drive and probably the upper main arterial or collector makes me, that feels good. And what I would like to see, but I'm open to suggestions.

Maybe you could do something like that at the tubing house. Yeah. So those details we worked out later, right? With that next application, but thank you. And I agree. Less is more profile.

I think it's great.

Just enough for the road, the turn is, and yeah.

It would be really good for you at the road intersections, especially for street lines and trying to find your way back up into these neighborhoods.

So yeah, so we'll just work with you on trying to come up with a method to light up primary intersections off the arterial and the collector road into the neighborhood roads. Let's say Yeah. Yeah.

Does that work for you guys? Okay. Okay.

Section 10.5. And I want to go back, Layla. So to get you oriented, the railroad underpass and the railroad is right here at the top. Use her pointer. Is right here. I'm going to try to draw a circle. That's the railroad underpass that we built. Okay. And the Leland Creek subdivision sits right here. And this is the Leland Creek Trail that today is built from right here. Kings Crossing Extension Road that we rebuilt and extended from the underpass. And it goes all the way up, ties into Sunset Peak, WGB. Can't think of all the other trails that are up there. A lot of trails. And the very... Specific language on this is, says developer agrees that the public trail shall be dedicated to construction in accordance with the 2005 PDD. It says 2003, we did a First Amendment, the 2005 PDD controls. This is off the 2005 PDD. And it goes on to say, in addition, It is agreed that the trail along Leland Creek provided on the 2005 PDD, which is what we're looking at here, that's the dashed line that's coming down from its intersection with Rendezvous Road, which is Grand Park Drive, now that's the old Rendezvous Road, to the south boundary shall be dedicated and constructed by October 31, 2010, which we did. And it's not completed sooner as part of the FPDP or subdivision approval. So when we built the Leland Creek subdivision, we built the Leland Creek Trail. And we built the Leland Creek Trail in the appropriate place. There was an old sheep road that ran up through there and was the least impactful. And then the trails group and the Town of Winter Park did further expansions up all the way to the top. And it ties in with the water board roads that are up there. I don't know what the county road number is for it. But I mean, there are single tracks all the way up there. The key component in what was discussed when I was not here at the filing 2 hearing is this trail, which is shown here and is different. You can see that it's not a dashed line. That trail is one next to golf holes all the way along the railroad track. So one, I can tell you that it was an access for golf. But two, it's designated as a community trail. Community trail means specific to the Grand Park community, not for public dedication.

So that's... I like to file into that section is adjacent to the railroad. So that's not what we're discussing tonight.

Well, right. Well, I don't want to ask the condition on the on this trail dedication and kind of get it behind us because what is explicit in the language is unrelated to the 7W area that you're worried about, Katie. And it literally says to from its intersection with Rendezvous Road to the south. That is built, completed, given to the public, open to the public. Okay. That was what was required to be dedicated to the public. Additionally, Um, and and that's what the language says here.

So let me just jump in real quick to just based on the not going forward with that specific area. I think if we do move forward with these conditions of approval, the 1 related to the trail would be withheld today, but brought forward at the next condition. That's great.

Okay.

What would be brought forward at the next meeting?

So we've got a lot to cover. Why don't you let that one go since we can't prove it.

No, this one, but I think it's important to give you the context here, which we've laid out for you. So this is the 2005 PDD, and the primary road in this reflects the 2003 PDD primary road, which is this dark line. You can see this pointer coming over it. Okay, you see that? And thanks to, you know, a lot of cooperation and hard work with the Johns family, some of which are here today, this very nasty kind of horseshoe-shaped, north-facing road was avoided, okay? Now, what's important about that, that is on a 38% slope, 38% slope, Okay, on the north side of the mountain and you can kind of see from here. Okay. And it was a really bad condition that we worked and worked and worked and tried to figure out what can we do to deal with this now. What's important here is that road has the eight foot detached trail designed into what we've submitted to you all. The eight foot detached trail, just like we built Old Victory Road. So many of you walk on Old Victory Road, and there's the eight-foot trail that's separated from the road. This main route up and over Grand Park had that trail in it in the PDD to this point, right here. Then that trail does not continue down this steep slope. That's very important for you to understand. Okay, that's a road trail, which is in the public road right away. Yeah.

Clark, just to orient me a little bit, that's the big steep hill that the snowmobiles come down. Right. The crossover. Exactly. Yeah. And you can imagine. And that is a tight, rough. Yeah.

I mean, it is like steep to the railroad. And you can imagine what this did. And I remember when we were doing design work with Ronnie when we were trying to figure this out, it was rough. It was going to be very, very, very challenging, much bigger retaining wall than was in Rendezvous going up to get the road, just get the room just for the road with the steep drop off to the railroad, probably with that guardrail all the way down at like some of the roads in Rendezvous. But there was no room for a trail because you can imagine you were to cut into the mountain that much further and you literally are creating like the dark side of the moon in that condition. No sun. I mean, this would have been an ice skating rink coming down the hill. So let's fast forward. And what did we end up with? Thanks to the Johns family and their great cooperation, we ended up building, and the town was involved in this, we ended up building this route. And that's built today. It's in a gravel condition. It's got storm drain installed. It has a significantly large creek crossing.

What planning area is that reading?

Well, this area is not in a planning area.

And this area that we're discussing, is this part of the overall?

So what I'm trying to do is explain.

Is this part of that public hearing that has been continued specifically? No, it goes to every one of these planning areas. This trail is specifically in that portion there that you're talking about.

With all due respect, Cooper, the road that I'm talking about is not in 7W, and it serves the other four areas that we're talking about. So you don't know, you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to talk about. See this right here? Okay, that is an 80 foot wide easement over the Johns family property.

That's not a part of any of these applications. other than it is the primary road servicing all of them.

What's key to that is the departure from the bad design and the bad condition that we were stuck with, the physical nature of the land in the PDD. And what this depicts is an extended, very hard negotiated solution to getting a far better road for the town. That, by the way, allows for our eight-foot trail to continue all the way to County Road 72, which was not the case in the 2005 and 2003 PDDs. Did not exist. No trail connection to County Road 72. So Andy, you're a trail guy. I'm a trail guy. I love being on trails. And you know I do all this stuff. This is a far superior solution to anything depicted in the 2003 and 2005 PDD and provides access not only on the Leland Creek side and to all of those trail systems, but on the County Road 72 side and to the trail systems up there, which cut over Chainsaw, on and on to County Road 73. So we, by doing this, have broadened extensively. We extended our trail system, the public part of it. This is in the road, but adjacent to the road. And we provided greater access for our community to the great troll systems that we have to the west. Okay.

Yeah. Some of the, some of the, let me interrupt for a second and say, some of the drawings that I saw in the submittals don't show that new alignment for Grand Park Drive.

They all do.

They all show this, what's built.

Yeah, that's consistent with what's proposed in the FPVP. He was showing, I believe, the overlay of the old alignment in the original road map.

All right, so what happens with the switchback there in the road that you couldn't

bring the trail down does that continue to be a road or is that no road there anymore no no that's part of planning or so we're not going to talk about that yeah but there's no road there okay and we're not cutting into the side of the mountain the benefit of doing this was we got a far superior road for everyone uh we got great trail connected to connectivity to county road 72 that we never had before and a far more manageable maintainable road that's safer Okay. And it was a really great solution. And but for, you know, the Johns, we would not have been able to achieve it. So credit to them. And then we built it. It's in a gravel condition today. It will get paved. Frank's kid.

Are you sure you're not Frank's kid?

You're doing good. So at this, Annie, this is, to your point, a trail connectivity map and really focuses on the Leland Creek side in this image. But this is showing how the Leland Creek Trail that we built and conveyed public has broadened and expanded into many other trails back there. Several of them in my time here have been morphed and changed and moved around by headwaters and down to Winter Park, et cetera, but they're all there. And we want our homeowners, importantly, to be able to get to those trails.

Mm-hmm.

Very important. Trails are a key component. I'm a multi-use guy. I ride dirt bikes. I ride mountain bikes. I love to hike. I backpack. I snowmobile. I ride horses. I do it all. I think I don't have enough time as much as I would like, but I think that all of those things can coexist. in certain situations. And I like the idea of an arterial connection, very much like what we have at the very top of our property, going out that Jeep road, where you do get into motorized things and the like, like where we can still run. We think the snowmobile operation, we'll have to talk about when we use e-sleds now, in a lot of cases, you can't even hear them. I think, you know, we would like to be able to see them continue to run their operation from the tubing hill through this property to get through to the forest service as an example. So we're trying to plan a really robust trail system that benefits all of our homeowners. That said, we've done the large majority of our pedestrian connectivity with sidewalks. Okay. And purposefully so, because that's what we hear from our clients that they enjoy the most. And when I moved here, And when I was partners with Rendezvous, I lived in Elk Run. I lived in Winter Park Ranch. And when we were doing Rendezvous, I was constantly arguing of why aren't we putting sidewalks or trails in? So until 4E was dedicated Rendezvous, there were no trails. And, you know, you would routinely get behind a family riding bikes uphill. And it would be quite a long drive to get up the hill. Same thing in Winter Park Ranch. I'm pushing my daughter around in a stroller. walking my two dogs down a county road. No trails, no sidewalks, not really the experience that I expected, and it didn't have that pedestrian connectivity. We think it's very important to incorporate sidewalks, which is allowed in your code, and it's sidewalks or trails, but we think these sidewalks that we've designed here get people to the trails that we want to encourage them to get to. OK, from their neighborhoods. And that's important from a marketing perspective, because not everybody goes hiking every single day. But a lot of people go and stroll their kids every day or go and walk their dog every day. And they like doing it on a sidewalk. OK, so we have done an extensive season. So it's just a bit for the problems.

Mr. Good question.

Yeah.

So the roads will all be public. So that means the parallel sidewalks and also. Okay, good. All right, let's move on.

One more question. So I love the single track that runs through rendezvous. Are you saying that there's no chance for single track to kind of run through?

No, but not necessarily for public and to be determined. Again, the 23W planning area historically has been for the golf component. And guys, there's a, you can imagine integrating, you know, public with a golfer. There's mass liability. Okay. And I know the town's like on this one trail thing. They're like, well, we'll take the liability. Okay. You don't take it. But the guy hitting the golf ball doesn't get your public any protection.

But homeowners don't count?

No, you have to be a member of the golf club to use the golf course.

Okay. I was just thinking in terms of your plan to have all the golf... Paul's parallel running through your development.

Oh, yeah. So there's no, but these are substantial areas. Anyway, the corridor to the corners here have huge safety zones. So the fairways are quite, you know, they're not very big. And then there's huge safety zones back to the houses. That's typical in golf course design. The component here is, as you can see, the green belt, as I call it, is largely used up by golf. There may be some opportunities once this is done done to go, you know what, this would be a great spot to slide in some trails. We also in the neighborhoods have some open space corridors that are behind the homes. I like having a little bit smaller lots less to care for by having open space out the back. that people can use and enjoy. And those are open space for the HOAs, the HOAs managing care for them. But I think some of those areas will end up naturally with kind of trails through them, most likely. Organic trails, which sometimes are kind of some of the coolest. But generally speaking, we want to rely upon our sidewalks to get us to the key trailheads that we've identified.

okay and and hopefully you guys agree and it's largely driven by the gulf okay um so clark can i get a point of clarification so just just to clarify and you can clarify this all the all the trails shown in purple are that detached asphalt trail from the public right-of-way that will eventually be conveyed to the town and all the blue trails are going to just be the sidewalks. So essentially, you have this purple trail that functions as the feeder if people are trying to get to these different areas, like the Leyland Creek Trail or the County Road 72 trail systems. That feeder will be available all throughout the development, essentially.

That's correct, and available to the public. If you want to ride from Fraser up and over Grand Park Drive on that trail to Winter Park or to the Village of Grand Park or The bowling alley, I don't know. You can do that. And so that's a good clarification. And yes, the main, I'm going to call them the kind of arterial trail is an eight foot wide trail separated from the road that runs on the predominant through roads. Okay. Thank you. Next to it. That's good. Okay.

Appreciate it. Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions on that? Good. Okay. All right, so these are the conditions. I don't want to read through these. I think we've talked about it enough, and you guys have some edits that I think Cooper would like to go over. This is the overall site plan again, and yeah, that's it. So, you know, there is, I mean, I will point out that, you know, we've had, On a percentage of development basis, I'm very proud of the amount of green space that we've created in this project. When you take our 23W planning area and add it to the additional open spaces that we provided in the neighborhoods, it's substantial. It's far greater than most developments do today, but I think very appropriate for the site. And I think from a market study perspective, the market conditions perspective, I think the market's going to like it and be very supportive of it. Thank you all. Appreciate you listening to me.

Over to you, Bob. Thank you. Mike, do you want to have Cooper?

Do you want to present your... Or public opinion first?

You might be addressing something else.

Michael while he's getting ready, do we want to open it up for public comment at this point?

I would recommend Cooper to present so that everybody has all the information before you have public comment, that Cooper can present his edits. And obviously, you know, it's subject to approval for the Planning Commission. These are just the suggested edits from staff. I would just recommend allowing Cooper to present those so that your public comment can have the full understanding of what we're looking at, or at least presenting for approval tonight.

All right. Cooper, it's all yours.

Okay.

So as far as the modifications to the resolution that was included with the packet, obviously 7W, 8WA have been taken out. Any references there have been removed. I believe it's just these two sections on the first page. Yes.

Cooper. So containing an area of 778.3, if you remove the acreage that was included for 7 and 8, it should be 660.4. Perfect.

Thank you. I was going to have to look at that. Yeah, 660. You said 664 and at the very beginning where it says 60.4.

Oh, I didn't use my calculator. So somebody might want to follow up on it. Got it. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. So these instances of that hearing that will be forthcoming have been removed. um down in the conditions for approval the i guess starting first with the easy one um condition four has been removed that's applicable to the hearing that we'll have to have at a later date takes a second okay we'll zoom in a little bit better so you guys can hopefully read that i'm confused so the the condition here in black is what was included within the packet The main thing that we're trying to avoid here is conditioning the approval of the PDPs on these three sections of the annexation agreement. You know, these are the sections Clark went over with the the satellite public works facilities and

9.10 was the road maintenance equipment. That wasn't a land-specific dedication.

Yes, so that is a purchase.

And then 9.6 was the five-acre site.

And it roughly follows the same idea with these other two sections that these are things that require some cooperation between the town and the applicant to get done. Given that, we don't want to hold up this process because there's still work and ideas that need to be shared between the two parties. So rather than conditioning the approval of FPDPs, the draft idea here is prior to approval of the first preliminary plat depicting any of the planning areas subject to these FPDPs by the Frazier Board of Trustees, The remaining purchases and conveyances included in the annexation agreement, including but not limited to those identified in sections 9.10, so that's the road maintenance, 10.6 is the five-acre parcel, and 10.7, that's the satellite buildings. shall be subject to a depiction or agreement as appropriate for resolution of the applicant's outstanding obligations. So principally, we're identifying that down the road, these will be conditions, but we want to get the ball rolling now without saying, well, you've got to have a meeting before we get this FPDP approved.

Question. Why does it say including but not limited to? Aren't these the final three?

These may be the final three. These are three that have been identified by town staff as outstanding obligations. They're still currently pending discussions on certain other dedications within the annexation agreement. You know, that's something that the parties are working out through, unfortunately, the court system. So there are still outstanding obligations. So we don't want to include language that states that these are the final ones, but these are the ones that we are focusing on.

Cooper do you mind if I just comment on that? I mean, this doesn't do anything other than what we already have in the annexation agreement. We already have an agreement. It's a recorded agreement. We're bound by it. We're going to honor it. We simply need what I said, the town to say, here's what we'd like. And we've got the 0.3 acre thing worked out, I think. The road maintenance thing is a weird one because it really was predicated on a development in 1999 when the town didn't have any money and was scared how it was going to take care of roads. And it literally says that the town's to do a reasonable study of the revenues being created by Rendezvous property, which is Grand Park and Rendezvous. to determine if it's going to need assistance with maintenance of the road or capital items such as snowplows. And I can remember quite long discussions with the town about its abilities. Chuck Reed was the manager back then. I think we did help with, I think we did some extended maintenance internally in rendezvous early on because the town wasn't in a financial position to do that today. you've got a healthy balance sheet. And we're not asking Old Town to carry Rendezvous and Grand Park. But I think Rendezvous and Grand Park's property tax base today and sales tax revenue, et cetera, probably is more than ample to help care for the road. And that section that you're referencing out of nine purely says that the town will do this analysis, which we welcome, do the analysis. I think it'll come out positive and show that it's actually working just fine. If it doesn't, then we're happy to help. But I guess my point is, where do you have an agreement? So I think actually putting something here could be construed to somehow contradict the written recorded agreement where we have.

on these particular items.

So I would prefer to stick with the terms of the annexation agreement and do the same thing I just did where I walked through, here's all the things we satisfied, here's the ones we still have outstanding, but we need some help from the town to tell us, what do you want to do? And it's written that way. It's not on us to tell you what to do. It's the town shall request. And the town shall request it.

So after discussing this again with staff, we feel comfortable being able to move forward with kicking off these conversations and bringing forward some recommendations that are acceptable by both parties as far as bringing those options forward to address all of those items that are listed there between 9.10, 10.6, and 10.7. A lot of that is on the burden of the town, so holding up this FPDP approval for that critical path that really does require that staff involvement, we didn't see that as reasonality to hold up the FPDP approval. It allows us to kind of move forward with these discussions, which we both want to be able to resolve and knock out. So we'll be looking at scheduling this first conversation between our team and theirs to work through these items in June and get this moving along so that we can work towards resolution for this. Again, we feel confident that we can bring forward some options that work for this, do the analysis to ensure that the revenues generated by this development will be sufficient for the road maintenance, which is very, very much specific to the property taxes for those areas to maintain those sidewalks and roads and those snow plowing operations. Um, so we'll be able to do that analysis and bring that back, uh.

Or for future, and I'll just add, I think we, you know, there is why we're flagging it here. And originally it was draft. The way it was is we do want to. Capture if there is kind of a physical presence in West mountain that these are. Captured and not prohibited importantly by the if those are going forward. So it is trying to get in front of that before they're recorded. That was the intent. Hopefully we can still accommodate that with notation and these resolutions.

Yeah, I think a better condition recommendation for better recommendation from the planning commission would be. something to the effect of the planning commission encourages the town board and staff to work to address the provisions of 9, 10, 10, 6, and 10, 7 with the developer. Because it's just not in my camp. It's in y'all's camp. And I'm fine with that because what it's doing then, Alan, is highlighting this as, hey, this is something that probably should be addressed, but it's on the town to get with the developer to say, here's what we'd like. And I prefer that personally. If you want to highlight it so that it's out there and everybody understands it. I'm aware of these things. I know this document pretty well. And know what items we satisfied and what remains. So it's not going to get as long as I don't get hit by a bus tomorrow. You know, it's not always going to get lost. But even if I did, it's a recorded document and whoever's after me. as long as the town's on top of their game, should be able to satisfy all of these things. And there's nothing in the FPDP that precludes satisfying 10-6 or 10-7 today in these plans, okay? And then 9-10 is really a financial exercise for you guys that shouldn't have any bearing on what we're doing with regards to an FPDP. So, I mean, I would just recommend that perhaps that's a good way to cast it if staff would like to draw attention to it. That planning commission is recommending that staff and the town board or. With the developer to address these items and come forth with. Request for the literally says. As requested by the town, so make the request.

I mean. So, I would love that for clarification. Your problem with that language is the very first part, prior to approval of the first preliminary but. Right. For a timeline.

Yeah, because again, it's not on us. It's on the town. It's the town's obligation to come to us and say, here's what we'd like to do. And you know I'm here to work with you guys. That's not the issue. So I just think.

Well, the original version just says prior to approval of that EBPs.

No, we don't want that because that's not required in the annexation. I guess my point is, And sorry to interrupt Katie, the annexation says what's in that, except it doesn't require prior to a preliminary plan. And it needs to be clear that this isn't a developer thing. This is a town board and town staff. It's like town of Fraser needs to come forth and say, we want The 0.3 acres here. I think we're there with Paul. We just need to iron out the exact, yeah, this works. And then the one on the five acres, that's a bigger discussion and probably takes some collaboration. But I have no idea what y'all want today. I know what Jeff asked for. But I don't know what the town wants today. So we're here to work with you guys and satisfy our obligations in this annexation agreement. We've honored every term of it and then some, like the rec center is an example. And we're here to try to improve the community and want to work with the town to get this stuff addressed. So I would prefer to either not have it and just rely on the annexation agreement or direct it that the planning commission is directing or suggesting the staff and board should make these requests as specified in the annexation agreement to the developer.

Okay? So, Clark, what you're suggesting is that Cooper suggested point three, right? be reworded slightly to say that prior to the first preliminary plat depicting any of the planning areas subject to the PDPs, that planning commission directs the staff to get with the developer to satisfy the conditions from 9.10, 10.6, and 10.7, something to that effect, that the town needs to get with the developer and hammer out where these locations are.

Mutually agreeable is always important.

Right.

Yeah. With the caveat that not prior to approval, because for instance, what if the town never makes a request? I can't make you make the request. Right. Okay. And literally the obligations that were on me to specify literally says, you know, prior to FPDP or subdivision, This shall be dedicated or conveyed. These particular ones say the town of Frazier shall make this request. And so it's really on the town. And that's my point, Bob. We don't want to have.

Just for the board discussion.

Yes.

Yeah. Just a thought that would help especially keep the accountability for not just not only Grand Park, but also for town staff to ensure that we're negotiating these things. As I would just say at the time of. For every, uh, preliminary plat that comes forward. From these that you're considering for approval that an update is made. Um, for addressing those concerns, uh, both by staff and by the applicant. so that it keeps good accountability moving forward on this.

Maybe just a separate, maybe another condition that mentions that condition with something like that.

If I may. Ultimately, these conditions here, the way we're trying to rework these aren't necessarily going to be applicable on this resolution if it's approved by the committee tonight. What we're trying to do is figure out a way that, you know, we can work collegially. We have obviously our public works commissioner working. We're working on getting all this resolved, but we want to ease some concerns. We've heard from committee members. That we need to get these rolling and so. This language isn't necessary. As Clark accurately points out, these are conditions required by the annexation agreement. What we put here is not going to change that. It's just to ease concerns that these are getting handled. And so, as you stated, maybe if it's something that the board include for their approval or wants to rework it in a certain way, that's completely fine. We just want to address any issues that people may have with the fact that there's still the outstanding obligations and they are at least identified so that the committee is at least assured that these are being tackled.

Thank you. All right. Let's continue with our attorney, please.

Are we finished with Cooper's presentation? Okay.

What else did you have to say, Cooper?

I mean, ultimately, I think I'm waiting on direction from how the Planning Commission would like to proceed with that language, whether it's language adjustment to the draft or remove this condition from resolution.

Okay, I would like to save that for our discussion, if we can, and move on to additional public comment, because time is flying. It's 20 till nine.

And I do, the last condition that we have, sorry, condition five, you know, this identifies and addresses that 20W subdivision exemption. And that's kind of that area where The exemption that was recorded depicts a different area for 20W than what complies with what we've seen in the FPDPs presented today. In that exemption plat, there is a condition requiring all FPDPs are in compliance with It's articles five, six, seven, eight of this agreement. I unfortunately haven't had time to see what that agreement is. After that section, it separately identifies the annexation agreement and the amendment to the annexation agreement. So I don't believe that is what it's referring to. I haven't had time to do a full review. So I unfortunately cannot speak to the propriety of keeping this condition in.

Okay. Yeah, I think I can just address that real quickly. All that, that's a boundary of a property and there's several of them like Meredith and I have one. up there. And there's a number of other property tax parcels that have their own legal descriptions up there. These FPDPs are zoning that overlay over them. Those boundaries mean nothing to the FPDPs. It really matters that the people that own the land underneath them are signing off on the FPDPs to get recorded. Now, that said, we are also doing an amendment to that exemption plat, which I explained to Michael, that will correct it. But it's irrelevant from the context of what the purpose of an LPDP is and property boundary lines. There are two different things.

i think hooper would agree with me on that and we own it we own them all um i think meredith's not going to sign something so i think we're probably okay so just just a recommendation that i would have is if the planning commission does want to move forward with approval tonight those last two conditions uh staff can take the time to review those and also you know work with the applicant as far as having a full understanding of what the concerns are Um, and be able to present those to, uh, the town board. Board of trustees when we bring this forward to the board to be able to take the time to vet those last 2 conditions and, um. You know, hopefully be able to find something that's agreeable to the applicant, but, you know, we need to dive in as Cooper said to that last condition just to evaluate that a little further. I think get all the information. Um, and have the time to be able to do the due diligence that that Cooper and can't need to do on this. Um, just to allow that if the planning commission wants to look at that approval, we can work to continue to. Uh, that those items so that we can reflect good language in the resolution when it goes to the board. So, so what does that do though?

So what we're what you're suggesting and I kind of think is a really great idea is to take those 2 off of our. resolution of our resolution. But in the meantime, it will be addressed with the board of trustees. In other words, we would take them off the back of hours and it would come back.

I guess at that point it would be presented as not a recommended condition from the planning commission, since that's not in the resolution, but still brought forward in some fashion if we determine necessary as a staff recommendation at the point level.

So you would basically say the planning commission approved this resolution and the staff is suggesting that we add these two.

Yeah, I guess it's explained the work that's been done in the drawing.

I think that's a good idea. I agree. All right. So can we move on then and I'll set it up for public comment. All right. All right. We're going to take public comment now. If you have something you want to say, you're here in the room, come forward. Give us your name, where you live. Please limit your comments to three minutes or less.

I'll attempt to.

You've made it a long time.

Yeah. Frank Johns, adjacent property owner. The Johns family is to the west, and then also I'm in Moose Hollow. I have one of the lots in Moos Hall. One thing you didn't present on, I know it's in the documents, but the road assessment, the traffic impact study. I don't know if you guys drive on County Road 72. Right now, there are three quote residences, if you count Denver Water as a residence, Annie Bulkley, us, Denver Water. It is a nightmare during the winter time because of the historic human health. What is this going to do to that county road? Also, the new public works building is going to be there. Is that in that impact study? Have you considered that? Are you guys all aware of what's in the impact study? Just so, you know, 2nd, 2nd is timing. So we've had our lots for 20 years. One of my brothers has built on his. He pays for snow plowing, a portion of it. Why is that? Because it's not a city road, that easement through our land. I would like to see that annex as part of the town get that easement because we need you guys to control what is going on that road. Yes, they're taking care of it, they maintain it, but when they're hauling trash up to their dump up in 13W, which is within the town's annex. You guys know that there's a construction debris storage area up there with waste concrete, waste asphalt, wood. Sometimes the wood is burned, but it's up there and they use it as a transfer area. But we walked up that road yesterday. There's construction debris in the road and outside of the right-of-way. That road is also gravel and dirt. They originally built stormwater, you know, for swales and things. Walked over one of them today, one of the plastic stormwater. It's totally covered. Stormwater is allowed to go off that gravel road into Elk Creek. So until you approve it, that ought to be in the conditions that You take over that road, you make sure it's maintained in all the construction in here, you oversee and make sure there is no environmental damage that's currently being done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Thank you.

One point on the The public works facilities that County Road 72 will be paved to that point, at least. And then, yeah, as of right now, the section that goes through your property isn't in the town of Frazier. I would assume that we would want to take it over.

I'll look at the process for that. Yeah.

His suggestion to annex it, yes, has great validity. We're going to have tremendous use to this road and need to assume some responsibility for it.

Yeah. And I don't think the county wants to deal with it. No. Yeah.

Because the only person beyond there is Annie Buckley. So, yeah.

Right.

Okay.

Do we have any other public comment? Yes.

Sorry, this is more active this time. I would expect more cheers and smiles from the board. This is Frazier's dream come true. We get to have a massive development coming to town on the south end of town. That gets Old Town Frazier to stay local Old Town Funky Frazier. This is something you guys should all be happy about. This is Katie, Andy, this is your dream come true. Trails that go from here to the ski area. Jobs for the futures. People coming to our restaurants and our storefronts. And Old Town Frazier gets to stay the locals. We'll be able to pay for the housing project that we started. This is something great for the town. You should all be happy for it. Thank you.

don't think anybody's been opposed to it yeah all right that was a nice comment good comments uh anyone else like to make a public comment do we have anybody online raising their hand no okay hearing no more uh individuals who'd like to comment we'll close public comment And we'll go around the table here and hear from our planning commissioners.

So at this point, can we close the public hearing and then just go to our meeting?

Yes. If you're done with public comments, you can close the public hearing and then the board can continue to discuss but not take any additional comments.

All right. Can we have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved. Seconded.

All in favor? Aye.

Opposed?

All right. Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, let's discuss what we've heard so far. Margaret?

So my recommendation is that we approve the resolution with removal of those last two conditions. Simplifies the hand.

And we've struck the seven and eight.

Yes.

Yeah. Okay.

I have some additional concerns and conditions I'd like to talk about.

Okay.

But I don't know if anybody else wants to bring up something that's already been discussed.

Right. I do not. I'm on board. I've got an overall comment. Go ahead, Katie. That's fine.

I mean, it's something that's going to stop anything because it is a good thing that's going to happen. But when each one of these plats talks about since I have been involved in the fire department for a long time, the 8% grade jumped out at me and I contacted the fire department today and in their regulations, they have a maximum grade of 7%, but depending on conditions that can be negotiated. So I think that under these general notes, that needs to be modified to reflect that. because they don't, fire department doesn't allow 8%, it's 7%, or you can contact them to make, anyway, this is our discussion, so.

Did we have, was there an 8% somewhere?

It's right here. It's on every one of these, on every one of these PDPs right here. Did the fire department not provide at all? No, they'll have comments. but to me in the past the devil is in the details and usually in these writings are on on plats on the platinums so anyway um here let's see where is it it says per sheet 13 14 preliminary grading plan of the 2005 EDV about collection roads are allowed a maximum of 8%. Again, the fire department doesn't allow 8%, they allow 7%, but they can negotiate for steeper grades depending on the landing area at the top and the entrance. So I don't know if we want to approve that. Do you guys have this in front of me? Do you want to see us? It's very basic.

Oh, this is this is the devil in the details thing, Katie. I mean, so I've been involved with this for a while you have to we've never had a packet that wouldn't load in one, one PDF that you can open up. That's how long this was. And that was partially because of Public Works, but it was largely this. We're approving And that final approval, I know this is a conceptual approval for all these subdivisions marching up the hillside. And that's kind of a dream come true. But it's also we have to recognize that all the studies do show that residential lots do not support a community sales tax does. Now, Clark's right. People live in those residential lots and they come down and they shop. But it's an unfortunate reality, and it's one that Fraser's had to deal with ever since we had to throw in as a condition in the annexation agreement, they're going to buy us a snowplow. Was it Cliff, probably? I'm not sure who got that, but we are not out of those woods yet, okay? We aren't, because the shopping's done and went apart. And we're changing that. Grand Park's changing it with the village. We're going to change it with the Riverwalk. But we have to be really cautious about residential subdivisions. It's a real balancing act. And as seniors, as people that are on fixed income, which I'm rapidly doing as quickly as I possibly can, I still want to be able to afford to live here. But I want the families that walk by me as I go out on the street. I don't want to live in some senior community. I'm loving living downtown Fraser and kids and families, and they're making a living a lot easier than we used to. And I want that to continue. So what we but, you know, and so many times tonight we had references to the annexation agreement. We need to remember this annexation agreement runs its course in two years. The town will have to face that very difficult decision whether to renew it or not, or whether to let it lapse, which they have every power to do. This is a 23-year-old agreement. And how many times do we reference that tonight? And even on these conditions where all the town was asking, the town attorney was to meet and resolve these things before it goes to the town board, which I don't think is unreasonable. And Clark's right. The onus is on the town, but the onus is also on him. And I'm sorry, he doesn't have a perfectly clean track record with the town and no developer ever has because they need to advocate for their owners. They need to advocate for the real estate. But I'm really reluctant to approve this because we just don't have a clear enough picture of what the impacts of this are going to be. Let's take the golf course, for instance. So we are pumping water out of the ground at a tremendous rate. We live on a very shallow lens of gravels and alluvium left here by the glaciers. Underneath that is the troublesome formation with a lot of water in it. But that troublesome formation is silt. Tabernash has a well in it. They take a little bit of water from that well and put it in the rest of their freshwater wells that they have in the alluvium to get fluoride, because there's so much fluoride down in that troublesome formation. There's a lot of uranium, radon, rotten down there in Tabernash. Ron Richards came down with radon problems. So our groundwater resource is finite. And I know Grand Park has the water rights. But the water plan calls for a sufficient quantity and quality. And we don't know that. We don't know that if we start pumping water for a golf course, that we're going to lose that, that we're going to be able to satisfy that and keep our residential going. Because 90% of your water in your house gets back to the river. Landscaping water, golf course water does not. That might help recharge the groundwater somewhat, but it's largely, that's a loss because most of it's evaporative. So these are overall questions they didn't know about 20 years ago. Our precipitation has gone down since 1995. Our average annual precipitation has decreased by 30%. This year, we're not even going to make 10 inches. It used to be 20 inches back in 1995. a year. And that's what recharges that groundwater too. We're making a planning decision here. They made a planning decision in 2003, 2005 that's been really tough to live with, guys. It has. And and it constrains us on what we can do flat wise. Now, all these have to come back as final plats. I understand that. But honestly, it's just too much, you know, and I think the town staff telling us this. I think I I know I realize that I like seeing this overall plan of what's going to be up there. But I don't. It's just unclear as to how much it's going to tie us to that going forward, no matter the consequences. So. That's my speech, but it was impossible to try and review all of it. And the 8% grade is a good example. And the reason for that is these big old fire trucks. I mean, we don't want them sliding down the hillside. And when we look at a subdivision, we looked at the first subdivision up here on the mountain. Was it filing one and filing two? We spent a lot of time on it. We had 30, how many lots in that?

Oof.

30 or so, I mean, yeah, so 30 to 50 lots. I mean, those are, it's easy to look at that. Now, I know, again, he has to come up and give us plats on every subdivision as he goes up the mountainside, but still, this ties a fair amount, ties our hands a fair amount going forward, so.

Thank you. Do you have any comments?

I mean, I think it's a fair point. I was also wondering about the golf course in terms of the water impacts. I'm also wondering about the golf course in terms of runoff impacts.

Yeah, exactly.

Because I mean, looking at this map, I like I live right there. And I know that the creek runs there and the meadows right there. So yeah, I had questions about that as well.

And my understanding of all these FPDPs is it's depicting the golf course as conceptual at this point. These aren't the final golf course plans, at least. We believe that a separate FPDP is required for that. I believe the applicant stated an amendment to these. Either way, that one will also be coming back separately as the amendment at this point.

So if we open space and then in the future, when we know what's happening with our water situation and the drought situation, I mean, if if we approve this and that doesn't approve that, it doesn't say, yes, a golf course is coming and we have to later approve a golf course. And I think it's fine.

So just to clarify, so that's what you're saying is that by approving this, we're not necessarily approving the golf course.

The golf course would have to be used like it's already in the annexation agreement. So maybe that's a question. I don't know our ability to not approve it. But that specific design that depicted isn't locked in stone by these.

So we also have a town regulation on recreation amenities that we can't apply to this because it's overruled by the agreements we made in the annexation agreement.

Right.

We've got a very large set of subdivisions here with a private golf course. That's the only parkland. And so there's really no public park here. And I understand we've got a nice public park down in the Cousins open space, but neighborhood parks are so critical. And this collector trail along Grand Park Drive is great. But as you noted, Brian, single track trails, short trails, see neighborhoods for kids. are really key too. And that's another kind of a downfall of a golf course is that golf balls are flying everywhere. And Clark's exactly right. You can't commingle them with trails. But if we got away in a couple of years, if the town makes that decision and that decision has not been made, it's a town board decision. If that decision is made to end the annexation agreement, it brings in all of these current regulations that we have that we need. And I think those are going to apply to subdivisions as they come forward. But they don't apply to this overall conceptual drawing here. So that's the balancing act I'm playing in my head here, trying to decide what to vote.

I just want to provide one point of clarification. The annexation agreement will not expire. It's just the vested rights within the annexation agreement that are set to expire in 2020.

But all these things we've been talking about tonight, most of them, They still have a lot of governance because the town gave its conceptual approval for all this. I don't argue with the number of houses or the density or anything else. It's just we've worked our regulations a lot over the years to help them meet current conditions better. Okay. have a few more discussion.

So also on the general notes on, I would like to see if they've got the section under to protect against wildfire and enhance forest health section, there's A and B. C, I would like to include adhere to the Colorado Wildlife Resiliency Code. That's going to be a part of our code that's recently adopted and that can be front and center. So anybody that does go to look at this that might care or consider investing in the future would know that that's something they'll be subject to.

That governs fences and things, wildlife movements, wildlife, yeah.

So that's... But why did I say wildlife wildfire? I'm sorry. Yeah, it's getting late. It's nine o'clock now adhered to the Colorado wildfire resiliency. So you're suggesting that I would like that to be added on to the general notes.

Okay.

So is that necessarily conditioned or just a recommendation?

I mean, Katie, that's going to apply to all future development. Once it's adopted by the town, it's already.

It's effective July 1st, so it's not.

It's effective July 1st for all of town. I mean, if you want to just, we can add that as a note just so that it's shown in that, but it doesn't have any weight either way, but it does actually, you know, just highlights that that will meet the WRC.

Just to highlight it, that'll be a big part. That'd be great if we could. added a C. It's not a big deal. So on that way back when to filing one, you had the trash enclosures shown and then the second filing of that filing one, it didn't. I would like to see trash enclosures depicted on these filings because it is a problem of rendezvous. And it's turned into our problem, and we don't want it to be our problem.

The only thing harder to add to a neighborhood, Katie, than a trail, an existing neighborhood, is a new trash enclosure.

To have that, I mean, they've been included in the past.

They've not been included in the platts, though. Yeah. So, I mean, wouldn't that, when we get to subdivision platts,

So it was included.

It was included in the land use before and the platts and then it had been removed.

On a plat?

So yeah, both of them. Both of them.

At what point? At what point is it done where like, okay, these are the these are the lots and this is where the trash.

When the platts are recorded. Yeah. So can I provide.

They're required.

No.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, They're not required.

They're not required. No. So one, one point of clarification is that the reason that we had the rendezvous issue that was worked through is because that open space area for he as required by the annexation agreement was conveyed to the town. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Where 23 W will remain the ownership of Grand Park and They have that flexibility to, if they want to add anything as far as the trash enclosure and open space facilities, I think that's something that we will, we can visit at that time. But my initial thought would be that that would be some type of an allowed use.

So not necessarily allowed if they want to, but not necessarily required, I guess, unless potentially that is requested as part of its approval, but you might need to delve down that whether that could be requested.

but that would remain under their ownership. So if they want to look at something like that, they can, it wouldn't be something like four E with rendezvous that was conveyed to the town. And then they needed town approval to build on that land.

You know, and another thing I'd like to see happen, but I don't know if it's a condition here or something that we need to look at as a planning commission and the town is that because this is, this in the past when there's been there's been filings and then a second filing with there was changes that we didn't pick up that staff did not pick up with the quantity of information here it's understandable i'd like to see an ancillary document for that just lists changes from the previous filing to the new file so that staff has the ability to look through and say, oh, OK, yeah, you're right. This did change. Forget this. Because this has happened in the past with some really unfortunate outcomes. That's all I have to say about that.

Part of that one condition was but not limited to, Katie. That was a good... Remember the one condition, Cooper, you had, there was language but not limited to because this is ongoing. We're changing... Alan, you're doing a great job, but he just came into this role just recently. We have a new planner. We're about to have a new manager. Michael's working really hard through this. So you're right. There's just a few places here that needs more work on the staff levels. But there's time for that before the board meeting.

So Cooper, I guess that's my question, but that is for you. If I wanted to include something like that, would that be commissioned or is that something that we need to adopt this policy for the town moving forward? including that here as a condition would just apply to this resolution so that's more of a broader change policy okay all right so we'll let this go and then um let's put that on our list planners and our new planner but that we can look that on our list there

and we as staff we could request like i guess detailed change logs or more explanation of what changes submittal to submittal we do traditionally request a comment response where they go through the staff comments and provide comments so we can check how they provide that, but it doesn't necessarily pick up additional things that are changed outside of that scope that are requested by staff. And we could request it, whether they respond or not, you know, then we can have that discussion.

I think we need to, I think we need to set that in stone and have that for the future.

And Katie, ultimately to clarify, you know, something like that, a requirement from the applicant, has to be a code change. I mean, as Alan said, you can request this if the applicant is willing to work with us and provide that, but we can't then say, well, you didn't provide this checklist of changes. So far, that's not in the code, so it can't be a condition for approval. Well, blanket condition.

Well, I guess I'm not adding any conditions, but it'd be great if you guys just threw in that line about the not wildlife but wildfire resilience decode as part of your prevention it'll make you look really good july 1st i think yeah yeah everybody is okay um alan can you speak to just the east grand fire referral process as far as meeting the requirements that katie pointed out this and that's the one thing i will say about this too and here he does referred to the 2005 DVD recorded. So that's where it says maximum rate of 8%.

Yeah, it's documented as part of the overall road plan that there are sections that include 8%. If the other statement on that is in our chapter 14, which is the road construction standards, there's provisions in there to allow variances to be approved, administratively approved. So it's not a variance that goes to the Board of Adjustment. It would go to Town staff, public works, the town manager to approve administratively those great changes, but we do refer everything to the fire district. We're not necessarily, I guess, pointing out specific. Topics unless it's raised or or flag as part of our own internal review. So I don't know if the grade discussion was specifically discussed with the fire department. I don't believe they commented on it. Just on their own, but, um. Paul, do you have anything to add on the road grade?

The fire department comments, even from the first set of comments, don't mention any concerns with the grades. And staff in the past on filing one and two has looked at those grades and is in support because we allowed them in rendezvous. There's grades 8% or more in rendezvous.

The big one is individual sites so that they can be accessed by a fire truck. Residential units.

Oh, it's like driveways?

Driveways? So, anyway.

I would say the fire department didn't...

I understand that this references that, but it is, to me, it's misleading because 7% is what it's about. I just think it's misleading. So, I'll leave it at that.

Okay. Anyone else got anything they would like to... say as a commissioner before we move on this?

I have a question. I'm going to play the newbie card. The removal of those two conditions, is there a reason to not include them? I wasn't totally clear on what you were saying, Mike, about that staff could then work with them. Can that not happen if they're included? 4 and 5. Yeah, 4 and 5.

Yeah, so my recommendation is just to allow staff to present options for the condition number 3 as far as not requiring any type of time frame for that because a lot of that is based on the town's burden of submitting these approvals. So I think we'll look at some options for that. And I think updates could be great just to make sure that that is something that is being consciously brought to mind with these future approvals. So you have updates from both sides. It keeps both sides accountable. I think that's fair. But we'll work on bringing some things forward for that. So if you wanted to... State the approval that staff will work to present options for that condition three. Dave Kuntz, In addition to vetting the last condition to determine whether or not to to keep that last condition, you can simply state that, with your emotion, if you would like to essentially striking I believe it's conditions that four and five.

Dave Kuntz, Should we can we share that again, this is very.

Dave Kuntz, Cooper and we share the draft again now.

Dave Kuntz, yeah but the draft rose push.

Alan, I sent that to you. I just got logged out of Zoom. Oh, okay. So it may be quicker to link it in. Word, please.

I don't have my email open, so give me a second.

All right, it'll be erased.

Prepare to co-host. Okay.

Thanks, Gabriel.

So regarding number five, I can see where and a portion of 23 W since there is some 23 W. In seven nephew and, and then you add Jason to that. So you can see that most of us have not brought up like this one.

so sharing the the resolution draft as i believe it stands right now we have conditions one and two which were included in the packet uh conditions three four and five have been removed again four uh and to your point katie i there is a section of 23w um each of these fpdps well, generally covers two to three main planning areas, and then there's portions of 23W included as well. So that's why that is referenced alongside 7W and 8WA. So really, even though it's not our problem planning areas, it is part of that application. So that's the reason for the full removal of the original condition four. And then condition five, you know, that coincides with our further review that town staff would like to take. And that can be brought before the Board of Trustees reviews it for approval.

So you could essentially, I could provide an example here. If you would like to provide a motion that keeps conditions one and two as is in the resolution. with the changes of removing the last three conditions after that and allow staff to present options for condition three and also to vet allow our attorneys to vet the last condition to determine whether or not to keep that condition related to the Dave Kuntz, Matching the boundaries for for the 20 w subdivision. Dave Kuntz, You can simply just say at this point so moved if that's something that.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, is able to right, so you would you talked about with staff that doesn't even have to be on here right so that's something that we're adding to this. PB, Lupita D Montoya, we're just going to vote on voted in with one and two.

standing right and then you guys have got you you've got your marching orders and staff yeah so i think if you add that the verbal motion that cooper pointed out it'll still go with the resolution that just won't be depicted on the resolution that we have picked it on the motion that will go in the minutes and carried forward to the board of trustees meeting is that your understanding so you can still it requires staff to do the work as as i just outlined to bring that forward when it comes to the board of trustees

Okay. Are we ready to make a motion on this?

You make it.

I think I can do it.

All right. So I move to approve resolution number 20-26-0502 striking conditions three, four, and five with the understanding that staff will further review those conditions before bringing in front of the board.

All right. Do I have a second?

Second.

All right. Let's move to the vote. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Okay. We have one no. Motion carries. Okay. Yeah. Now it doesn't go.

Other business.

We have other business.

Um, I would like to go ahead and get jacked us a short introduction of himself as a new town planner. All right. All right. We have jack seward just began yesterday. And I'll let him provide a quick introduction.

Hi, everyone. My name is jack seward. I am very excited to be joining you all here in Fraser. I grew up in Summit County. And I went to college in Denver. I am now, I spent the last 10 years in Denver working on the Stapleton Redevelopment Project for the Stapleton Development Corporation. And I'm excited to join the team here in Fraser as we continue doing all of these fun things and more and more and more. So thank you for letting me join you and I look forward to working with you. All right. Welcome, Jack. Welcome, Jack. Yes.

All right. Any... Future agenda items that we want to put on coming months agendas.

And we anticipate the public works facility and additional filing here for June. Okay. So that'll be the baseline. All right. Let us know who the owner of the railroad is, would you?

Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you all for coming.