Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

put her put it on the calendar. I don't know. We'll kick things off. I think we're all set. or Okay, we'll start with a roll call if we could please. Oh, Margaret, I'm here. Brian Cvank, Joey McCoy, Bob Gy, Andy Miller. Thank you. Um, call for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay. So, first thing up is to see if Bob, do you want to keep your job? I'm willing to keep my job. Anybody else is willing. So, Oh, mine's an easy job. I only have to do it once a year, it seems like. You did a good job. Any any input all from the the commission or I'm happy to have you guys. You guys are awesome. great tag teaming. You do a good job chairing the meetings, right? Asking good questions, getting clarifications. So, um I would make a motion that um we approve Andy Miller as chair and Bob Gnusi as vice chair of the planning commission for this coming term. Second. Margaret seconded. Any further discussion? Is that okay with you guys? Yeah. I'm enjoying it. Appreciate it. Thank you. Right for Mandy. And vice versa. Appreciate.

So, all in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Thank you. I appreciate the honor. And thank you, fellas. Yeah. Yeah. No worries. Okay. Okay. So, the only thing on the consent agenda are the minutes from April 23rd. I move to approve the consent agenda. I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor? I I Any. Thank you. Right. Open forum. So, these are any any input from the public that does not concern a an agenda item tonight. Um, anybody have anything for open forum? Anybody online at all after that or um or listening audiences tonight? Okay. All righty. So, we'll move on to a public uh call for a motion to open a public hearing and possible action on the um sententrum condominiums major site plan and final plat. I move to open public hearing. I'll second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any. Okay. Open public hearing. So, we'll report from the staff. Good. and uh Allan will be leading this presentation. Great. Actually, Cara, can you remind me how I get it to see my notes on here while I'm sharing? Yes. So, if you go into presenter view that just up here on the top um

confidence. Yeah, it's gonna start. I'm just gonna kind of click every once in a while. Happy to see that. You everyone for the uh patience there. I'm Alan Celiff, uh assistant planner. Tonight, I'll be presenting on the Sententrum Condominiums uh major site plan and major subdivision final plat development. So, the overview of the application, um, this is brought forward by Outwest Developments LLC. Um, as the applicant, property owner is Frasier Downtown LLC. Uh, the locations at 150 Clayton Court, which is, um, also addressed off of US Highway 40. It's the southernmost lot on Clayton Court, adjacent to, um, Clayton Avenue, Clayton Court, and the highways. That's three street frontages on this site. Um, the proposal is for five residential units and approximately 1,800 square ft of commercial space with some outdoor patio space. The zoning is Riverwalk and like I said, the request is approval of a final plat and major site plan. process for this development um requires major subdivision um for any development with five or more uh condominium, town home or apartment units um which this is generally a major subdivision would require a preliminary and a final plat. However, because this um development proposal previously came forward as a sketch plan, uh town staff was able to wave the preliminary plat um in lie of reviewing the sketch plan. And then additionally, residential developments with three or more units require a major site plan. So here's an overview of the uh review submitt and review timeline for this project in particular. And then I

guess just taking a step back even from fall of 2024. Um the town has actively had some long-term or long-range uh planning efforts on this part of town um since at least 2017 for the downtown Frasier strategic plan. And then in 2023 uh the town reszoned this area and surrounding areas from uh the previous zoning. It was originally medium density single family uh ultimately to Riverwalk zoning in late 2023. So this proposal uh first came forward as a sketch plan in September October. The planning commission reviewed it in uh late October 2024 and then it actually came forward again as a kind of a second review of the sketch plan. So two separate um review submittals and uh presentations to the planning commission. uh outgrow an outgrowth of those discussions was an application for a variance with the board of adjustment that went forward in February uh regarding the commercial depth requirement in Riverwalk zoning and I'll uh summarize that in some coming slides and then the specific uh application kickstarting the the formal review and approval process uh came in in April and then uh to today's meeting. So, this hearing uh was publicly noticed as required um in both the uh Skyhigh News about two weeks ago, May 14th, and then the applicant mail uh public hearing notices to adjacent property owners. Proof of the publication is in the packet um in attachment 17 and 18 linked to the agenda online. So, here's the uh location. As I referenced before, it's fronted on three sides by um by streets. It's at the southern end of Clayton Court, um, east of Highway 40, west of Clayton Court. Um, and then should this development

move forward, this would represent the second redevelopment site on Clayton Court. The first being the STM town homes which was approved last year up at the northeast of the of Clayton Court and would be the third overall development from this applicant who also uh um brought forward the Koslagon Main uh residential and mixeduse buildings at Frasier Avenue to the north here between Highway 40 and Doc Susie. Um just a little more orientation. Here's an aerial view of the uh site. Um mostly vacant today. It previously uh contained a number of um mobile home units, trailer units on this site. Um currently one exists today, but the rest have been removed, so it's mostly vacant. Um and then you can see kind of the existing um construction of Clayton Court. Currently, it's only um paved up through this site. Uh the town has been undergo or um has been conducting uh some infrastructure improvements in this area. Um utility work has gone in through this winter to provide updated utilities uh mostly to the north of the site. And then kind of a future phase two of the Clayton Court improvements will include full paving, sidewalks, and streetscape improvements from Clayton Avenue on the south to Frasier Avenue to the north. I'm sorry. Can I interrupt you for just sure to ask the question? You're showing here the entire lots one and two, correct? So this is very showing in the red boundary line. Then the area we're actually going to be talking about tonight, which is just lot one. Exactly. So the the subdivision

uh piece of this will be formally splitting that lot into two lots and then potentially a parkland dedication piece to the north. So that subdivision will be recorded um covering the whole site of the existing lot. The image here on the right will be the specific development site plan for lot one. So that's the only piece going forward at this point with potentially future uh development on lot two to the south. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to ask too. So that subdivision is that um assumed with the approval of this major site plan? It it's a separate approval but it's part of the same resolution. It's a major site plan and um Okay. So it's in our res. Correct. Yeah. It's all part the same, right? Voting. They won't be separate resolutions necessarily. It'll be a combined uh item. Oh, that'll go to the town board, right? Correct. Gotcha. Okay. So, yeah, as we were just discussing, uh here's the alignment of the the proposed subdivision here on the left and then specific development proposal on the right. Um scroll down here. So this site um on lot one here which would be moving forward would contain the development along Clayton Court uh an access drive envisioned to be a shared access drive um potentially with lot one to the south um the way it's oriented and then um contains a town water well on the west side of the lot that uh restricts development to an extent. um it plays into the the drive aisle and kind of some of the allowed uses within it. But um that's been part of the sketch plan review and um discussions with town staff and how to accommodate that. Um the building itself is about 125 ft wide uh 40t depth and then it's proposed

at three stories uh 42 feet in height. Uh the east side is going to have commercial space. The west side will be residential garages. So the residential uses will be on floors two and three with uh parking on the main level. And then uh the parking for the commercial uses is proposed to be accommodated fully with on street parking um on the the new improvements with Clayton Court. We'll discuss further in some of these coming slides. We've probably seen this street view. We've had this in some of the sketch plans and probably the variant. So this was Google Street View as of October 2023. There's been some changes obviously as the town has uh begun some infrastructure work in the area, but this helps show um kind of the existing condition and then some of the elevation change. Um photo probably doesn't do it fully justice, but Clayton Court is 8 nt below grade of Highway 40, roughly one story. Um you can kind of see the top of the existing uh trailer home there. the roof of it is roughly street level on the the west there on the left side. So that gives you a sense of some of the topography and how at least phase 2 ultimately may integrate with the site as phase one here is a little further north and doesn't um necessarily front on Highway 40 as much. This rendering also previously shared. So this was the rendering provided with the most recent sketch plan. Um street facing obviously um generally during staff review of the sketch plan and discussions with the planning commission. No major um design critiques or issues uh were were discussed by staff and the planning commission. Um I'll go through in a slide later on about kind of formal review comments and requirements of the

code but generally um as the as the previous reviews of uh concluded that it's generally in conformance the applicant hasn't provided any further revisions since last presented. So, zoning for the site, we'll start getting into some of the zoning requirements, but as an overview, the site and most of the surrounding sites are Riverwalk, um more traditional business zoning to the south, and then uh open space to the south and east. The uh headarters trail building is there to the south, the town building, and then the Frasier River further east beyond some of the Clayton Court properties. Um so as Riverok zoning I'm going to go ahead and read the full um intent statement just to give a sense of the type of development that the town is you know hoping to see and encouraging in this uh district. So, the Riverok District is intended to provide for development that fosters the creation of a highdensity, walkable, mixeduse neighborhood, which will integrate Frraasier's historic downtown with the Frasier River, generate opportunities for downtown redevelopment, affordable housing, and economic revitalization. The zone district is envisioned to have ground floor commercial positioned closely to the street to create a vibrant uh town center. On-site parking should be located away from pedestrian areas as much as feasible in order to activate uses along the street and the Frasier River and promote the walkable nature of the district. So hitting on all the major themes on here the you know as reviewed in the sk in the sketch plan and this development proposal it generally aligns with this vision. that provides a fully uh street facing building frontage uh tucks parking in the back and then adds additional commercial spaces to help activate downtown. The future land use map in 20 the 2020 comprehensive plan and then in

the uh current draft proposals for the updated comprehensive plan show this area is remaining mixed use of full alignment with that. Then again, as referenced, um, general compliance with the 2017, um, downtown strategic plan that kicked off some of these reszoning efforts. Um, regarding specific Riverwalk District zoning standards. So, going through kind of the the basic zoning requirements of lot size, setbacks, floor area, building height, open space, and density. The site plan checks all the boxes. Um, I'll just note that setbacks in the Riverwalk district are zero feet. So, they encourage building right up to the property lines and the street lines on the front and side um with a 10-ft rear setback. Building height is 45 ft. Um, that hasn't come into play with this development. Um it may with lot two regarding the height calculation but at this point as a three-story building um it'll be shown on the elevations of this part of the site being relatively flat there's been no issues with height and then uh regarding density up to 20 units per acre are allowed with this one first phase only including five units it calculates out to only 14 units per acre so within the uh existing allowance um and that density potentially could be increased up to 40% um with at least 40% of ground floor uses. They are meeting that. They're not requesting the density here, but that may come um later on phase two. Okay. Regarding uh the additional language in the Riverwalk district about the commercial frontage, this is the one that we what spurred the variance request in February. So, we've reviewed this in pretty good detail already, but

it requires um at least 20 ft depth of buildings fronting Clayton Court or Highway 40 to include commercial uses um with some carveouts for equipment and pedestrian vehicular circulation. Uh the board of adjustment did approve a reduction up to zero feet, so no um no square footage requirement for portions of the lot that are less than 70 feet in depth. Um and then it did include a condition of approval that some level of street level activation and um utilizing or achieving that commercial frontage requirement is achieved to the maximum extent feasible based on site conditions. So as proposed uh the kind of zooming into the site plan here uh this red dotted line represents the 20 ft uh commercial depth. So the southern half, southern two-thirds of the building is right at that. And then right at that blue line that goes across um the screen perpendicular is the 70 foot depth measurement. That's where the variance was approved to allow a reduced commercial uh depth. Um and they're still it wasn't proposed to go up to zero feet. They're still proposing 15 ft approximately of commercial space, approximately half of that indoor commercial space and the other half as an outdoor um patio space. And then just another zoom in of the floor plan here showing how all that works at at this level of detail. Um only caveat to this floor plan is some further revisions may be needed as the um some of the civil details of the site plan are worked out regarding utility easements and utility lines especially at the north end of the site. the current building footprint encroaches over at least portions of

some of these easements and um the applicant and and town public works staff are currently working to locate definitively where these utilities are and we'll entertain adjusting easements as allowed or you know if the utility lines aren't able to accommodate the existing building footprint the building footprint may have to be revised slightly in order to um stay out of those ements. ments. So, some of these areas might have to change, especially on the north end, and that may impact um the the 15t depth that's currently being shown here. Moving on to kind of the rest of site level site planning review. Um as we mentioned the commercial depth, um residential parking is fully provided. So, all units are proposed at three bedrooms, which would require two parking spaces each. The garages are, I believe, 20 feet wide with 18 feet doors. So, um we're counting those as double occupancy parking um for two cars each for the residential units. And then the approximate 1,800 square ft of commercial space would require five uh parking spaces. Um they can be accommodated with street parking in downtown area. That's specifically allowed. and the parking provisions. Um I believe five or six are located right in front of this site and or right in front of the building. And then there's additional street parking as the lot goes to the north. Um I believe eight or nine spaces. While that space to the north may end up getting dedicated to the town as part of kind of a parkland dedication, um as it's currently adjacent to this site, the applicant's requesting that that parking be allocated to this site or this um development either phase one or phase two in order to utilize it for future commercial needs. Um and staff is

in support of that in order to encourage the commercial use and then also encourage dedication of the park rather than just a payment of a park fee in low. Um regarding other other kind of nuts and bolts items, snow storage uh required at 3:1 ratio. Um plenty is being provided. that these areas may need to be adjusted slightly, especially on the north pending final outcome of the utility uh locations and easement requirements, but there's no concerns that there won't be space as there's additional space to the south and to the west of the site. Um open space, only 5% open space is required in the Riverwalk and approximately 20% is provided, you know, mostly just as a reflection of kind of the irregular nature of the site. There's some more unusable portions of the site. Um so additional open space is being provided. Um no formal landscaping is being proposed necessarily but u they'll be required to at least reveate uh the site any graded areas areas impacted by construction with um a native kind of a native seed mulch. Um trash enclosure is being provided. A detail wasn't provided. That's one of the staff comments. They'll have to provide specific detail of the enclosure material and then the location will have to be slightly adjusted to be outside of a a 50 foot and a protection radius of the town water well. And then um lighting a lighting plan was provided pretty minimal uh just first level building lighting and then I believe it was one light for the trash enclosure. Uh staff didn't have any concerns on the lighting. getting into the building elevations. Um these may be a little hard to tell kind of in the black and white, but um some material sample material uh photos are

provided in the bottom right here. It'll include uh standing seam metal sighting um uh some wood paneling, metal railing obviously with the patios and then um I believe that's another kind of type of wood paneling feature kind of a rust colored wood paneling. So, a mix of materials is um is proposed. Section 1941 190 uh provides a variety of kind of higher level guidance on building design standards, but they're not necessarily hard requirements. just states that uh proposed development should meet a majority of um of different elements regarding variety of materials, building orientation uh such as fronting the road, a variety of building massing, roof design, colors, basically preventing kind of single single material buildings, single plane buildings, um things with a little bit more variety. So overall the building meets that. Um there's some additional language in the River Rock district uh very specific regarding that building orientation parking in the back um which uh we've already discussed. It meets those and then um additional kind of elements or features that reflect funky eclectic character. That's a a fun little addition in the the building code. pretty subjective, but no major red flags were raised through the sketch plan review of this previously. And then these slides are just the building elevations on the side. They can give you a little bit of a sense of the profile of the the building, especially regarding the height and then some of the architectural treatment on the like the drive aisle side or the north side. Um staff has provided through the sketch plan and through this first review some additional suggestions to at least further uh meet the some of the design

guidelines in the section of the code such as ground level masonry. Um some awning element elements or p pitched roof elements for at least um patios or some portions of the building. Uh at this point, the applicant has not updated anything or chosen to to change them further just based on um it meeting the current requirements of the code. And then um sounds like further investigation with their builder um who's going to be constructing this uh advising against additional pitched roof elements. It can have impact to things like snow loading and snow melt at the street level. So if any additional design requirements or design um elements are desired, those things should still be kept in mind. Uh just a overview of referral agency comments. Um civil review remains on utilities and drainage. Pretty common for this stage of review, but um those will be worked out through subsequent submitts. COT requires an approved traffic study. They've they've reviewed I believe drafts um or the applicants working towards it but they haven't been granted full approval at this point. And then Mountain Parks Electric and Excel have um some remaining comments regarding dry utilities. Kind of the last item to touch on is land dedication um element. So reference that the applicant is uh proposing to dedicate a portion of land on the north end of the site to uh to satisfy the parkland dedification. So we won't be if if planning commission and town board ultimately agree and approve that we won't be collecting any fees in l but actually um gaining possession of a small piece of property on the north end of the site. Um and then the

applicants also requested that the school fee and loo amount um be based on a recent school dis uh school district impact study that the school district um commissioned and has approved early this year. staff will need to update the code to formalize that going forward, but we have no objections to implementing it as the the fi loo study is more relevant and and more accurate to the school district's needs than the town's previous practice. Um, and then just one other item on the parkland dedication. Um so based on kind of usability of that portion of the lot and what the applicant's willing to dedicate and um in theory the town would accept it would be a larger portion of property than kind of that minimal requirement of 5% would be needed. Um so staff supports accepting kind of that larger portion with this phase of development and having that contribute towards future redevelopment um dedication requirements on Clayton court. So if the applicant u moves forward with other development sites elsewhere on Clayton Court on the east side um north of this site etc. whatever that balance is on this site could be carried over. It may not fully satisfy those other sites but um we'll we'll track that calculation and it can help reduce that impact for a future redevelopment site. And then here's just kind of visualizing approximately where that um park tract would be, which um a big reason why staff is in support of accepting something like this is it's uh basically right in the middle of where the comprehensive plan some of the draft documents for the downtown vision envision a more pedestrianoriented east west connection from uh Eisenhower on

Highway 40 to the Frasier river to the east. Um, so this is the area outlined in red is just north of of this proposed development here. But that assumes redevelopment of some existing buildings, has it? Yeah, it would assume kind of a lot of I mean this whole vision plan is assuming redevelopment pretty full redevelopment but um you know with the opportunity to start building this connection now um yeah try feel it's appropriate. So on on this view, Alan, does it show accurately where this this building really is or? Yeah, the this um draft kind of preliminary concept plan. I don't Yeah, my cursor isn't pointing on there, but just to the right of the uh red box was updated to um reflect the basic outline of this building. So it would be that is about as far north that building the building we're considering tonight has a northern extremity that's just about where that that building is. I'm sorry. Can you say that again? So I'm trying to visualize because all the all the drawings you showed don't really show how it lines up with the other existing buildings. Right. But that building you've got the pointer on is the building we're considering tonight. Correct. Excuse me. slightly different shape, but the north wall of that building is pretty much where the north wall of this building is. And and you know that red line is approximate. I don't I can't guarantee it's exactly where that red line is, but it's um it's generally in that location give or take probably 10 or 15 lining up pretty well. Yeah, we provided like the sketch plan documents to Cushing Terrell as um in order for them to implement it as accurately as possible in terms of this vision plan. Okay. Okay.

The last couple slides here. Um for the site plan approval, there are five criteria that uh staff in the approval boards, planning commission and town board should consider as part of a um any decision. Uh the first criteria is that the site development meets all applicable requirements of chapter 19. Um and staff finds that it does currently. if there's any minor items to resolve, they'll be uh tracked as part of uh staff review comments and resubmitts. Number two, that the proposed site development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. And as we discussed, it meets the mix future the mixed use future land use and the 2017 strategic plan. Um three that kind of all lot elements, setbacks, zoning requirements, etc. are met. um which this is for the Riverwalk Zone District. Criteria four uh talks about buildings and structures not infringing on easements. So, as I've I've flagged or mentioned, uh at this time, the building footprint is in conflict with portions of some of these easements on the north end of the property. Um so, these either these easements will need to be adjusted. Um, and those will be determined based on utility locations or relocations by either the town or the applicant or the building footprint getting adjusted. So, a little bit of a um an unknown at this one. And this is one where before this comes forward to the town board, we'd want a resubmitt following um kind of full analysis and and basically have this resolved before this goes to the town board. So there's no further information at this time then, right? Okay. Um and then number five, uh that the proposed site grading is consistent with requirements and any applicable storm drainage criteria or master drainage plans. Again, there are still outstanding drainage comments. Um and the applicant will be required to address these moving

forward. So with that, um the staff recommendation is approval with conditions. We have seven conditions here and I will point out that uh we added a condition on here from what was posted online on the agenda. So condition number four is new from uh from the version that you reviewed online. Uh and that's just to reflect the parkland dedication being credited forward. So one um town staff and referral agency comments to be addressed. That's a standard comment. Uh condition two um reflecting that building revisions may be needed to reflect utility easements. Um we've discussed that three that fees fee in lie of land dedications required and that the school fees can rely on the uh school district uh in Lu analysis. So those are the ones one through two through four are more particular to this proposal. And then the rest of these five, six and seven are more of the standard ones regarding um major checklist items being completed, execution of a development improvement agreement and collateral as required. Um recordation of final plat with the development improvement agreement and any additional HOA declarations. And then um number seven just stating that uh in conformance with town code that the approval of the site plan would be valid for one year um from whatever date that the board of trustees approves it. So next steps um applicant will be required to resubmit do a second submitt and full referral um addressing our comments and anything additional from planning commission tonight and then um that submitt will be presented to the board of trustees and will be scheduled once that submitt's received. So that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Um and then the applicant is here to speak on behalf of

the application as well. Any questions for Alan or Very thorough? Yeah. Alan, did you guys review the uh exterior lighting specifications to make sure the dark sky complain? We received uh lighting lighting plans. Um they generally showed conformance or stated conformance, but um we'll any anything that gets approved here will get approved or get reviewed in more detailed. Building permit submitts. That's when a lot of those final fixtures are are verified with the building permits. Okay. Um if no other questions, we'll move on to the applicant if good evening town board. Uh Kevin Riiffken with Outwest Investments. Planning Commission. Oh, planning commission. It's been a long day. Um, thanks for taking the time and thanks town staff. This is not an easy project. Um, we set out to kind of look at the urban infill of downtown Frraasier uh about 5 years ago. Um, it has not gotten any easier to do urban infill in downtown Frraasier from a pure easement regulation landowner perspective. And um, it's a testament I think to town staff to work with us and get some stuff done. So, wanted to thank everyone here. Um, this project is kind of the second iteration of getting Clayton Court to be the Riverwalk District. Um, I know we've had a lot of conversations with this group um during sketch plan and trying to design something that we're all happy to have in our downtown. Um, and we're hoping that this is close. Uh, it's not perfect. Um, it's very hard to hit perfect. Um, but we really like the

design. We really like where it's going and we really like what it's going to do. Um I think Allan explained it extremely well. Um this site is challenging due to the well uh sitting in the back and hence why we went to the variance uh with many of you. Um and we're able to still get that patio 15 ft of retail while allowing us to fit. Um in addition, we're still finding we found every easement um but we're still locating every easement. So, one thing we've been working with the public works group on um is potentially shrinking the actual retail space and adding a little bit of patio just so they have access to any lines they need to have access to. Um it really won't change uh much. The way we looked at it is we're about 1,800 ft of retail right now. Uh if we do need to move that, it's going to go down to about 1760 on the retail. So, not a huge difference. that portion goes to patio. Um, we like having patio, especially that serves retail on the street. It activates it. Um, and the way we're looking at it is it's covered and hopefully heated patio depending on the restaurant user. Uh, so hopefully people are out there year round encouraging people to walk. Um otherwise we're the next I think steps here um in our mind is as we start to get these smaller projects going um we're and the street done we're going to start seeing some serious activation down there um and hopefully it's not recognizable um as Allan put that picture from uh October 2023. It's it's a little rough down there and we're starting to see it clean up and starting to see a lot of positive improvements. So we're excited about that. Um the one other thing I wanted to touch on uh is the park dedication and I think if you look at uh the master plan um that was put out, there's a really cool kind of park that runs through it

and this is part of it and we're fully in favor of that. Uh what that does and what we're extremely cognizant of is that does cut off some of the neighbors access right now. And so part of the uh dedication we want for the park is to create an easement with the town who's now going to own that land uh for those neighbors to access their sites for an amount of time until we can figure out better access. Um and that might be something for the town board. Uh but we want to make sure we're on the same page that we're all being good stewards. Uh it's really the neighbors there because historically it's kind of do what you want down there and as we build it um it's going to get get a little harder to access and a little harder to fit everything in that we want to fit in. Um so wanted to bring that in front of the planning commission and we'll bring it up in front of the board. Um and then lastly pitched roofs. We're still working on it. Um the hardest part in these infill sites is the snow shedding. Um and you think about a house and on an acre of land. If you have a pitch roof, you can just shed snow to the side. We would have to shed snow internally. Um and our big valley has kept advising us that anytime we shed internally, we get ice damming. So we're looking at some potential solutions to give it a little more character there. Um and then potentially next phase have some more character. But our goal is to have a mix of flat pitch um and some other elements to make this street really exciting in the next 3 four years. So that's all I got. Uh if you have any questions for me, happy to answer. So the uh the driveway we're talking about would come up through that um park parkland and patio area. So right now the way it's accessed is right next to the wellhouse. Um and we originally tried to design it so we could cut through uh our drive aisle and get to their uh site. What we're finding is the way the street is designed um and going to be

drained, it drains opposite our site. So, we had to prop our site draining the other way, which creates a different grade. Um so, we've been exploring other opportunities uh to make sure those houses have access. I think there's a few ways we can all work together and get it done. Um, but as we're starting construction here in 3, four months, whatever it is, uh, we just want to make sure that we're not cutting people off. Um, and if we're giving land that they can access and you don't have immediate plans to build a park in the next 3 months, that it's accessed while we figure out a better solution. Well, and the the the park could be hardened services, too, and restricted access through the hard services. So, so with ballards or whatever is necessary to keep keep the public from using it. But but I think there's some opportunities there too. So definitely and and ideally as we look at main streets and compare them to other main streets if we can create drive aisles behind the main streets it's the perfect situation because I mean you look at I don't know tellide you don't want the trash truck coming on Main Street. You want the trash truck coming behind Main Street. Um and that's what we're doing in this plan but I think we can continue doing it as we expand on Clayton Court here. Then as far as pitch roofs go, how about have you looked at false fronts at all or that's the what we're considering right now. Yeah. Um and doing it to an extent that's not I don't want to say goddy. Uh because I think eventually when you get too much false front, it looks like an old western like a fake town a little bit. Yeah. But the false front can look really good. No, old westerns are kind of cool. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's something we're exploring and I think that's probably the solution going forward um is keeping the flat so there's no ice damming, but if you're looking at it from either side, you have a false front. It feels like it's pitched. Yeah. And then on on drainage, um I I asked if Paul might call me today. It was kind of last minute, but

I'll get with him. I I think we've really got to look at some other solutions to to site drainage and treatment of storm water cuz I just hate to see you guys spending all this money on these contact type solutions to treat rooftop collection basically. I mean, the stuff we're collecting for drinking water or for cleaning water up at the broom hut up off the rooftop, they're going to have to feed into into underground filter systems. And um and down in I think I mentioned this at another meeting, Sterling Ranch in Denver actually collects all this all this uh rain water and puts it into underground sistns and uses it to irrigate their parks. We don't have to go to that extent, but but you know, we did the storm water survey of the whole town. And our main problem is that our storm water is basically treated sight by sight. And down on Clayton Court here, we've got an ideal situation where we can we can deal with the storm water at a centralized location down towards the end of the court where it actually gets closer to the river. And so maybe if we looked at a fees in lie of type situation, um, uh, it would save the developers money. it would give us a pool of money to to do the wetland or whatever whatever solution we come up with for an engineered way to treat treat the storm water on a on more of a neighborhood type basis. So, and also I just really hope we can avoid these underground filtration systems because they're going to work fine for a while. They're going to get ignored. They're going to jam up with fine sediments and then everybody spent a lot of money for nothing and all the storm water's going to do what it wants to do and run off on the surface anyway. and and the rooftop collection too. I mean, some of that could be, you know, creatively used to to uh irrigate some of the landscaping that you guys are hopefully, I know, landscaping is kind of been left out of this a bit, but there'll be some of that. So, anyway, that's just some thoughts I had on that that could help both save the developers money, but also

help us approach storm water on a on a more reasoned basis. So we we would be extremely supportive of paying something or doing it off not offsite but aggregating three, four or five properties. Um it just makes so much more sense. Basically all this runs to the valley pan on on Clayton Court, right? Yep. Yeah. So all that Clayton Court's going to run down to the end and it's all going to join from everything else and and mainly we want to we want to treat the water that's coming off of Clayton Court rather than off the sites because the sites are basically fairly clean. it's the storm water coming off the street that we need to worry about. And so, um, and so this cleaner water coming from the sites would actually help mitigate that by diluting it and giving us a better opportunity that it's at least clean enough to to be taken care of in a wetland type situation. So, so just a thought on that, maybe Paul, you guys could work a little bit on that. So, Mhm. Um, you're proposing flat roofs right now, right? Yep. And is is there a problem with flat roofs? No. Is it just that the town prefers uh just conversations with folks? And I I agree. I think if we do all Clayton and it's all flat, it's going to be boring. Um, and I guess it's personal preference, but our goal is to have enough variety that it's exciting. Um, and you go down there and you actually are visually attracted to different buildings and you have different pitches, different materials. So, that's the thought. Um, and I think that's there's ways, especially as we're doing a bigger project where we can do something really visually interesting. Um, and it's created with depth and pitch, but there's a lot of options that are out. And what's your start timing? It was about two months kind of. Yeah. So it depends on uh what happens

kind of next and entitlements and economy, but we're looking probably about two three months. And what are you doing to locate the utility lines down there? Uh working with Paul Johnson right now. Um and they're actually were located. They were just on myars, a lot of them. So we're getting those scanned in so we can put them in CAD. Okay. Um, and then there's a moving target with Clayton Court Street going in and some of the utilities there. So, we're we have a meeting with about 20 people now, including Excel, Paul, the town, um, Mountain Parts, Comcast that we're working together. When does the last trailer disappear? That's a million-dollar question. We got uh ours on our site on phase two what he presented is scheduled for June 20th to go down. Okay. Um but we had to do another little asbestous report and luckily came back negative. So yeah. Yeah. Hallelujah. Yeah. We know a lot of people lived in that trailer. I parted in that trailer about 45 years ago. Hey, if you if you want it, you can drag it off. God, you stole our trailer. No, thank you. Mine is assessment includes subject lines. Silver lines. Uh, could you elaborate on that? Um, you were doing assessments as to where the utilities are. Yeah. Is that to also find sewer lines? Yes. So, we should have everything on that whole site located by hopefully next week. I don't want to put words in town's mouth, but next week. So, we'll know everything that's there. And there is going to be a traffic study on for where Clayton Avenue meets Highway 40. Yep. So, we we have all the traffic studies done. Um Okay. We just think C

DOT hasn't responded to our most recent one. Um but did we include that in the submitt? Yeah, there I there were a couple of different drafts and a more updated one and maybe they hadn't seen the most updated one, but I know you guys provided that to us. Cool. We'll we'll resubmit the most updated one that we're going to go forward with on the access permit um just so everyone can see, but it's a not a lot of cars use it today. Uh so it's going from very low number to a medium number. Um so it'll trigger likely some kind of access permit. Yeah, I guess peak season wouldn't really change too much. traffic flow on Clayton Avenue. Um, is there a sidewalk on Clayton Avenue going to be developed there? I don't think there is one now, but um, in the plan, uh, so in the master plan with the town that includes that sidewalk, right? And that would front everything we're doing. Great. Um, so that would be hopefully delivered before this um, and be right up against it. So you're walking on a eight and a half foot sidewalk. Awesome. Thank you. I think also to clarify for uh Commissioner McCoy, the sidewalk connection from Highway 40 to Clayton Court along Clayton Avenue would be required as part of the phase 2 site. Uh since phase one doesn't touch that Clayton Avenue frontage, that that sidewalk connection isn't required at this time. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Oh yeah, I see what you're saying. I was thinking Clayton Court, not Clayton Avenue, but yeah, getting something there to connect everything. Yeah, that is important. Okay, awesome. Thank you. I have a question for you on parking. Um, so you have five condo units. You have 10 parking inside garage. So that meets the requirement for two cars for threebedroom. Okay.

Um, what happens when they have visitors over? Do they use the parking on the parallel parking on the side street and would that take away from people that are there for the amenities, restaurants, whatever your commercial spaces? Yeah, it's great question. Something we've contemplated and because ideally you don't want guests taking away from retail parking and then someone can't find a place to park. Um, and candidly I don't think it's going to be an issue in year one, year two. In year five is definitely going to be an issue. Um, and that's something we want to work with the town on is, hey, do we create two-hour parking? Do we create some system that doesn't allow people to do that because the goal is, right, I mean, as we're looking at this from a let's create a downtown perspective, um, parking is the enemy of downtown. Um, which is unfortunate because Frasier is very car driven. Um, and I think it's going to get better. But the idea is, hey, if you can only park if you want to have some friends over or have family stay with you, you can park here for two hours or three hours or between a certain amount of time, you're restricted. Um, and it creates that, hey, maybe I should find a different mode of transportation. Um, and that's easier said than done, but that's what we're going for really as we build out Clayton Court is to provide enough parking that's still usable, that is still really viable, but not overp park it that we're building sees of parking lots. Um, and the other side of that is phase two, we're still working on design, but we're going to try and get some more guest spots. Um, and five units is tough because doing an old adage, you would probably do one guest spot, two guest bots for every five units. But as we do phase two and we're looking at another 12, 13, 14, that's when it says, okay, let's do six, seven, eight guest bots. And that's when it becomes really viable that if you have visitors staying, they use guest bots. You have to monitor it. But something

like that. Um, so holistically, our idea is to try and get less cars on the road, but to your point, it's not a perfect system at all. Okay. Uh, indulge me. Let's go one step further. The real nightmare scenario. U, these are market rate condominiums, right? Correct. Okay. And there's no restrictions on them being short-term rented, is there? As of now, there's not. No. So theoretically your nightmare scenario would be every weekend somebody in one or two of maybe all five I don't know but the nightmare scenario would be they become short-term rented and on weekends you have instead of two cars per unit you have six cars per unit. So, so I think you know I think this is a discussion we need to have as far as our parking regulations go and the town board and we've had no end of discussions on parking regulations and I think the consensus has been exactly what the applicant tells us is that we can't create enough parking you know and we don't want to because we want to drive people to ride the bus. We've got a train service now that is getting more robust. um we're gonna we're going to give away our town to the automobile rather than giving it away to prosperity and people that are finally choosing to arrive by alternative methods or the carpool. So I I don't know that this is a philosophical discussion that I think I think we need to have again. Yeah. And yeah, you can make the restriction or any work. Yeah. That they they can only have two cars. Yeah. And that's enforced through CASA or those guys. And so they know in advance it's only two hypothetical but we are always getting complaints about short-term rentals and you know tons of cars piling into a neighborhood.

I agree with Andy though that that a bigger discussion be thinking ahead enough to say all right so if there's going to be some HOA covenants associated with these five units is there any kind of language in going to be included in there that says you know if you're going to have multiple guests over they need to find another place to park besides yeah in our uh retail space parking or behind your garage door. Yeah. Well, those those documents have to be presented at final plaque with the town board, right? And and Bob, we're definitely open to that and I think you're exactly right to play devil's advocate there because every Airbnb is going to have they're going to try and sneak in four cars, five cars. Yeah. Um yeah, I think the HOA documents will be important. I think too, I mean, if someone, and this is not my Airbnb, I'm not running it. If someone tries to park on the street and park five cars and have that many people, I'm all for giving them a ticket. Well, I'm all for towing them if you have a twohour pumping. Exactly. Then where are we going to? We don't have to parking limit on those uh parallel parking spaces along Clayton Court. Tow them. Yeah. And and Bob, we already have a restriction parking on town streets at night. So, yeah. Yeah, we're behind. So, love the plan. I'm I'm not trying to be a negativist here, but I'm just bringing up some ideas and some thoughts I've had. No, I think that makes perfect sense. I think that's a consideration as we move forward to kind of work together to discourage parking, but also provide ample enough parking, maybe not ample that people won't abuse the rules and laws. So, this is delicate balance. Yeah. And eventually, I mean, we've talked about whether we need a parking garage in the downtown area anyway. Yeah. Right. We're going to have to wrestle that piece to the ground at some

point. And that could be the answer to a lot of these hypotheticals. Like to say that the extra guest can ride the train up. Yeah. And just walk two blocks, three blocks and be there. Take home, James. Yeah. somebody could have the problem. Um um I did want to ask um would it be I guess I would it be legal? I don't know what the right word is, but if someone parallel parked a third car in front of their garage door because it's a 20 foot wide, you know, drive in the back. So, you could fit a parallel parked car there. It's going to be I'd have to check. I think that's going to be prohibited in the HOA docks because of fire. Um, yeah. And so that's I'd have to double check with them, but my guess and the way we designed this is they have to be able to get there and you have to be able to get out. So I would say 90% yes, that's not going to be allowed. We we would definitely want that depicted if it's to be considered and that way the fire department has a chance to officially react to it. Yeah, I think my guess is that's not allowed. That makes sense. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Public comment. So, um, one question for the town. We Is there any progress in in tying 804 and behind any more discussion on a street tying Miss Clayton? That that'll actually be coming to the board at the next meeting. Uh we will be having discussions about a uh the town board authorizing myself and our town attorney to start having those conversations and pursue uh execution of an agreement um for right-of-way acquisition. Okay. And hopefully through what's called a purchase and use agreement that as long as a property

owner is open to selling the right the the rightway, it's just a discussion of price, right? um they can be afforded all the same um uh rights um through that process as they would have through a condemnation process if they didn't agree with the price point for example that town's willing to offer for the right of way right and dispute that they can still have all the same rights but that's that'll be coming at the next board meeting um and uh looking for uh if the board approves us to move forward with that if uh property owners are willing to to to sign off on purchase possession and use agreement. It can allow us to go ahead and obtain the ride of way to go ahead and um get working on uh construction for this road. And we're looking to have that applied as well to the u the right of way along the the Holiday in there. Okay. And then how about the other direction? How does Clayton Court tie tie to the north? Um we're still working with the HOA on that for for Sun River Drive. Okay. Okay. So, and any any calming measures that cons being pondered for this Clayton Court. So the long street is Clayton Court, right? And Clayton Avenue is the shorter street that comes in off US 40 right building. Yeah. So Clayton Court, I wonder if there's any discussion. I sent you some pictures from Europe and ways we can design that street to to get people to go really slow down through there. So yeah, I mean I would say maybe the main feature is right at the middle of Clayton Court. um kind of right where the proposed parkland dedication is for this site. Uh there will be a curb bumpout and crosswalk. So uh there won't be any parallel parking at that point. So the paved area narrows um and then that crosswalk across Clayton Court will be shorter. I don't recall if it's planned to be a raised crosswalk, so almost like a speed hump or speed table

at that crosswalk. Plowing is better. it's easier for plowing and right yeah I think I think we rolled out um raising that crosswalk because of snow plow concerns but at a minimum having that bump out and having that crosswalk there um to kind of direct pedestrians kind of to a midblock crossing will provide some traffic calming certainly and there are three pedestrian crossings in that street as well are they and uh I think that'll help with that and uh especially if we can install the same light crosswalk lighting beacons that we have on Highway 40 in downtown as well. That would be helpful. And it seems like, you know, anything you can do to visually confuse drivers again makes them slow down. So, yeah. So, okay. It's good to know we're thinking thinking long term how we keep what I mean hopefully there aren't any cars down there. Everybody's just walking around. But that's that. But it but if there are cars going through, then it's going to be a tough place to go through and it'll it'll invite other other other paths for them to go if they're just trying to get from one place to another at destination downtown. So, a large building, a public parking area. I don't know where to park the visitor center. Uh oh, Headarters Trails. Yes. Gotcha. Yeah, it's public. I think it's it's a publicly owned building. I I think the parking is attributable to the building itself. Um, but there can definitely be some areas there that we can have marked as public parking. Um, but you still want to maintain some reservation for parking spaces for the actual HTA folks as well, right? Um yeah, there's there's some work that needs to be done once we get further along with the infrastructure project as far as where public parking can be. And to Bob's point, you know, um centralizing that parking somewhere

along Clayton Court, especially on the outer edges, would be fantastic to be able to close it off for like a plaza feel on Clayton Court. And uh that's something that we're look we're digging into as well. And you plan long long term. I mean that was some discussions we've had in the past. I mean Breid's approach is to charge a lot to park downtown and and and then but then they have big parking garages outside of town that are paid for through seat tax on the on the lift tickets and free shuttle buses from those. And that does a couple things. It discourages tourists from parking downtown, but one of their big problems was employees park downtown to go to work. So this makes it so an employee will never park downtown. They'll always park in a parking garage and ride into work. So yeah. So I think, you know, long term those those are the kind of discussions we we've at least had because you want to it's like I think if the applicant said that parking is the enemy of of downtown and and and it is. We want a vibrant, walkable um space and and a lot of cars going through really detracts from that. So, has there been a particular area that a parking garage has been considered locationwise? Uh really just on the book ends of Clayton Court. Um but um you know, we've talked about how the JNL property is well situated on Frasier Avenue and Clayton Court. That could make sense. I kind of wonder. Yeah. engaging that property owner and and uh and we're working with them right now on right ofway acquisition and we'll be having conversations about are you interested in what you want to do with your property kind of thing. Right. Headarters Trails Alliance Visitors

Center that parking lot space if it was multi-level could be an option. We can look at that. Uh, we've we've been working with I think Merrick's been looking at some different options there as far as what could make sense for parking and having the right dimensions for on-ramp and off-ramp for two ways of traffic to be able to get to a vertical structure. Um, and it couldn't be in the back of that. That's the joy that, you know, the idea of putting these large structures outside of town and having people ride into town short distances, but that's that's why Breen Ridge chose to do that is because it kept their downtown intact because a parking garage takes up it's a big footprint. Okay. If you think about Winter Park, that's a fairly small parking garage, but that's a big footprint. So, yeah. Okay, let's Anyway, so yeah, those are philosophical discussions for the town board. Tough questions they get to have. So, any other any other comments, questions on that on this? So, so I'm sorry. Do you do you want to did you would you mind going to the podium and just other people can hear you? People that are listening in, speak up, introduce yourself. Uh, I'm Casey Beamer. Um, I obviously own one of the buildings just in front on the Clayton or on the uh Highway 40 uh highway side, the smallest building. Um, the one with the uh access issues that we've been discussing. Um, and I'm just curious that in the past we had a a bulk storage, snow storage spot, which was where the new building's going in uh on the north end behind, you know, like right in front of the new building. Do you know what I'm talking about? It's like the river and then there's a new building that's going up and that that was all snow storage and then it's Clayton like this. Does that make sense?

on the west side of public end of Clayton Avenue or Clayton Street Court, I guess. Yeah, that piece of property was donated to the Frasier Valley Arts. Oh, okay. So, there's no longer going to be snow storage there. Um, I think we have some some pretty informal agreements with them. Snow storage is one thing. We we our public works is very aware of the lack of and shrinking amounts of snow storage and having a longer term plan. We've got places to put it. it's just requires more hauling. So, it's really just kind of managing that operation. But, as far as that that lot, uh especially in the summer, but also in the winter time, we've tried to promote that for public parking until they're ready to break ground on that facility, uh just to provide again to help address some of these parking challenges that we have on that side of the highway. Gotcha. Um, but yeah, with with snow storage, it it becomes it becomes a little more of a challenge because it does require more man-h hours and more equipment, more dump trucks, uh, loaders, things like that to load the snow into the dump trucks and to haul them where we actually have good snow storage. Yeah. And I can attest that most of the people that are on that street, um, they're utilizing some of that, too, because, you know, there's not enough store no storage in between the buildings. So sometimes that gets dragged out as well and then just to be honest then the town pulls it down to that space. So it's already not enough snow storage, right? So I don't know if you're aware of that. So good to know. Yeah. And it's it's something that we just have to work to address because we can't our code has requirements for snow storage and requiring private properties to provide for additional snow storage for the public is not is not their role. Um but it's um I can just our our uh our polyors team they uh twice a year they have a snow management operations plan the SMOP and they review that they talk about it and they alter that plan based on changing snow storage needs and uh

and they do a good job but they're always looking at ways to improve it. So every development that comes online obviously will impact snow storage to some degree and it's just they continue to kind of alter these plans and their operations to best accommodate the snow storage needs. But I understand the challenges down there for sure. Yeah. And when it comes to drainage and that topic, I was also just going to throw in and I don't know if this is helpful or not with tiny piece of property, but if there's something we can support to help, you know, design a better drainage um system, um we would be all ears and helping people. So you have the little gray building that had the laundry facility in it. Post the original post office. Oh, really? That was Wow. Yeah. Before I moved here. What's that? That was before I moved here. But it's the building that's directly south of the physical therapy building. Yeah. Sess was in there. Yeah. Seth was in there. Yeah. Yeah. It was vacant, I think, for like 12 years or something. But so yeah. So, if we can be helpful in accommodating anything drainage wise on our property to help with the whole project. Thank you. You've been really helpful. You've been really cooperative with all this. So, thank you. Yeah. Yeah, that does bring up that curb cut up on US 40 that carries storm water down into all this too. I know that's a real challenge. So, remember there's that one place close to the crosswalk where the curb is cut and all that right by those old fence there. Yeah. Right. That brings a lot of water down into this area. It does. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments from the public? If not, could I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Thank you. So, any other comments from the board or any discussion from the board on

this? Call for a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the planning commission resolution 2025501 recommending approval of the Centrum condominium's final plat and major site plan. Then there were a list of of conditions, right? Yeah. The conditions are included. Yeah. Yep. In the resolution, right? Second. Any other discussion? Was point4 added? Condition condition number four here. I can pull up the updated one. Well, I'll tell you in the mirror and catching stuff like that. Somebody's paid you big bucks. Okay. So, here are the the updated conditions of approval one through seven. Now, then yeah. Number four here is the new one from the version that was posted on the packet. Me zoom in here. SFR annotation. Yeah. Okay. So, if you roll up, that's all in this resolution. Right. So, 202501. Nothing changed with any of these except inserting number four. Right. Okay. And call for a vote then. All in favor? I I thanks everybody. Thank you. Okay, Kevin. Good luck. One more step. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for your good work down there. Okay, so discussion of possible action draft code amendment affordable housing zoning incentives. So staff report.

All right. Uh thank you chair Miller and planning commission. So this item is uh continuing our discussions around various code amendments to chapter 19 related to affordable housing. Um so if you all recall back in March uh we had a workshop where we discussed these seven different priority items for town staff to examine. Today is we are looking at a proposed code amendment that covers priorities one and two. uh expanding slashmodifying our existing density bonus as well as introducing a new height bonus uh into our land development code. So I think the staff report that's in the packet lays this out fairly well. Um the proposed text amendment is consistent with what we talked about last month in April. uh we kind of discussed a broader framework for what this amendment would accomplish and the big picture thing is that it's adding a new section to our land development code titled affordable housing zoning incentives. So kind of the purpose behind this is to really be a one-stop shop in our land development code for understanding these various zoning incentives that would be available for developments that provide deed restricted affordable housing. So some of the advantages of creating this new section um it includes these summary tables so that these various criteria in and incentives can be more easily understood. Um it's much easier to modify and make changes to these incentives in uh in the future given that they're all in one place in our code. Um and then it also ensures that these incentives are applied consistently across the various zone districts where they are available. So um backing up a little bit, here's a map of

uh the zoning in the town. Um, if you all recall, um, currently we only have a density bonus incentive that is available in these two zones, the Victoria Village overlay and the Riverwalk district. So, one of the, you know, things primary objectives of this is to expand this incentive to other areas in Frraasier and namely the business and highdensity multif family residential zones. The logic behind this being that these two zones also allow 20 units per acre, the same density as Riverwalk and Victoria Village. So why shouldn't these zones also be able to have the same density bonus type incentive that's currently available elsewhere? Um, and frankly, it also just opens up properties that are still undeveloped and um could take advantage of these incentives and provide de-restricted housing. um alongside market rate units. So this table summarizes the proposed incentive criteria. So to just drill down into this line by line, um the uh incentive would be met when at least 20% of all residential units in the develop development are deedestricted uh as affordable housing. This 20% threshold matches our current density bonus in the Riverwalk and Victoria Village zones. Uh however, some of the changes that we are making include breaking out AMIs um between rental units and for sale units and also having a average AMI for these units and a maximum AMI that any single unit can be. So, I know we discussed this last month in April, but just to recap, the maximum rental AMIs of 140 and then the maximum

for sale AMI of 160%. These align with Dola's definition of affordable housing in a rural resort community. However, recognizing that those AMI levels are really quite high when you compare it to, you know, a a typical maybe Frasier Valley employee, um that's why we are also imposing this average AMI level. Um that's that's lower. And the average AMI uh level for rental units at 100% is lower than the current requirement in the Riverwalk zone of 120%. So, we're we're kind of tightening up that um incentive criteria a bit, saying that these deed restricted units have to be at least 100% um AMI or lower on average instead of 120%. I also want to note that the requirements that apply in the Victoria Village zone are exactly the same as they are now. um essentially given the average AMI of 80% um that that matches what's currently in our code right now. Um what's also being added are um requirements around the size and type of deed restricted units. So our code will specifically say that these deed restricted units shall be no more than 50% smaller than a corresponding market rate unit. So, just for example, if there's a market rate two-bedroom unit that's a thousand square feet, then a deed restricted two-bedroom unit could be uh no smaller than 850 square ft. The other requirement is that um the bedroom ratio is kind of the most concise way um staff could think of, you know, calling this, but essentially that that ratio must be similar between the deed restricted and market rate units. So, just for an example, a uh development that proposes

all two-bedroom units, um you know, for market rate units, uh any any deed restricted in that any deed restricted units in that development must also be two-bedroom units um or or three-bedroom units would be acceptable, but something like a studio unit um would would not be allowed. It would have to be, you know, at a similar ratio. So, I wonder wouldn't give them the um bonus. Correct. Yeah, I guess. Yeah. C certainly they could do whatever bedroom mix they want. Um but yeah, bonus, right? Well, but but I wonder though, I mean, you're trying if you're trying to create more smaller units that they're more affordable. Could you tile this to square footage? We could. So I staff is completely open to just having a square footage requirement or simply saying that um it may be I mean affordable units are typically you want more smaller units I would think and you hate to drive drive them to to a lot of two-bedroom units that are unaffordable because they're going to be more expensive and um I wonder if you tied the whole thing to square footage it make it pretty simple for everybody. 20% of the square footage of the residential development must be must be deeed restricted to to achieve the bonus. You've got Would that be harder to enforce and figure out? It it wouldn't. I mean, when you review a site plan, you have number of units and gross. Yeah. Gross square footage per unit. Um, I I think that would effectively achieve the same thing to just have the the criteria in that first row just be 20% of the gross floor area of the residential uses within the development must be deestricted residential units. You're going to have a different mix. I think when you you're going to I mean that that's that's that's been the issue we've dealt with all the way along is how do we get more small units that are really entry level affordable for

couples or singles, you know, as families are shrinking and everything else. And and it really is pretty simple. You got 100,000 foot building, you got to have 20,000 square feet of that residential building as as affordable units. So, what how would the square footage compare between a kind of a standard twobedroom unit to two studios? Depends on how the studios laid out. I mean, you think of Paisley studio where she has to has to put her bed up into the wall to to sit down to dinner, you know, and some studios are bigger. I mean, it's just it gets a better mix, I would think. So, but like I say, we don't want we don't want to leave it. Well, you're talking square footage again. Perfect. Yeah. I I think maybe staff's only concern with that approach is then we might only see smaller units. I I you know, it's hard to say. I guess it's it's ultimately up to um the developer and and what makes more sense. Does it make more sense for those deedestricted units to there for there to be more of them and for them to be on the studio to onebedroom side or does it make more sense to provide fewer deed restricted units that are one to three bedrooms? It's a market thing. I mean, I think the developer is going to have to decide what he's going to be able to market in the way of affordable units. So, and he he's they're going to have a better better sense if they're good. I mean, we get that lecture from Clark all the time and I think it's true. that they need to have a good sense of what the market is. So, well, I I think that's certainly something we could still incorporate if the planning commission would like to still pass this resolution today that could be added as um a directed change to this language. Yeah. Be nice to We put a lot of time into this. It'd be

nice to get this Yeah. set so that we can clean clean it all up and yeah, let it go. And I would imagine too, sorry, I'd imagine too that a developer if they decided they wanted to throw in a couple of studios for, you know, they could come to the board and say, can we do this instead and have us still qualify? Well, you still want to you want to make the regulation work without having a lot of special requests, too. Right. Now, this could be an either or, too. You could base it on square footage or base it on on what on the language you have here that be up to the applicant. So, and like say that would be an easy amendment later. Yeah. Yeah. I I kind of like the idea of square footage at least have the eitheror option, you know, in the regulation. I like the idea of square footage because um that takes away this uh deed restricted unit shell being no more than 15% smaller in gross floor area than corresponding market rate. So it it says like you said 20,000 square feet on 100,000 square feet and it's up to the developer to figure out whether those are three bedroomedroom twobedroom studios and how big the unit the units are going to be and how big the units are going to be. And it would seem to me that it gives them more flexibility and they probably would wind up having more units that would be deep restricted units. Yeah, that would be date restricted. Anyway, just sorry to come late to the party here. No, no, it's okay. I did though. Good. Good idea. Yeah, I I I Yeah, staff has no You know, that's what you get for going on vacation. Yeah, we we did miss you at that April meeting. So, quick quick question about this this methodology here. If it's 20%

of square footage to be deed restricted, I guess um if you're the developer, maybe you're more or less interested in providing more units for affordable housing. But if you're the developer and you're trying to keep your cost down, um you may be looking for a three-bedroom unit cheaper to build than three studios with three kitchens and three meth. Yeah. Um but can you market it though, Michael? That's that's what they're going to ask themselves, too. So, yeah. I mean, I think you got a pretty good You got one right here. I mean, I I' I'd ask about, you know, what they've seen for a wait list for these types of things. And I I think you've got it kind of the full gamut, but uh just thinking about two both sides of the coin there. If you're looking at 20% of square feet, you could be actually promoting larger units versus Yeah. um a number of units based on the number of units in development. Just want to throw that out there. Just that's where my thoughts go. But we leave it to the market, too. I don't know. So, yeah, there's always something. Yeah, because kitchens are expensive. Yeah, master bathrooms are expensive. They are very valid point. Yeah, you get to the either or. So, is is there a term on the on the deed restriction as far as how long it has to last? So, what staff is proposing is that these deed restrictions be in perpetuity. This is how um our our current density bonus has been applied in the one example that's been used with Kosagon Maine. Um again that had two deed restricted units in uh 315 Frasier and those uh covenants or deed restriction agreements they were in perpetuity. Right. Right. Well, good work. Uh so talking through what these incentives would be because they would uh not just be to residential density.

Um so what's being proposed in this amendment is that if you meet the criteria as we previously discussed then you then receive these incentives. So um there would be no maximum residential density. However, the development must conform to all other zoning and site design standards. Um, currently what's in our code is a 40 unit per acre density. So, kind of just a doubling of the maximum allowed from 20 to 40. Uh, what staff has proposed is, you know, that's kind of a arbitrary cap. Why not just allow as many units as could fit within the site subject to all these other zoning standards? Um but with that said, in order to help facilitate this additional density, um these additional um incentives are proposed and a lot of these kind of align with um what what could be granted through an administrative variance. So for example, minimum setbacks can be reduced by up to 10%, maximum height could be increased by up to 10% and required parking spaces could be reduced by up to 10%. So um quick note on parking, this would be additive with some of the other parking reductions that are currently in our code. For example, a 10% reduction for proximity to transit. those could be added together for a 20% parking reduction. Um, and then for open space, staff is proposing a 20% reduction. So, currently in all four of these zone districts, a multif family residential site needs to have a minimum of 35% open space. This incentive would allow that to go as low as 15%.

So, just go ahead. Go back one slide. Yeah. Um, didn't we recently talk about whether or not we were going to have a maximum height uh be an increase of no greater than 10% versus 10 feet? Remember we talked about that somewhere in there. I saw 10 feet but not on this slide. Yes. So, this just speaks to what's what's being called the affordable housing zoning incentives, which these trigger when you hit that 20% ratio. Okay, so just jumping ahead real quick, the height bonus is also part of this code amendment. Um, it's the exact same criteria as the first table we looked at with the only difference being uh a 30% ratio of deed restricted units or deed restricted square footage. Um, and this would allow a 10 ft increase in height. Um, and since we're on this topic, this staff is proposing that this only apply in the highdensity multif family business and riverwalk zones. um it would not apply to the Victoria Village/ St. Louis landing zone at least as currently proposed given that the maximum height in this zone is already 55 ft by right. So this height bonus in a way is simply allowing other properties in other zones within the town to potentially achieve buildings as tall as 55 ft subject to a 30% ratio of deed restricted units. Right. So if somebody wants the that extra 10 feet, we can say, well, sure, but you got to have 30% of your units. Top story is all affordable. Yeah, sure. Bottom story probably. Yeah, probably be the ground floor. But and then the last thing to note, yeah, the last thing to note with the height

bonus, um I know in previous discussions with this, the planning commission has expressed desires around uh potential building stepbacks for that additional, you know, building height. um or additional you know architectural features. staff has just proposed this sentence here in uh that's italicized in the bottom kind of more just a catchall that um you know the final reviewing body whether that's um town staff the planning commission uh or the board of trustees and you know most likely the board of trustees uh but per recommendations from staff and planning commission um could require some additional you know design features above and beyond what's already in our code. So whether that's, you know, mandating some sort of step back or um a pitched roof or or you know, what have you, this just kind of gives broad flexibility for for those types of things. Good. I like it. Um backing up, I did want to touch on how these incentives relate to some other um incentives specific to the Riverwalk zone. So, as a reminder, per the Riverwalk zone um standards, all properties with frontage on Highway 40 or Clayton Court are required to have ground floor commercial retail uses. So, all the properties and parcels uh kind of shown in red in that image um have this requirement. Um, this proposed code amendment does not change the current density bonus that's available for developments that provide ground flooror retail uses. Um, so you can still provide, you know, ground floor retail and achieve 40 units per acre. However, this code amendment does

not uh currently provide these other incentives related to height setbacks, open space and parking um to this this uh ground floor retail density bonus. Um staff is not opposed to also providing these incentives um if the planning commission is agreeable to this. I think it's just not necessarily part of the scope of the affordable housing discussion. Um, but I I mean it certainly could be argued that, you know, a 10% height increase and a 10% parking reduction for these mixeduse sites that hit this 40 unit per acre density bonus could help facilitate additional market rate residential units. Um, one thing I also wanted to note is that for mixeduse sites in the Riverwalk zone, the required open space already is only 5%. So, that's already pretty low. Um, certainly lower than the 15% incentive related to this affordable housing um, kind of incentive bonus. So, um, again, just kind of I think the interplay of of this density bonus for ground floor retail compared to the, um, broader incentive for affordable housing. Um, I I don't know, there just maybe are some inconsistencies between the two. If the planning commission has any thoughts on them, open to hear them. I'd like to just stick with tying them to affordable housing units because that's what we need. Sure. And it makes it easier for us to say. Yep. Perfect. Uh lastly, the code amendment as uh proposed has a few other miscellaneous uh changes

uh within these same sections that are already being modified. Um, but these aren't necessarily related to the affordable housing incentives, so they're just summarized here. First one is correcting a typo. Um, second one is renaming the Victoria Village overlay to the St. Louis landing overlay. Um and then the last one uh was kind of a maybe uh inadvertent you know requirement in our code frankly that the sideyard setback in our highdensity multif family zone is currently 7 feet. Um staff propos proposes just lowering that to 5t. Uh the table below sum summarizes those sideyard setbacks for residential uses and all our various zones. And you can see low density single family, low density multif family have a 7 ft sideyard. When you go up to medium density that gets reduced, but then for some reason with our highest density multif family, it goes back up. Um, and that doesn't make a lot of sense, frankly. So staff just proposes lowering that down to five to be more consistent with our higher density zones. Was that where the typo was? Because I think it said 75. So maybe there was something to do. Maybe it was five. So you you might be thinking of the way the code amendment is written. It has like uh striketh through for existing text. Yeah. So I I can pull up the word document afterwards, but um you don't need to. I just it was just a thought that Yeah. It should just be a strike through for the seven and then an addition of the five. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um so again staff recommends that planning commission uh approve PC resolution 2025 0502. This would recommend approval of the broader code amendment uh to the board of trustees. That code amendment

would be approved uh during a public hearing and via an ordinance. Um, alternatively, the planning commission, uh, again, if you want to have more time to make some of the changes that we discussed, we can revisit the matter in June. Um, but but certainly, you know, we could still advance this up to the board and staff can make some of the changes that we uh discussed, namely the the square footage ratio. Um, so this uh concludes my presentation. any discussion from the board or I think if you add the either or for or the in the language then it would be it would be up to the developer to make that cho choice and wouldn't require any extra um leg work for the the town staff or planning commission or board of trustees. on square footage. You need square footage verse uh how many bedrooms? I think Michael's point is well taken too though that because kitchens and bathrooms are so expensive to make that might drive but I I kind of think I don't know think the market would would drive things too but that's a tough something for the town board to talk about. Yeah. Thank you. Any uh discussion from the public at all or Okay. Um, so we're ready for a motion. I'll move to approve planning commission resolution 202502 recommending approval of code amendment to allow affordable housing zoning incentives. All seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor? I. I. Any opposed?

Kudos to staff because I know you guys worked really hard on this and Sarah spent a bunch of time on it and getting these rags cleaned up and putting everything in the same place. It's um it's a great improvement. Yeah. So, thank you. Saves staff time, saves at the board level and project drain brain for people that log in to try to figure out what where to find stuff and what's what. A little bit a little bit. I also want to say besides kudos to the staff and and working through this over the last two to three months and we've been talking about this. I think it's we should all pat ourselves on the back a little bit. Kudos to us because we're doing something proactively. Yeah. You know, as opposed to just approving, you know, development plans as they come to us. We're actually making changes for the better and we're not having to wait for the updated plan for the town to do so. Yeah. We're taking issues as they come to us and we're seeing repetitive issues and we're saying let's fix that and we're doing it. Yeah. It's good to great for us. Good planning. Yeah. And thank you all. It's a collaborative effort and I appreciate you all uh working with staff to implement these changes. Speaking of being proactive, I would like just to throw something out there. Um, uh, as we've shared before, um, our mayor, Brian Sfenic, was able to attend, uh, where Governor Paul signed, uh, the deal for Mountain Rail. That'll be coming next year, next July, next November. Next November. Apologies. Um and um just encourage you to to walk around that area near the Amtrak station and along Eisenhower and think about that area a little bit. Yeah. And uh it's just great to walk those streets. Andy, I know you're there all the time, but every time I walk around this these

areas, I just I see something new and think about something different. Um Brian and I also had the opportunity to kind of walk through the Amtrak station with Ron and kind of looking at some things and trying to think about the future here and um especially with the increased utilization of rail which I guess was much higher back in the 80s than it is now. So, it sounds like that may be coming back. Um, and uh looking at how to best accommodate that area that is, I think, in a great alignment with Ced's plans with the mountain rail and busting and Amtrak and uh there's some opportunities there um for some good redevelopment. So, just things I encourage is walking around town and getting some ideas and and getting some eyes on things. So, I just want to encourage that. I agree with you, Michael. And I I've said for a while if we're going to have an increased ridership in rail and do this, we need a much nicer presentable rail station for people to come off the trains. And I actually, you know, I would like to see the rail station move to the other side of the street in connection with the platform and have everybody inside and you can walk directly outside to the train platform and board your train without crossing the street. Without crossing the street. Got to talk to Amtrak about that. Or uh Union Pacific. They they own all that land. It's going to be really tough and they don't want to own stations. Tell them about like a bridge a bridge of sorts, Bob. Yeah. Yeah. Tell you a quote. I I used to I went to Colorado rail meetings for a long time. It's a passenger rail advocacy group. They're mainly advocating for front range rail and they're all kind of kind of a little bit up in arms that we're getting mountain rail first, but of course there's a lot less infrastructure rail than there is to front range rail. But anyway, Gary Defran used to go to those meetings all the time down in Denver. Gary and I would talk and we talked about trying, you know, Gary helped really get the the ski train going

again, which was the first step. And then I talked at the meetings about getting this train activated all the way to steamboat. People would just scoff and Gary Gary said one time probably Andy not in our lifetime. So I'm still alive. I hope Gary is too. I don't know what he is. Yeah. So, congrats to everybody. It just this is this is an amazing thing. So, I this two months in Europe, you guys. I I was two months without a car. And you miss one train and you wait an hour and there's another. These are all over. I skied across from one mountain valley to another and took the train back around to where I started again. It was a two-hour train ride just to get to back where I started again. I mean, it's just it's incredible. You just move move pretty seamlessly across the landscape. The only challenge is with a ski bag and a huge backpack getting off the train and with about three minutes, you know, actually enlisted these these three young men one time said, "Would you guys throw me off the train at the next stop, my ski bag, my backpack?" But no, it was it's just incredible. I mean, they've got population density that makes it possible, but we're we're starting to get to that point, as you said, Katie, as sea levels rise and more and more people come, we're this is this is what we got to do. They'll be coming. Yeah. Just a couple other quick comments. Um, the town did close on 208 East Eisenhower uh Drive, the cabin next to our existing cabin property, which is right next to the EMS station. U, we did close on that a couple Fridays ago. Uh, so just think about, you know, what redevelopment could look like there. I think it's always good to again just kind of look at the vision and what are the opportunities and what can make sense. And something else, especially with the approval of the mountain rail, is we don't currently have any requirements for um the frontage on Eisenhower to be storefront commercial like we do on Highway 40 in Clayton Court. Something to think about uh because I think uh there's some good

opportunity there with all the traffic there. Um if you wanted to consider uh frontage commercial, I think that could be a good discussion, I think, for another agenda. It's a really good idea because that's that's why we're seeing the redevelopment of the Riverwalk district because you had that talk with us a long time ago, Michael, that if we want this to happen, we've got to kind of force the issue and and I think we for not forced it in an unpleasant way. We've got developers that have come forward and taken an opportunity here. So, so I think Eisen I've always thought Eisenhower is just really lowhanging fruit. It's such a great little commercial district. So, So, okay. So, that kind of brings us to the addition that you wanted to talk about the draft. I'm sorry, the comprehensive plan March openhouse recap. Yeah, thank you, Andy. And I'll just um I I can go through this presentation pretty quickly. I mean, it was in the packet for um our meeting in April, but we unfortunately couldn't have Cushing Terrell um join the meeting because the internet was down. Um anyway, so I'll just kind of go through these pretty quick. Uh but if there's any questions about the conference plan at all, feel free to interrupt me. Um this just shows kind of where we were at in the schedule. Um as of a month ago, no, you're good. Thanks for coming. Um, so kind of things that were accomplished in kind of phase two of the project, we held stakeholder interviews with all sorts of uh individuals and groups in the broader uh Frasier Valley Grand County community. Had some updates to the planning commission, town board, DDA board. Um, early in the year, we held our open house on March 6th. Um, and uh, this update was supposed to happen a month ago, but we're doing it now. Um, looking ahead, um, uh, Cushing Terrell

staff will present at the board retreat in June. Um, and we already have our second open house scheduled for, uh, late July. Um, but more information will be coming about out about that in the near future. Um, but recapping openhouse one, we had 10 different information boards on four stations. Um the boards were also shared online on the town's website. We did a what I feel like to be a pretty good outreach campaign. I think uh hit the mark better than um for our first outreach event last summer um in having you know a press release and an advertisement in Sky um had it on um social media um uh the town newsletter and I did a brief interview with KFFR on the radio. So in terms of attendance, here's some images of uh folks there at the meeting. and it was at the rec center in the gym. Uh estimate roughly 60 people were there. So felt like inerson turnout was pretty good. These were the boards uh that were presented. Uh these focus on just kind of some general information about the comprehensive plan and Frasier on the left. Center board uh summarized some of the results from the survey that we did late last summer. And then the board on the right summarized what we heard from our focus group meetings uh that last fall. Um I know the planning commission is familiar with these but uh these were our boards related to the future land use map both within town and within the three mile area. Um I again I won't spend time on this but we got some good feedback on various items related to the future land use. just ensuring affordable housing is top of mind.

Um providing a range of housing options and um depicting areas, you know, try trying to be as realistic as possible uh with various uses. We had a couple boards related to transportation, specifically transit on the left and then parking and cycling on the right. So, we had a couple questions for folks. um what kind of bike improvements uh are most needed? Kind of all the above, but the ones that stood out were roadway crossings and on street facilities. And we also asked folks kind of what areas uh they would like to see included in a potential microtransit service, kind of a pickup drop off concept. It's something that Granbby is currently uh implementing. Uh it's something that Winter Park, I believe, is looking to implement potentially in the future. Um so trying to get ahead and thinking about that type of service in the Frasier area. Lastly were our downtown vision um boards um for kind of the Clayton Court Riverwalk area. Uh a lot of good feedback on this as well. Um, again, we'll read it off. And just a lot of these continuing themes around natural resources, growth, affordable housing, safety, and mobility, and ensuring we create the vibrant downtown that everyone in the community wants to see. Uh, so again, I kind of talked about these next steps, but um we'll have uh an update during the town board retreat in June. We'll have uh an additional update to the DDA board um June or potentially July. Um and then our second open open house is planned for the end of uh July. So that's currently planned to be um both a engagement event um during a summer picnic in the park concert and then a

open house at the rec center the following day um for a more formal presentation. You don't know if they have that. I'm sure they will that if they've got the sign made up, they could have it a picnic in the park for the previous two or three concerts just where they hang. Yep. Good idea. Yep. Yeah. Certainly. Um, you know, town staff will be available at picnic in the park uh throughout the summer to take questions or, you know, take down feedback. But we're just identifying one date for uh Christian Terrell staff to be up here as well. Yeah, that's great. That's a really nice way to do it. have a chance to come over and visit. Yeah. Talk about it. Okay. Questions on that. So, identify a date for our June meeting. Do you have a Yeah. So, essentially it just boils down to either June 23rd or June 30th. Um they're both Mondays. Um um so far I hadn't heard any objections from anyone on the planning commission to either of those dates, but in terms of town staff, um Michael would be unavailable on the 23rd. Antinet would be unavailable on the 30th, but I think either way staff could make either of those dates work. Um, right now we're not anticipating any land use applications coming forward, but just want to keep up the momentum of some of our uh, chapter 19 code amendment type items and discussions around that. So two the two dates again were June what? 23rd or the 30th. So I will not be in the country on either of those dates. Sorry. Okay. I won't be available on the 30th. Okay. 23rd then. I can do either. Either one. For me, 23rd will work for me. Yeah, me

too. Okay, then we'll plan on the 23rd and you will be missed, Margaret. Thank you. Have a wonderful adventure. Yes, I I am going to Africa. That's an adventure. It is an adventure. Which part? Well, I'm doing a photography workshop in Namibia. Nice. So, yeah, I'll bring some work. You're going to be working. Yes. Well, I am writing it off. It is work. That's good. Good. I'll bring back some photos. Wonderful. So, any future agenda items or any other business from the board? No. Okay. Call for an adjournment. I move to second. All in favor? I. Thanks. I safe travels, Margaret. Thank you. Bye every.