Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I would like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6.30 on the 24th of June. And I'd like to have a roll call, please.

Margaret Bowles. Katie Soles.

Andy Miller.

Peggy Smith.

Bob Ganussi. Ben Staff. Roll call.

Alan Sealiff, Assistant Town Planner.

Jack Zord, Town Planner. Michael Brax, Fraser Town Manager.

Antoinette McVeigh, Town Clerk.

Paul Johnson, Public Works Director.

Cooper Gailey, Assistant Town Attorney.

All right. Thank you. First on the agenda here, may I have a motion to approve the agenda for the evening.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that we ever so slightly adjust the agenda so that item 6A is inserted before, if I need to be louder. Item 6A is inserted to occur after item 4A before the public hearing.

Okay. Do we have any discussion on that issue or is that suitable with everyone?

So I'm sorry, you're going to put that on the consent agenda, Jack?

No, it's going to occur after the consent agenda before the public hearing.

Okay. After the consent agenda. Right.

It'll go ahead of our first public hearing and action, possible action agenda item. Okay. Any other discussion on that? All right. May I have a motion? to approve the agenda with the correction that Jack has suggested.

So moved. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Throughout the evening, we're going to have issues that come before us, and there'll be opportunities for public comment. I'd just like to say that when we are in the mode of having public comment, I'd like for everyone that wants to speak to let us know by raising your hand, or if you're online, do we have people online tonight, Antoinette? Okay. Please let Antoinette know by raising your hand online. Uh, and you'll come to the podium to speak. Anyone that does come to the podium, you need to state your name. And if you live in the town of Frasier and you'll have three minutes to speak about your items that are on the agenda or not on the agenda, because the first thing we're going to have after the consent agenda is an opportunity for anyone to say anything they'd like. That's not on the agenda. Okay. Um, Consent agenda. May I have an approval of the consent agenda, which includes the minutes of the May 27th, 2026 meeting?

I move to approve the consent agenda.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.

Mr.

Chair, I don't think you've got a second for that motion.

I'll second that.

Oh, sorry. Okay.

We have a motion to accept the consent agenda and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay.

Mr. Chair, do you want to do public comment for items not on the agenda next?

Jack, is your mic on? Yeah. Thank you, sir.

Would you like to do, so you did the consent agenda, you passed over public comment for items not on the agenda. Would you like to do that now?

Yes. All right. So if anyone would like to make any public comment for items that will not be discussed on our official agenda tonight, you may do so at this time by either coming forward or letting Antoinette know by raising your hand. Hearing no persons wishing to make public comment, we'll move on to open the public hearing and possible actions.

So we just adjusted that agenda, right? So we're going to move to discussion item A, which is a discussion of vested rights and FPDP expiration from the assistant town attorney.

sorry katie did you make sense so we can get you out of here save us some money oh yeah maybe i don't know about that all right the adjusted agenda is calling for us to take up version or discussion item 6a and cooper go ahead

Thank you. And I'd like to preface this just by stating that, you know, in light of Jack's recent arrival, We've had a couple questions come up just as he's been getting a new set of eyes on the town code application of certain things. And the last planning commission meeting that I had attended, one of these things was raised in light of the large amount of FPDP applications that have been coming through. And so I think it's appropriate to address that now, address the town's policy and the application of the town code to these things, just so that it's clear for the planning commission, for the public, how these things work. The big question relates to a provision in the town code discussing duration of approvals. So FPDPs specifically are noted to have a no expiration under that section of approval. Separately, there is a section on vested rights that lists three years for duration of approval. So I believe one of you two gentlemen at the last planning commission was, you know, concerned or musing about what the future of approving an FPDP holds. In that question, we look at vested rights. A vested right is something that guarantees certain property rights to the developer for a set amount of time. Here under our code, if there are vested rights that are granted in an application, that baseline period is for three years. Now an FPDP on its own does not automatically gain vested rights. You know, this has to be a specific application per the provisions of the town code. So when you have those concerns, if you're thinking, well, what does this FPDP mean for 10 years down the road type of thing? You need to know that if there are vested rights accompanying the application, that will be expressly made known to you. So that is when you have those considerations to make. Okay, how long is this going to be in place? What does this mean for the future? So on and so forth. Now, a majority of the applications that Frasier has seen over the past two decades or so generally fall within a specific special circumstance that's governed by the annexation agreement. This is an agreement that the town entered into back in 2003, which creates its own vested rights over primarily the Rendezvous and Grand Park areas within Frayser. Now in the annexation agreement, there's a 25 year period of vested rights. This is separate from vested rights that would be granted to developer B, who is not part of that agreement, that they would just be looking to gain vested rights under the terms of the town code. The 25-year annexation agreement period vested rights does cover the area that is Grand Park currently, but those are separate rights from the applications and the materials that have been coming through. The FPDPs, for example, on the agenda for tonight, Both of those are governed by the umbrella of annexation agreement vested rights, but the applications in and of themselves do not create individual vested rights because they are not included with an application for vested rights. Now, in the event there is an application that is generally subject to that 25-year period of the annexation agreement, but the developer or the applicant also wishes to create individual vested rights in the specific application material, that will be a separately running three-year period from approval. say one of the items, if one of the items tonight were to be granting vested rights, which as I've stated, neither of the applications on the agenda tonight have been accompanied by a request for vested rights. If in the event that there is a request for that, that three years would go from today on that specific FPDP, and then it would essentially bypass the 25 year period of the annexation agreement, because that would end in 2028, whereas three years from today's date would be 2029. So in light of the concerns and some of the comments that have been made, it's just important that we're clear that the provisions of the town code do not automatically guarantee that an FPDP will gain its own vested rights. So if that is something of concern when you are looking at these applications, know that when that needs to be considered, it will be made known to you by town staff. That is a specific application which receives vested rights. It is not every FPDP that comes before the commission.

So if you're like me and have more questions now than when we started, I think we can summarize that to say a vested rights application is its own land use application, just like an FPDP is its own land use application. One does not necessarily have to connect to the other. They can be done simultaneously, but they are separate items. The two FPDPs that you have before you tonight, neither of which include applications for vested rights. Therefore, that is not an item for your consideration this evening. At some future point in time, you may see an application for vested rights, at which point we will discuss that application. But this evening's FPDPs do not have vested rights as a part of their application. And therefore, that is not something subject to your determination this evening.

So I have a question. Can you not get vested rights other ways, like turning dirt?

So there are common law vested rights. Obviously, that's something that a court looks at to determine. As far as vested rights that we're primarily focused on, it's with the town codes provisions on how those are gained.

So we're going to get in the woods if you explain Margaret's question.

No, I mean, it's just from my experience, the vested rights, I've never heard of an application for vested rights. You know, my experience is the developer takes certain actions. They gain vested rights by the action that they take. So that's why I'm just trying to clarify. It's the first I've heard of actually an application for vested rights because usually people gain vested rights by taking some kind of action and reliance on an approval from the local government. So that's why I was just trying to clarify. It would not preclude a common law of vested rights just because you didn't file an application for determination of vested rights.

Correct. Yes. So there are vested rights that a code can grant, and then there are the rights which you have addressed. Those are common law vested rights. You know, those predate many codes that have been created. So a lot of the code provisions in any municipality or form of government are to clarify exactly when exactly how you get those vested rights whereas common law vested rights those are the type of things you bring before court because there's potentially a question there that needs to be decided by a third party

So our code actually says that here's the procedure for vested rights. It doesn't say anything like, well, if you apply for a permit and you get a permit that vested rights, it's, you have to file an application.

Correct.

For vested rights.

Correct. It details exactly how vested rights are granted. Interesting.

Okay. Good.

Okay. Any other questions for Cooper?

jack you have anything you want to add no i mean i'm not a lawyer so we're going with what the lawyer said yeah so this was just for information's sake sure it was just perfect taking any action on it or anything like that so yeah okay you know again as cooper kind of alluded to when he started It's in follow-up to questions that we heard at last month's meeting. Right. So we did some research, and that is the conclusion that the town has come to relative to those questions that were asked last month.

All right. Thanks, Cooper. Appreciate that. All right. Now we'll move to agenda item five, which is a public hearing and possible action. We have two public hearing issues tonight. We're going to applications we're going to take up. The first is the Fraser Public Works Facility Final Plan Development Plan. And so first, may I have a motion that we open the public hearing?

So move.

Second.

Aye.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. So the public hearing is open. The first thing we'll have is a presentation by our assistant town manager, Alan.

Planner.

Planner. Sorry. That's okay. See, I gave you a promotion before you go.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Alan Sealiff, Assistant Town Planner, tonight presenting on the Fraser Public Works Operations Facility and FPDP application. This application is being brought forward by D2C Architects, who's contracted with the town on behalf of the town of designing the site and planning the site for the future public works facility. So it's currently owned by the town of Fraser. It's located at 510 County Road 72, also known as Tubing Hill Road, which is south of what should be County Road 521, I believe. and then the Fraser Cemetery west of the Union Pacific Railroad. So the proposed use, it's a four-acre site proposed as a general operations campus, multiple buildings for administrative office, vehicle maintenance, storage, greenhouse, salt barn, fueling station, and material storage are the chief uses. It's zoned PD. It's within the Grand Park development. And again, the request is for a final planned development plan or at PDP. A little bit of the timeline here, the history is just going back to 2017. In this case, this is when the planning area 6W plat exemption was approved by the Board of Trustees, and it facilitated the transfer of ownership from the developer Grand Park to the town of Frayser, which satisfied in itself, satisfied the requirement of the annexation agreement. In 2021, the town issued or pursued a study to assess site selection. So it wasn't necessarily a foregone conclusion that future public works facility would be in this location. A couple other sites were analyzed and considered, but ultimately the town didn't move forward with the site. In November, 2024, the town issued an RFP and a request for proposals. For architecture and engineering design of the site, um. Ultimately awarded to D2C architects. Um, the actual land use application. Was 1st provided to town planning staff in January, 2026. so the way that we're. Processing this land use cases as an. it's still being reviewed by the planning department um and referral external referral agencies is going through the standard referral process as other pdps um would undergo and so we've had initial submittal a second submittal in march 2026 and then i'm bringing forward to the planning commission tonight The general application process, so planned development district plan, PDDP, includes or outlines the development plan in broad terms for Grand Park. This site is within Grand Park and requires every site within every planning area within Grand Park requires a final development plan subject to town requirements in the code um cited here as other previous um fpdps do so this requires a public hearing with the planning commission public notice and then uh tonight would be a recommendation for the board of trustees for a final decision And then just a note that no, a subdivision plat is not being processed in conjunction with this because we already have the previously approved subdivision plat exemption in place. So it waived the subdivision, the formal subdivision plat requirement, but it's essentially a stand incentive single lot site. Public notice. So you may recall this item was originally scheduled last month, we had to bump the public hearing by a month in order to fully adhere to the public noticing requirements. So it's been republished in the newspaper. That was conducted last time. Mail notices to adjacent property owners were sent, this time including the railroad. That was the issue last time. The railroad right-of-way was not flagged by the By the address grab essentially. Um, so we've now, uh, confirmed through the Union Pacific. A frail road website, um, the correct submittal procedure on their end, including uploading the public notice document and emailing to a specific contact. So. And mailing the certified mail, so we've probably got above and beyond the. the letter of the requirement there just to make sure that they received notice and we haven't received any comment or indication either way from the railroad. And then those affidavit, the mailing receipts are provided in the packet. A few kind of context maps here, so a little hard to see, I'm sure, but outlined in yellow, kind of in the middle of the screen, is this site in the broader context of the Fraser boundaries. It's generally west of the Union Pacific Railroad, south and west of Highway 40, and south of County Road 521 and the Fraser Cemetery. Zooming in here to the satellite view, so the cemetery is immediately adjacent on the north, the Colorado Adventure Park properties on the west there. That's an unincorporated Grand County as it's the cemetery. And then to the east is existing development in Grant Park and the railroad end of the south is future development in Grant Park, West Mountain. And most immediately is Elk Creek there on the south. This map is from the Grand Park PD, PDDP is the full acronym, 6W. It specifically includes a little asterisk sign there and a note that it's the proposed maintenance facility. So the site was always contemplated to be a maintenance facility, a public works facility. Like I said, it was covered in the annexation agreement and then denoted as much on the various land use maps associated with the PD plan. Um, the includes development standards more broadly, uh, specifies the allowed land use open space height. Setback requirements, et cetera includes a character description, every planning area and the includes character description. That's 1 generally. Just refers to the location, um, the purpose of it. and some considerations to be taken into including buffering the cemetery and consideration of the project entrance from the county road and then just confirming the future land use map you know as we previously discussed the adoption of the comprehensive plan reflects the uh allowed land uses in the in the grand park pd so it's reflected here as public slash institutional Here is the site plan. You can examine these in more detail as well in some of the attachments included in the packet. But the site plan, and this is rotated, just to orient yourself, this is rotated with north on the left in this case. So the cemetery is on the left side of the screen. The railroad is to the east on the top. And then County Road 72 on the bottom to the west. The primary building, the main building is the administrative offices and the maintenance building. That's the large L-shaped building, front and county road 72. And then the site includes a number of accessory buildings for heated and cold storage, material storage, a greenhouse, a salt barn, fuel island. So all uses kind of necessitated by the by Public Works operations and their duties to maintain the town's roads, open spaces, et cetera. A few other notes about the site plan. There's two site entrances or access entrances on the north end and the south end for vehicular access, and then generally a loop through the interior of the site. parking is included in various locations for both fleet and staff parking Like I said, there's a couple of different paving materials you'll note in the legend, but the majority of the interior site is concrete for heavier traffic uses and then asphalt on some of the lesser traveled areas of the site. There's aggregate ground cover and kind of the material storage areas and then drainage and detention up on the upper right, which is the southeast corner of the site. These two tables outline the specific programming of the different buildings, the uses, the sizes, and then the proposed height. So the main building is the largest. It includes two level or two stories for office uses and then large vehicle maintenance space. So it's the taller 37 feet height. And then outlining some of the other buildings and uses on the site to follow there. And then parking just a note on parking. Um. There wasn't a direct kind of parking requirement for this. Unique land use will say it's not just a general. Single use site as an office or as a warehouse. So there's provisions in the parking code that allow. Outside analysis or additional analysis and allow staff determination. So. Uh, the applicant produced a parking analysis letter, outlining the uses, including additional detail, like. Staffing at, um, maximum shifts, future staffing number of fleet vehicles, et cetera. To arrive at a requirement of, um, 42 parking spaces. the majority of these for the fleet vehicles are provided interior spaces that's the one of the big components of this site is indoor storage of town fleet vehicles and then exterior staff parking and visitor parking The next few slides are just the building elevations. I won't go into too much detail here, but the main building here is shown. As you can see, it's a pretty wide building. The highest part of it, the 37-foot height, is that office component, so on a relatively limited uh maybe one third of the building profile and then the balance of the building being fleet maintenance and storage um the top elevation is interior to the site so that's where all the access bays are the bottom is the elevation facing county road 72 so this is the west elevation then these are the two side elevations on the the north and the south um north being on the bottom and south being on the top PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Two main building materials are metal panel, I believe. And then there's PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Areas of masonry on the ground level, then of course windows. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Throughout based on interior needs. And then here's just a few sample elevations of the other buildings. So on the top is the heated storage in the greenhouse, cold storage on the bottom left. So this is an open air and a three-sided storage building. And then the salt barn and the fuel island on the bottom right. Landscape plan was also provided. generally just details what the ground cover and plantings are going to be for all areas that aren't paved or structures. Because this isn't a traditional commercial site, a business site, there are minimum requirements, but there are minimum requirements for open space. So it's meeting the minimum open space. And then there's specific requirements for parking area landscaping. You'll notice that most of the plantings are adjacent to the parking stalls. and then um one of the new things we reviewed for conformance with the wildfire resiliency code and there was a few staff comments related to that that was um something that was implemented kind of made a review during this process since it hadn't yet been adopted um so there's still some remaining comments regarding that and this So this landscape plan will likely change a bit, but the impacts would be associated with most adjacent to the buildings and potentially some of the fencing material proposed to ensure conformance with the wildfire code. And then this is the lighting plan. Highlighted in yellow is the standalone lights, but then there's also a number of building-mounted lights on all of the structures. The photometric overall just confirms that there's minimal light spillover across property lines, that it's intended for the internal use of the site. and then additional sheets within the FPDB set, detail the lighting, design, shield the downcast, et cetera, to minimize any impacts.

John, dark sky compliance there?

I believe they are. I did not see that specific note on the lighting, but the response comments confirmed that it meets all the lighting criteria in the code. So that may be something that we would look for on the final submittal of that stamp if that's a requirement, but it's not technically a I think not technically a requirement like the landscaping code or a code doesn't. Yeah, the code requires it for commercial uses, but not. Kind of the breadth of additional uses, but I believe that was a directive of the, the town design.

Yeah, Paul speak to that. So, maybe that is directed DTC for. That compliance, so they've been told to make sure it starts day similar to everything we're doing on clean court.

Okay.

Um, so that includes the site plan review. Um, like I mentioned, there are existing referral agency comments. Several of them have been fully addressed. There's a few outstanding ones related to final site engineering and then utility coordination is ongoing. So those have not yet been finalized. Um, so it's just documenting things in the full referral comments are included in the packet. And these lead to the, the ultimate recommendation. So, of course, we're recommending it for approval with conditions. These conditions have, you may know, have been adjusted a bit since the packet was originally posted in May. So they've been updated following kind of further review by our new town planner, Jack Seward in conjunction with our town attorney. To just tweak some of the formatting and. kind of elaborate a little bit more on our resolution. So you'll see this general resolution format going forward more consistently. And then the specific language of the condition. So condition A is a pretty standard condition just requiring that all referral comments be addressed. This does stipulate prior to approval of the FPDP by the Board of Trustees. This will accommodate an additional submittal and Following everything being addressed at that point, it will be brought forward. And then condition B is a new 1 that wasn't here last month and it brought to. Town's attention town staff's attention just prior to the public hearing, but confirmed that it is subject to this additional water supply protection permit located within chapter 13. So we're adding the condition here to document it and confirm that it's the town's intent to utilize an independent third party to evaluate this process since the town's regular engineer, Merrick, will be part of the consultation and design in terms of producing the permit application. So we'll be utilizing an outside third party to review it and provide a recommendation. Those are the only 2 conditions of approval. Um, and that concludes my presentation. We do also have. We have a few members from the DTC team on board virtually, I believe to speak.

Um, and then Paul, uh, I would just like to add 1 thing, an additional referral agency. On here is grand park, uh, they have architectural and review of the plans. So that, uh, process was started, uh. In the last 24 hours, the review fees have been paid and the application, I believe, has been submitted. But on the previous page, they are one of the referral agents that will be providing comments that need to be addressed prior to board approval. With it being within Grand Park, they still have review authority over that parcel.

Okay. Thank you, Paul. Do you have anything further, Alan?

I do not. Okay.

So... Let's first just go around the table and see if we have any questions from our commissioners before we open it up to the public. Margaret? No questions. Katie?

I don't think so.

I'm just curious about the term salt barn. How much salt do we put in our sand, Paul?

It's just the term salt barn. It's mainly the sand, though, right?

Yeah. Just sounds scary, you know?

Okay.

Thank you. That's the only question I had.

Okay.

I don't have any questions.

And I don't have any questions. So at this point, I'd like to open it up for public comment. If you have a comment and you're here in the audience, please come forward. If you're online, let Antoinette know you'd like to speak. We have a hand up. I see.

Andrew from D2C.

Hi guys, I'm Andrew from D2C Architects. We've been working with the town on this project for about a year and a half. We're very excited and we've been actually been working with Merrick and our team civil engineer. We've made quite a bit of progress. We do realize that we do still need to go to the Grand Park review process, but we are we feel like we're close with the planning department and their comments and so we look forward to receiving your feedback tonight and applying that feedback with the rest of the planning comments for a resubmittal here in probably the next couple of weeks to a month and we would appreciate any kind of approvals to help move this project forward even while we're still working with Grand Park and working through their approval process. So it's been a very exciting project and we've made a lot of movement, especially over the past nine months and look forward to continuing to work with the town on this.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Paul, are you finding somewhere? Brandon, previously, Clark, you're on board with the review process and everything. You're involved in that. Yeah. Okay. Hearing no more comment from the public.

I need to close the public hearing.

Let me close the public hearing and we'll put this motion to vote.

I'll second.

All right. All those. Well, I guess I made the motion to close the public hearing. Oh, you did? Okay. Okay.

All right. Plug that in there. I second.

Peggy seconded it. So we have a motion on the floor to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Public hearing is closed. One last round with the planning commissioners. If anyone has another question or anything else you'd like to ask.

If I can just, can we put the resolution on the screen just so you can take a look at the detail? Oh, yeah. It's kind of a new format for resolution. Well, a little bit different, and I want to walk you through why I'm doing it that way so that it makes some sort of sense. So we'll pull it up.

Logan's got her phone up, so I'll take a minute here.

Yeah, we'll give it a second. The internet is slow in Frasier.

Oh, I got it right here.

So when we look at the state law around what a statutory town's planning and zoning authorizations and statutory authorities are, it lets out a whole laundry list of things that towns are allowed to do. And then when it outlines how a planning commission works, it says that the planning commission is supposed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. is what the statutory language uses. So we've adjusted the resolution to show that you are making findings of facts and conclusions of law. And those findings of fact are that it's accurate and complete, again, a requirement of the statute. You can't act on something that's not accurate and complete. And then we make reference to our comprehensive plan and how the application is going to further the goals of that comprehensive plan. and what those specific goals are and how we, so its goal, I wish I knew these by heart, but I don't yet, but the first goal is goal 1.6 under the town services and infrastructure. It prepares the town to better prepare for and respond to emergencies, create redundant and reliable access to critical infrastructure. and then goals 3.1 and 3.3 of the town services and infrastructure section of the town's comprehensive plan because the application enables the town to ensure the long-term water supply and high quality of drinking water throughout the town and supports expansion of town services So we do that as well. Again, we made this goal, this comprehensive plan back in January and through the rest of the year. We wanna make sure we're meeting those goals and documenting that we're meeting those goals. Of course, we have minor site or architectural revisions may be necessary as part of the final design review process that we're going to be engaging in. And then finally, you make a conclusion of law and you conclude that as a matter of law, the FPDP complies with the provisions of Chapter 19 of the Fraser Municipal Code for the interests and goals of the town and community at large. You then have your conditions of approval, which Alan laid out. And finally, your recommendation to the Board of Trustees, which is your approval with those conditions. Does this make sense? Again, this is to make sure that our resolutions are matching what the statute tells us that you all are supposed to do. So that if somebody ever comes and says, well, did you do the things that the statute said you're supposed to do? We point right at our resolution and goes, yes, yes, we did.

So, Jack, does this affect the form of the motion?

Nope. You still make a motion to approve the resolution.

It's just based on title and based on noting the text.

So we still have, if you look at the original resolution that was in the package. Yes. It's still titled exactly the same, Andy. Town of Fraser Planning Commission Resolution Number 2026-06-01. Same title, so you make the motions the same way. Actually, I reviewed this earlier today. I liked it. I liked the format very much. Because we lay out the facts very succinctly. Now, I'm not weighing in on the conclusions of law there, but I like the way out of the fact.

The conclusion is pretty simple, right? You would not want to be recommending something that you believe is contrary to the law. So if you're going to recommend approval to the board of trustees, then you need to conclude that the application complies with the law. If your conclusion is that it doesn't comply with the law, then your recommendation should be that you deny the application.

All right.

But, again, that's, again, just to align with that statutory language because we're a statutory town. If we were a home rule town, we'd be looking at our charter. We're a statutory town, so we're looking at the statute. So looking at the statute, it says findings of fact, conclusions of law. So you have your findings, you have your conclusions, and then you make your recommendation.

So, Andy, number F under findings of fact, that's where it changed from salt barn to sand barn.

I don't worry about it.

Okay. And as with everything that we give you, if you don't like what it says, you can tell us to change it. Sure. This is our recommendation to you.

Because if it's read as a barn full of salt, who knows? What do you think about that?

Well, the architect can take care of that in the next submittal.

We'll change it to salt sand since it contains both. Okay. The sand is also something we need to prevent from getting in the Fraser River as well. So both of them are needed and required up here, but we'll call it salt sand.

Okay, thanks.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion.

Okay, make a motion, Andy.

I'd like to move that we approve Resolution 20260601, recommending approval of the FPDP for the Fraser Public Works Facility.

Do I hear a second?

I'd like to second that.

Thank you, Peggy. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's put it to a vote. All those in favor of the resolution?

Aye.

Any opposed? Resolution passes.

Okay.

Okay. Moving on, the second item on our agenda, requiring a public hearing and possible action, is the... Grand Park, West Mountain, FPDP. So let's open the public meeting. May I have a motion?

I move to open the public hearing for West Mountain, FPDP. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. And again, we have a presentation by our assistant town planner, Alan. I'll turn it over to you. Correct.

Thanks, Bob. That's why I'm sitting up here. I've got both the presentations. All right. Again, Alan Seliff, assistant town planner, tonight presenting on the Grand Park West Mountain FPDP for Planning Area 7W and 8WA. All right. You may recall, just before I launch into this, that this also was postponed from last hearing for the same reason of notification of the railroad. So while this planning area was included, at least in the materials last month and the presentation last month, We generally kind of slid over any of the specific references and discussion to 7W and 8WA and focused on the other four planning areas or FPDPs that were being heard last month. So tonight we're hearing the fifth remaining FPDP that was part of that original application. A lot of the materials going to be similar repeat information, just because it's. Part of the full West mountain area and part of the overall. Uh, materials provided, um, I have removed several of the slides that were specific to other planning areas or other identified issues, but for the most part, it's the same. Um, slideshow, so I'll go through it. I'll go try to go through it at a decent pace. let me know if there's any questions i know not everyone in attendance tonight was at last month's meeting so um we can discuss anything as needed i was not at last month's meeting right so you can continue with your presentation and i guess i can jump in right and it'll like i said it'll it'll cover the same ground i'll just if if we want to pause on anything just let me know Um, so overview of the development, um, again, the applicant and property owners, cornerstone winter park holdings, um, location for the specific planning areas, north of the proposed extension of grand park drive and the overall West mountain development area, which is west of the Union Pacific railroad. uh this planning error or this fpdp contains only residential and open space uses a little bit more focused than all the other fpdps which included some lodging uses last time again the existing zoning is pd planned development and the request is for the final plan development plan only um so no subdivision plans are in conjunction with this similar to the applications last month overall development timeline um you know this is a carryover at the overall grand park development district plan pddp was originally approved in june 2005. the west mountain developments first came to the town under review in 2022 for filing one these were the first planning areas on the west side of the railroad up Grand Park Drive. Filing one has since progressed for FPDP and final plat through Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees. It is nearing completion and recordation. In April 2025 is when the town received the balance of the rest of West Mountain. Six different FPDP applications were submitted. From there, the different FPDPs have kind of split up a bit. Filing 2 went forward as a standalone application. This was the clubhouse facility area and some of the more intensive land uses with lodging and mixed uses. This went forward, was resubmitted ahead of the other PDP areas, and has come to the Planning Commission most recently in February 2026. and then last month and now tonight are the four of the FPDPs. The remaining ones went forward in May, and then this fifth one is coming forward in June. Got all that. Again, the application process, same basic process as the public works facility. It's located within the plan development district plan, so it requires an FPDP. These provisions are outlined in the code. They require planning commission recommendation and final decision by the board. Again, no subdivisions have been provided with these but they have been provided for filings 1 and 2. so subdivisions have started to be submitted in West Mountain. Preliminary and final plats will be required though with any planning area that doesn't yet have one. So the tonight and then the ones that went forward last month will be coming back to the planning commission once their preliminary plots are submitted. And public notice, so same same story as the public works facility. This was originally noticed last month, but had to be postponed town staff work with the applicant to ensure full noticing was completed to include the railroad. So we republished in the newspaper and the applicant recent notices. um so we believe that's been fully satisfied again no no response or comment provided by the railroad following that outreach here's the location so previous presentation includes the full extent of the fpdp's 7w8wa is highlighted here in green on the top so this is the northerly most planning areas of The West Mountain applications tonight. The ones heard last month were all south of this, generally south of the railroad. And I will note immediately south of the public works facility. So just interest in timing or quirk in timing that these two are coming together at the same time. A couple additional context maps with the satellite imagery, existing dirt roads on the site and see the natural state of it. And then on the right here is the Grand Park PDDP, which shows the original conceptual layout of the planning areas and the road network. Not in perfect alignment, but generally consistent. And these sorts of tweaks and changes have been discussed with previous filings. These couple of maps are the overall West Mountain again with the various planning areas. 7W and 8W again are on the upper left, but you can see them in context with the rest of West Mountain. So 9W, 8WB, 9W, 10W, and 11W on the right. These are filings one and two and have previously come forward to the Planning Commission. And then the rest of the West Mountain development is what came forward last month. Again, overall summary of West Mountain. These are just the total unit counts and acreages, or unit counts in this case, in comparison to the PDDP. Overall, taken as a whole, there's an increase in detached units and a roughly equivalent decrease in attached units. Lodging, there's an overall decrease, but no lodgings as they're going forward today. And then commercial There was additional commercial included with the filing to application, but no commercials included with this planning area. These are the overall development standards for all the planning areas. I'll just note that 7W and 8WA are on the top here. These are some of the slightly more intensive development areas, so they allow greater height and reduced setbacks for attached housing products compared to the rest of West Mountain. For the most part, there's a couple others down there at 19W and 21W. Note that, again, planning area character descriptions are included for all these different planning areas. Dan Bothells, Generally in conformance with this very high level like guidance language and then again the future land use map and a comprehensive plan. While it reflects the approved PDDP, it has the PDD overlay on it, which allows the added level of flexibility and Dan Bothells, Dave Kuntz, I guess disclosures that it's subject to kind of flexibility and final design once applications are submitted, so no issues with the land use map. Dave Kuntz, A couple of the other other overall exhibits provided are the roadway master plan. and the trails master plan. We discussed these at length last meeting, but they show kind of the hierarchy of roads and trails throughout West Mountain, and then basically highlight every road in some form, categorize every road in some form or fashion. The planning areas tonight don't have any collector roads, no higher intensity roads. They just connect directly to Grand Park Drive. Dave Kuntz, And then the overall trails exhibit shows that the larger trails eight foot trails generally follow the main roads grand park drive and then additional facilities are provided in the attached sidewalks within each subdivision. Dave Kuntz, And they also showed this also shows the Greek trail slightly off site. This was the overall kind of key map for the different planning areas. I've carried this forward. During the May Planning Commission, we walked through each of these in a little bit of detail, just providing a summary. Tonight, I'll just show those slides pertaining to 7W and 8W here at the top. and then and for context here's the filing one and filing two areas um that have already been reviewed and recommended for approval by the planning commission so these are the furthest east and then just west and kind of north of this uh the maps here are where filing or uh finding area 7w and 8wa are located here's the proposed uh layout of 7w and 8wa all residential land uses but the full range from single family detached lots to attached lots these are you can kind of see the outlines of the proposed four plex buildings in the darker black and then a multi-family development site at the bottom left here immediately adjacent to grand park drive This table summarizes the different unit counts by planning area, the open space acreage, and the overall combination of the two for this single PDP area. You can see that 7W and 8WA are totally surrounded by 23Ws. Those are a bit of a standalone isolated development. I guess there'll be a future filing for these two areas and connecting directly to Grand Park Drive. So the next collection of slides here are the overall staff review comments. We outlined these in May. All of these, except for the planning area 20W, boundaries topic, are still relevant to this planning area, so I'll outline Do a brief summary of each of these again as they relate to this FPDP. But again, we're skipping 20W because that one is not adjacent to this, so it won't impact the boundaries of this planning area, this FPDP area. So staff discussed this in quite a bit more detail last meeting. We probably don't need to go into detail as much here because these weren't ultimately recommended as a condition of approval. But just to outline the discussion, there were several areas in the annexation agreement that staff had highlighted and wanted to basically track through the development approval process. Section 9.10 pertained to provision of funding for road maintenance equipment such as a snowplow. Section 10.6 regards dedication of a five-acre site originally intended for the Fraser Valley Recreation Center. and then ultimately not granted for that, so still held by the town to request for a public purpose in some other location. And then 10.7 regarding dedication of a small public works satellite facility for road maintenance somewhere within West Mountain of approximately 0.3 acres.

While this was initially included as a recommended condition of approval that they'd be satisfied prior to final approval and a subsequent.

Discussion from the applicant and with the planning commission explained that. Because elements of these being satisfied also rely on the town to identify and request that it wouldn't be. Fair essentially, I don't know if that's the right word, but it shouldn't be contingent on town's action to allow approval of these development areas to go forward. So, this condition was ultimately removed from the recommendation of approval. But discussion noted that staff and the applicant will need to work in close conjunction to make sure that these are satisfied. and this topic will be kind of provided an update at all future either board approvals or subsequent subdivision applications to ensure that progress is being made. The West Mountain Water Master Plan, this one has come up a number of times now with filings one and two as those areas have been amended or applied for. So this is being flagged as still still being required, it's not yet approved and it will be carried forward as a recommended condition of approval. A number of these next ones are, I'll say a little more minor staff comments, but enough to, you know, we wanted to highlight them that we're requesting that these be addressed as part of overall staff review and referral comments. So the floodplain mapping item, just identifying that this these areas of west mountain including basically the fall area of 7w and 8wa have not been identified um as a hazard area one way or the other they're unmapped so uh staffs request that these either be mapped or noted in the fpdp or the subdivision plats that flood risk is is unidentified at this point so we can't certify that it's not in a floodplain The topic of trash enclosures was touched on. This slide just showed that previous iterations of filing one included it and then they were since removed. This was a recent topic in front of the Board of Trustees over in rendezvous in terms of adding community trash enclosures after the fact and how much more difficult that is. Recommending suggesting to the applicant that it be included now to ensure that it's accounted for. But ultimately, the discussion was that the surrounding open space areas and tracks are all going to be retained by the developer. So these won't be town owned areas anyway. So it's a little bit of a different circumstance. And ultimately, there isn't a hard and fast requirement in the town code for trash enclosures for all residential areas, especially single family areas.

Sorry. John Potter, Excuse me, Alan. So there is no requirement in town code for trash and clothing.

Alan Fekete, No, the only requirements are that if there are that they be screened and wildlife resistant, but it doesn't stipulate that there has to be like it still grants for the ability of individual service of each

Sarah Silver, So why has the applicant not included them, I mean it's not a requirement that he's put them everywhere else.

Dave Kuntz, What he's previously included they'll be able to applicant can speak to it, but I believe it's not want just not wanting to. Dave Kuntz, specify exactly where at this point and kind of confirm it allow what's the greater flexibility into the future for kind of final development plans. The topic of street lighting was brought up. This wasn't previously identified in previous submittals, but some of the backstory here is it had previously been shown in filing one and some of the trash enclosures that was removed. Staff has cited code that that public lighting is to be provided in fairly vague terms admittedly in the code but kind of heavy pedestrian areas or vehicular use areas so staff requested that all these intersections with grand park drive include street lighting and especially the roundabout area on grand park drive at the main meeting the applicant stated that they will integrate street lighting at least into Grand Park Drive and potentially into some of the larger collector roads but we have not received a recent middle yet following last month's meeting so at this point the comment is that part of our code because rendezvous doesn't have any lighting right and it's pointed out that rendezvous doesn't have street lighting like I said the code section is relatively vague on exactly when and where. So you could argue that it's subjective or kind of at at discretion, perhaps. But we wanted to point it out and have that discussion with planning commission knowing that fighting is, you know, definitely a sensitive topic. And if ultimately, it felt that it's not needed whatsoever, you know, we would back off that comment. But especially in some of the maybe the higher vehicular use areas accessing the clubhouse area and Grand Park Drive. It may still be proven to.

I would like to totally discourage it. It's we don't need it in rendezvous and it's hard enough to get people to abide by the dark sky compliant.

I will say that at least with West Mountain, you know, the development densities and unit numbers are quite a bit higher than Rendezvous. So traffic will likely be greater than what's seen on Rendezvous Road currently. And, you know, that's a bit of a difference with the existence there of not having any light.

And at the last meeting, Peggy, we talked about not having full height light posts, but the lower ones to just light the intersections that just show just something

really local really helping signage helping pedestrian crossings not a big old street light good yeah thank you part of the discussion um some of the other staff comments you'll see uh in our referral or review comments are pedestrian connectivity um there are code requirements that we pointed to requiring additional connections between long block areas exceeding 2,200 feet. So this graphic shows a couple of the identified areas, and one of them is within 7W and 8WA. Uh, we'll point out that originally with the initial submittal, there were additional areas identified and the applicant was responsive and providing additional kind of trail cut throughs and. Within different, um, planning areas, kind of behind lots connecting roads. So there are just a couple of additional areas that we're identifying as meeting that threshold that they should be added to as well. And then this is the last topic. We did not discuss this in detail last meeting because this was the only planning area that it was adjacent to. But it has been previously discussed regarding filing 2. And that's the inclusion of a community trail as identified in the PD land use map adjacent to both filings 1 and 2 area and then the planning area 7W and 8WA. Again, going through the background on this, we have this black and white PD map that is hard to read. The key is relatively incomplete. But kind of previous drafting of it, drafting materials identified. This map was found in our files for Grant Park. It's dated only one month prior. And if you go back and forth, it's consistent. Um, in terms of the shapes and the locations of things, and it's. Essentially identifying that there's a community trail. Um, that we believe is adjacent to the railroad, um. Kind of right along the Union Pacific railroad on the West side. We've discussed this a few times now. Um, I believe the applicant is as even stated as much as. is potentially shown there, but they feel it's not an appropriate location due to site constraints, adjacent land uses, the golf course chiefly being right along here, and interference with driving ranges and golf course uses is generally a poor idea. So it's a topic that was discussed in greater length of filing too. Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that A trial alignment consistent with the PD or an alternative alignment that satisfies the intent be included where we're caring for that same discussion. That same condition language again, here's that outlined. light blue hash line imposed over the West mountain planning area. So this is generally where it would be located under the current alignment shows that it potentially could connect to planning area seven w and eight wa. But the developer is able to provide a an alternative alignment to satisfy this condition. So that runs through the staff review comments. We do have outstanding referral agency comments provided here. Several referral agency comments have been addressed or are not necessary to be fully completed at time of FPDP. So for example, Mountain Parks and Excel stated their remaining comments will come into play with final platting. remaining comments from town engineer remain in terms of overall master studies and master engineering though we're worried in one of the conditions of approval that final construction documents not be uh don't need to be provided until the plats are provided some outstanding review comments still from the town attorney and then the car geological survey provided comment on all the planning areas and the majority of the FPDP areas, they're still looking for some underlying data to confirm the conclusions of the provided geotechnical report. So we wanted to include track this and ensure that this is addressed before final approvals.

So Excel, I've heard that they're dragging their feet. Right.

The town and area developers have been notified that Excel is unable to provide basically guarantees of service in the future. It's been vague in terms of specifics of that.

That is the result of a PUC filing and I think you can characterize it as a dispute between Excel and the Public Utilities Commission relative to new natural gas expansion and the state's government's stated goals of reducing natural gas usage. And as a result of the state's objective to reduce natural gas usage, Excel is unable to commit to providing service because they don't know if the Public Utilities Commission will let them do that in the future.

Well, that's not good news.

And that isn't necessarily the origin of these referral comments. You know, Excel provides requirements on their easement requirements, their utility design and placement. There has been recent examples where Excel's requirements and the developer haven't been able to come to an agreement and aren't being included in the final plats. So, you know, we're kind of taking it on a case by case basis. But ultimately, at this large scale subdivision design, referrals are going to keep going to Excel. They're not necessarily going to be providing final approval at this point, but they'll be providing their design requirements. And then it's up to the developer to confirm to meet them if they want natural gas service to serve their development. That's kind of a one-off there. I mean, Mountain Park's electric everywhere. It's going to need electric service. So their requirements are required for all of these. But Excel's is generally, I guess, more optional because you can have all electric service provided for a facility or a building. So, just going through the conditions of approval again, the resolution has been reformatted and to note the reformat there, and the conditions, these generally reflect what was adopted with the four out of five at the May Planning Commission meeting. Pertains to so letter a here pertains to the water master plan again. That's a carryover of previous. And subdivisions, um. Relates to the outstanding review comments and referral agency comments and just that these need to be satisfactorily addressed. And then this does add added language here that the construction documents specific to these FPDPs, or in this case, just this one tonight, don't need to be finalized at this point. They'll be picked up and continued at time of preliminary plat once final engineering is in place. And then the last one is the condition related to the trail along the Union Pacific Railroad. Again, this carried forward from filing two. It was not included in the FPDPs last month because none of the planning areas were adjacent to it. So this one is included, whereas some of the language and the conditions for last month are not included here because they're not applicable. That concludes my presentation. We can open it up for a discussion with the applicant, of course.

I understand the applicant also has their own presentation.

I was going to ask if we'd like to have the applicant go before we go around the table for the commissioners. Clark, do you have a presentation or do you have a presentation that you want to give or respond to some of the comments made in the staff report. Please come forward, state your name.

Yeah, hi, Clark Lipscomb with Grand Park. And Layla Rosales just got back out of the country, and she is on Zoom with the presentation, so she'll be pulling up the presentation. You guys have largely seen the presentation. I thought we resolved a lot of these things, but we'll go through the whole thing. Uh, unless y'all would like to deliberate 1st, and give me time after you deliberate and we can have Q and a. I'm good either way, Bob.

Okay, let's do it that way.

Commissioners like to go 1st.

Well, I don't know that we need to hear the whole thing again. No. So, in the interest of expediting this.

All right, let's go around the table and get commissioner's input.

the question on this trail, the alternate trail, how long is that trail? So what is going to satisfy as an alternate? That's really my, how long is that trail, Clark, do you know?

There's not a trail. Right.

I don't have a number. We could probably measure that. I think the intent wasn't necessarily an exact distance for distance equivalent, but something that would satisfy a loop sort of alignment that the original alignment contemplated would be my general guidance on that.

but we could yeah you could specify if yeah i was just curious as to and if i might might clarify you know it's it's it's the town's position that the applicant's trail obligations have been fulfilled there was just an outstanding question from last month's uh presentation from the applicant relative to uh that particular trail and that is why that item is Is dangling still there? Because, well, I'm new and don't have all the background, so I wanted to make sure that you had all of the options before you. But based off of what we've seen, and I'll let Michael speak here as well, we feel that the trail obligations have been satisfied to the extent that the annexation agreement required it. What am I getting wrong?

So my question then is, if that's the case, then why are we asking him to provide an alternate trail?

You don't have to. That's an option you can choose to do.

Okay. So that's something that I think they're looking for consensus from the planning commission, how you want to move forward. Okay. Town staff has worked with legal, and we've evaluated this as well. There are specific call-outs. for the trail connector from Old Victory all the way to County Road 72 that is shown on Grand Park Drive. It's interesting because on the 2005 PDD it doesn't actually show the trail kind of ends before it gets to 72, but that's been corrected with their acquisition of Best Right-of-Way that kind of changes how Grand Park Drive does connect to County Road 72. And with their plans, it does show that that detached asphalt trail will connect all the way to County Road 72. So they've rectified that, which is great. One of the, when this was first discussed with Planning Commission, I think it was a misunderstanding that there was this detached trail along Grand Park Drive. And that was clarified at the last Planning Commission meeting that we had. So you have a specific call out for that trail. You have a specific call out for the, Leland Creek Trail in the annexation agreement. Those of that has also been built and satisfied as far as the community trail. It's not it's not defined in the annexation agreement. It's not defined in the legend of the 2005 PDD. So from from staffs looking at this, especially in light of there was no requirement for things like sidewalks, but sidewalks are included in this, which obviously will have good pedestrian use. We're not seeing that this, the new, the way that it's depicted on the 2005 PDD is not referenced anywhere in the legend. And it's also not referenced anywhere in the annexation agreement specifically for that piece. So Cooper, you wanna add to that? I mean, that's kind of the consensus that we've been talking through.

and um and as far as going through section 10 of the annexation agreement there is no call out for any trail there along the the union pacific railroad okay so okay and anything that we bring you is giving you options also if if you want to include that that's that's your decision you don't need to include that we're we're saying that it's not We believe that the obligations have been satisfied at this point. But again, we're not the decision makers here. You are. So we're just equipping you with that information.

Well, the other piece of clarification that was discussed at the last meeting was the difference between like rendezvous and Grand Park. And in that section 10 of the conveyances section obligations of the developer, it 4e that does contain all those mountain bike trails and rendezvous are required to be built and Conveyed to the town of Fraser and those things have been conveyed to the town of Fraser And so there was no requirement for this section of land on the west side of highway to require those types of trails I know that everyone's big advocates of trails but It's just our recommendation that those have been satisfied and you guys can continue to discuss it and see where you land as far as consensus goes.

Well, I recall from the last meeting There was also a question on those maps of what was a regional trail, how you defined a regional trail and how you defined a community trail. And with all of the sidewalks and the eight foot wide and five foot wide sidewalks throughout Clark's development, we kind of considered those as community trails. So then what is the regional trail? And there was no definition of what a regional trail was, as I can recall.

I think those were the named ones like Leland Creek.

Yeah. So the line that was thought to be seen sort of paralleling the Union Pacific alignment of the railroad Was that a community trail or was that a regional trail? We don't know.

It's not referenced in the legend.

Yeah, it's not referenced in the legend.

I mean, it could be seen as a trail, but again, it's not referenced in the legend or in the annexation agreement about the creation of that trail. Thoughtfully, the Cleveland Creek Trail was annotated and discussed in the annexation agreement and the... trail on grant park drive that connects from 72 all the way to old victory right and also does provide connection from 72 to the leland creek trail that was discussed uh last month as well um and uh i don't think it's quite finalized yet but uh i think some of the presentations shown by grand park last month show that they're looking at one to two connections of that trail to the leland creek trail

So a couple of things. Headwaters Trails Alliance is not a review agency, right?

It is a reviewing agency.

Have they come forward with anything on this?

Yeah, they were included on the referrals and we didn't get a response.

We didn't get a response. Who's our town representative on HTA?

So we do have Jeff Lundy is on the HTA4. He's on the board. Okay.

So just historically, so the railroad trail is something I've been using since I was a kid, but it's on the east side of the tracks, pretty much. And on the east side of the tracks, it comes out of town along the meadow there that, you know, from Forest of Icondos and around to the underpass. And then it climbs up onto that little bench and follows the east side of the tracks, right, Clark, pretty much?

That's right. Yeah, it goes from Fraser all the way to the new underpass that we built.

Yeah, and it continues past there, historically at least, all the way to Winter Park.

Yeah, it was a little messy there. I think that's mostly gone now and grown. Because getting across Leland Creek was messy through there. But yes, I know of people that would sneak that way home on their snowmobiles after drinking too much. Not me, but I know friends that do that.

And then if we wanted a trail on the west side of the tracks, we should have seen it in the town shop drawings. I mean, and the cemetery. That's the two property owners along the west side of the tracks, right?

It didn't show it going off-site to those directions. It showed it reconnecting with Grand Park Drive within West Mountain.

Anyway, these regional trails are important, but I wish we'd get a more active relationship with HTA and Clark. You've had some discussions out there in the past, and And I'm happy about sidewalks and trails along roads too. But honestly, we are happier on trails that aren't around cars. But we get those out in the National Forest. I get that. And Clark was kind enough to show how he's connecting to those upper trails at the far west end of the property through the cul-de-sac. But I think the main thing that it seems like all these conditions are asking for is some way to connect these long cul-de-sacs so that people can walk to a neighbor's house without, there was a 5,100 feet. 2,200 feet.

Well, you've got to pick a 100-foot, maybe, too, which...

So it's a mile. I mean, you know, I've walked along the street to get from one house to another. So the connections within the subdivision are important, but then you've got a golf course conflict too. I mean, pedestrians crossing golf courses is bad.

Very bad.

So anyway, I think there's work to be done here, but I think it can be done as we go along with subdivision flats. And I really hope that maybe we can get a more active relationship with HTA. Yeah.

So I'm okay with letting go or removing seats. Yeah, it's just nothing on the west side. And the other is just a commonly used trail.

Yeah, that's in the railroad right away. It's not sanctioned. No, but we're trying to make sanctioned trails that go places. Yeah. But it's worth an ongoing look. But let's try and get HTA in the room and really talk about how all this stuff connects. Because it's extremely important that our trails connect into town so that people don't drive to trailheads. So they can take their kids and get out the door and head out on the trails. And a lot of that's sidewalks. It is. Dave Kuntz, But if there's opportunities for separated trails within subdivisions that those are obviously the nicer nicer experience and plus neighborhood trails to get people from place to place are important stuff.

um so this is kind of a new format i guess my computer defaults to the handicap version yeah you can do it at the top yeah so when you flip over then you get pictures so i like the pictures much better so anyway um one of the pictures that i saw on the site plan pdf is the golf course there's a lot of green so that's good uh how much green is there

Right now there's, don't want me to exactly do this, but a little over 501 acres and we're required to have 460 acres. one approximately the word of it's the approximately it's actually approximately it's approximately 468.1 in planning area 23 w minus what was given to the rec center 4.9 acres so in the math it's 468 point 463.3 463 i think uh is what it is um Approximately with the word approximately, but we're going to be over it. Peggy, we do still have some development planning to do. We're not finished, but we're still going to be substantially over. The open space as we currently. See it when we're done done done on the few remaining ones that we're doing. Well, I'm going to say it's not just open spaces. Planning Area 23W, for better clarification, because really, I think the key difference, and we've talked about this before, the highway was and always has been the delineator of kind of public on the east side, private on the west side, and dating back to 86, but even when I was partners with Fuzz, and primarily due to the fact that It's spelled out. We gave the Fraser River Park to the town, 57 acres, and that's a public lineal park. We were required to give 4E to the town of Fraser for public purpose. That was ultimately done relatively like 2020 or something, and then that's where the trails have been built, and the town of Fraser now owns 4E. And none of that exists for the west side because it was always, even in the 80s, planned as a golf course community and had private club components. That said, we're doing that. But we've also identified and done studies, and our homeowners very much appreciate, one, the fact that we have, I think Andy will know this better than me, 88% public lands in our county, and we have great access to wonderful single track land. But they do like to go walk their dogs in the mornings and be able to have easy access from their home on sidewalks and see their neighbors and walk down the street. And so we've, you know, we keyed in on that and focused on that from the get-go with Grant Park, where in Rendezvous, we didn't do that. And I think it was a big mistake. And in fact, it was one of the reasons that we kind of agreed to disagree and moved on. And I think trails are important and I'm a heavy trail user. You guys know all the things that I do. And I use the west side of the valley behind Grant Park. We've made major donations to the Headwater Trails to assist with projects and to recognize some projects, like when they redid WTB as an example, I gave them a really large check, just recognizing great job as an example. So, you know, I think it's important that we, you know, plan for pedestrian use in multiple passions. I mean, I just know earlier saw a lady with her two dogs pushing a stroller and you can't very well do that on a single track right um so i i think we've shown in all of our neighborhoods that we are pretty attentive to these things i help take care of the trail on the railroad we don't share that a lot but we do help take care of that uh and uh and we even designed one parallel to it on our land but it kind of came we we went so far as to have um elliot do a a bid on it and mapped it all out and it was like why would we do that when everybody just uses this already very established and to your point since you were a kid on the trail yeah yeah so we we've had people prosecuted in the fraser river canyon for being on railroad property there so it's just yeah it's I don't think that's going to happen in our area anytime soon. But the long and the short is, you know, we basically skipped that and said, okay, let's not do that there because what's the point? It's just going to duplicate an already existing heavily used trail and serves the same exact purpose. So, I mean, I think, you know, our goals are to be focused on... Peggy, it's one of the number one reasons people buy real estate, okay? Trail access. Very important from a market study perspective that we have sidewalks and pedestrian access and trails, but we need to have them where they belong. And it's in our presentation, and I would love to skip that since we did it last time, but in the public dedication section, it specifically calls out Leland Creek Trail, from its intersection with Old Victory Road, now Grand Park Drive, so you just got to replace the words, to the south, OK? That's it. Nothing to the north, which is what was referenced in the staff's memo, which also runs XO Golf Course. Now, looking back and studying it, I could kind of understand, OK, I understood what they were doing. And I'll just paraphrase this whole thing to hopefully save us the big presentation. Back then we had a very complicated, not great road going down the north slope of what is today 8W or 7W. Layla, you can help me out anytime you want. But we had basically a circuitous switchback road right above Elk Creek on that steep north face where there's an old jeep road today. And that was there was a horrible road design. You could not possibly put a trail next to it. It would have been. Bigger retaining walls that we built in rendezvous so that road was designed just as a road. With no trail later, I was able to negotiate with the John's family. 80 foot right away at 60 or 80 feet. Whatever the town required me to get through the John's property and they were very. Very cooperative. There's a picture on the screen, Clark. Okay. And yeah, so here's a comparison, Peggy, that you missed last time. So the blue is the old, what was there. And I think we were trying to link around from that road back to have kind of a loop. So what we were able to secure was the easement and the road that's built today. And literally, we built that road. We have the crossing of the creek done, etc. When we did Moose Hollow, etc. That is 80 feet wide, has an eight foot detached trail, and is designed to be just like Old Victory Road is. And the beauty of it is it goes all the way to County Road 72, where you now have access to go up 72. to connect to the Great Trail system basically at the Forest Service boundary. Way, way better solution, not only from an access perspective, from a long-term maintenance perspective for the town, for general people driving up there, You know, thank you to the John's family once again for cooperating way back when, when we did that whole thing. Um, but it's just a superior alignment and it wasn't an option that we had because we didn't own that land and we still own that land, but they were generous enough. To negotiate a deal with us to allow us to put that road through their property.

Mark, does that, how far off the road will that trail be? I'm sorry? The trail that parallels this through trail, how far away from the road?

We're roughly 10 feet on the current one.

So it'll be out of snowplow range?

Oh yeah. The snowplows, you guys plow Old Victory Road and you come back and plow the trail separately. The snowplow doesn't hit the trail. We've never had an issue with that alignment and it literally is the same section. I'm also just actually kind of own part of it. I'm trying to, and I'll work with your staff on this, to do the identical thing on the Fraser Valley Parkway, which Katie, who walks there, or I mean, all the people that walk on the parkway, their sons, there's room and we have a design and we need Cooperation and partnership with the county, the town and us, and we'll participate. And so we're trying to do a 3 way partnership to effectively take the same 8 foot trail concept all the way along my interior loop fence road. So I call the parkway the loop on the inside where we put the electric last year. That was part of the design that have a separation that roads way too wide. and it moves over to my outside fence close to it and gets rebuilt and narrowed which will help slow down traffic um and creates a separated trail and with the underpass work that they're going to be doing instead of we're trying to integrate that and bring it along Meyer lot one uh all the way down effectively to probably what will be twilight drive behind murdoch's field john's drive i think so i'm very focused on trails guys um so what i want is a really good network that allows people to interface within their neighborhoods, because that's what we hear people want, and those are the sidewalks, but being able to hop on their whatever, other than they won't have their horse at their house, but anything else to get to our great single tracks conveniently and safely that are on our Forest Service lane. That's our goal.

So, Clark, let me ask you a question. Overall question about the golf course. I mean, so you said, you know, the hierarchy of what people want in their lots. How do golf and trails compare here?

Well, essentially, trails are way higher for the general buyer. So let's talk about the golf course. Well, hang on. There are two different buyers. So let me finish. You asked me a question. Let me finish. There's two different buyers. So if you were to rank, you know, where do they fall? There's a golf buyer. Okay. And there's a club user. Now, I live on a golf course. I have a home on a golf course in Steamboat. And I'm a member of the golf course. I don't golf. If anybody's ever golfed with me, you know I don't really golf. I'm better at drinking beer. You know, my theory is if you're not drinking a beer a whole, you're not golfing. so uh so i sneak a golf so i'm not a golfer but i live on a golf course you know what i use the golf course for i walk my dogs every morning on the golf course and my wife walks my dogs every morning on the golf course we got to be off by the time that people are on golfing etc but that's kind of the beauty of it and what i really love about it is the green space the smell of the fresh cut grass and the people that are out there it's social It, it fits and it's a different client. So there's kind of, when I, when I'm answering your question, when you ask us do a survey or do a market study to the general masses, not everybody golfs and golf was a massive declining or sport pre COVID. It's rebounded and it has a whole new following now with a whole new young generation that have discovered golf because of COVID. And it's a great way to get people out and to have them experience the outdoors, et cetera. So we're going to do golf and it's part of our approvals. It's laid out. We're working on final designs now, but we still have Andy killer other spots and accesses to wonderful or service adjacency. All right.

So I get that. Let me, let me continue that question a little bit. So we know the water situation. You've got water rights. Do we really have the capacity in this? Because you're going to have to pump water out of the aquifer to water this course, right?

No, no, no, no. Let's be really clear about that. Okay. We are using our raw water, our irrigation supply water, our senior water rights. I have a huge list of water rights and a basket of water rights. But we have the second oldest water right in the valley and the senior water right. And it will be irrigating that golf course with untreated water. We are not using the water system, the treated water, et cetera. No way, no how, like that would be illogical and we wouldn't do that. We are using our senior water rights. And it will serve lots of benefits because one, that golf course corridor also creates great fire buffers, great fire separation, great accesses for that. And when it's irrigated with that water, the senior water, um, it's likely to, if let's say, God forbid, we had a bad fire, it's probably going to stop at that buffer. Um, so there's lots and lots of benefits like, you know, our home, for instance, where we live on the golf course is not on, um, we're not on the risky fire level because of the irrigation that happens on this golf course around us. And it's also done with senior historic ranch water in a raw water system. Okay, so we will be using a raw water, I'm gonna call it independent parallel system to the town that in no way, shape or form is pumping it out of our aquifer, number one. And any of the water we keep in this valley ultimately does trickle back into the alluvium. Our aquifer's underneath that in the troublesome. But there are connections to the troublesome, to the alluvium. They just happen to be up valley and down valley from us. But I still think recharging the alluvium helps water get back to the Fraser River and keeping spaces green with our senior water and not letting it go through a pipe to Denver is very important to our valley. So that kind of is the long and the short of why we're- Is there a way to connect the neighborhood within the neighborhood? of these trails possible trails between cul-de-sacs or will golf course preclude that or no we have sidewalks everywhere you don't want people crossing a golf course the golf course corridors there are crossings of the golf course like for instance we're probably into a cut and cover tunnel on grand park drive you want to have as minimal road crossings as possible on a golf course and we happen to have a spot where we're crossing where we have grand park drive significantly elevated with a fill it's already built And it's really easy to go put a cut and cover tunnel there and just have the carts go underneath, which is very nice. So, you know, you try to minimize interface of people hitting white balls and people walking their dogs and riding their bikes, et cetera.

Across a tease or anything? I'm sorry? Could we bring pedestrians across a tease?

No, because when you're on the tease, it interferes with the golf experience. I promise you, it's all going to work very well. And it will function well. in a very connected fashion. And the trail system, Layla's team has done a fantastic job of laying out a great, what I call my pedestrian network. That is, it has a variety of trails between, you know, we consider sidewalks trail and pedestrian oriented, and then we have trails. And then we have primary trail connections to where we really want people to go out and experience the forest.

Yeah, well, it's imperfect in that, you know, you want to visit your neighbor that's a mile away that's got the kid on the cul-de-sacs, you know, out and around. You're going to get in your car to go do it.

Yeah, I think, Layla, we don't have any, I mean, the one that he's citing on the 2,200-foot thing, I don't think we have any that are that far separated, do we?

Well, the town looked at it.

TAB, Mark McIntyre:" 5100 yeah Layla you there yeah i'm here yeah um yeah we have one of the big connector roads that runs up through 15 and 16 w. TAB, Mark McIntyre:" That okay but it's along the golf course on either side so. We're not going to connect through the golf course.

Yeah. Walk in your dog in the morning, like on the golf course.

Do you think in the evening, like the later hours that would be available when there's no, so what we do and it would be only club members that could be on the golf. We can't accommodate the entire HOA and the general public. You can't have that. It's a, this is a private course. Um, and that's how it was always intended. Um, it likely probably affiliates with a hotel and is linked to a hotelier. And, you know, in my dreams, a conference center, proper hotel facility that competes with the likes of a Keystone or a Copper, because that's what it really takes to bring those kind of conferences. So that's more of an economic development issue. Not really relevant for this discussion, but I think the fact of the matter is, you know, it depends on the usage and how heavy it is. But like what we do is we have an app that we can literally see who's golfing when. And you can tell when the tee times start and when they end. And we don't usually go out in the evenings, but early mornings, we're always, I mean, Meredith every morning walks the dogs super early on the course. And then I do it on a Saturday and a Sunday. But so I think the answer to the question is not preferred, not ideal. Could it happen? Yes. But the point, I guess, if you were walking on the golf course, to Layla's point, there's sidewalks that pretty much parallel it. Uh, on roads because of the way we've laid it out. So, I, I really do feel great about the pedestrian connectivity and how it all works up there. And if I didn't, I wouldn't be here presenting this plan to you guys. I mean, literally guys, that was 1 of the biggest. Disputes that I had with my former partner. Your former partner, my former partner bus cobalt.

Okay. Yeah.

And rendezvous when we did rendezvous, it was literally. Knock down drag out because I wanted, I moved here. Andy, to your point, I moved here in 2004 and I lived up in winter park ranch initially. Um, and, uh. And I'm like, you know, I've got my dogs and I came from the west end of Aspen and I was used to just kind of walking on sidewalks and going where I wanted and getting to the trails on the roaring fork. And all of a sudden I'm in the roads with my dogs and then I had a baby. And so I'm dealing with the dogs and the carriage in the road, navigating cars. And I was like, this is awful.

Or in Winter Park Ranch has carriagecraft easements through the whole subdivision that were deemed not public. Finally, I bought that one forever.

I mean, my point is, it just highlighted to me there had not been a whole lot of pedestrian connectivity like I've lived in and experienced most of my life. And like what I wanted to see is a development and it was a big we had a big disagreement rendezvous today has a great single track trail system that you know, really works well in 4E and ties in with the Fraser River Trail or the Fraser River that we gave. And that was how it was designed and intended, guys. I mean, just golf and people on bikes or people walking that aren't golfing really don't interface well.

I know that. That's kind of the issue, too. So, Alan, you measured some of these.

I'm not remembering the 5100th measurement. Apologies on that. 22 is the code and I identified several segments that exceeded that. I know the big one was it wasn't part of this development area. It was one of the ones further south that we discussed last month that I think was the large loop road that Layla was referencing. I don't know if that hit 5100 off the top of my head, but it was quite a bit larger than 2200 feet.

And Clark, you do have a lot of places where lots back up to lots and cul-de-sacs where you don't have at least take a look at this.

Oh, yeah. No, I mean, we have an area, I mean, like case in point, like where we're doing filing one, there's some great open space corridors there that likely will develop my gut if, you know, some single track connecting trails that people will go and enjoy the little open space areas that we left. between the lots, which, I mean, I think that's a really great design too. So I think that will happen kind of organically and naturally over time as well.

So those would be kind of like green belts interior to where lots back up to each other.

And that is part of our dedicated open space on that platform.

I've seen that in a development down in Austin when we used to have a house down there. We had our lots backed up, but they left about 30 feet wide in between where your lot lines ended. And that was a little green belt. And they had trees in there and everything. And people would walk that all the time.

Yeah, and I think our approach, and like filing one's a great example on those lots, they're smaller lots. They're not as deep. Like Leland Creek, they're Leland Creek width, which I think worked very well. But Leland Creeks are really deep. And frankly, people don't want to care for them. They don't need that much space. And so our approach was, let's make the lots a little shallower and have little green belts behind them, which are all the little fingers that you see going between them. And I think that's a good... I think it's a good design in that location. And I'm pretty happy with that. I think it's going to work out really well. I hope. But yeah, I mean, I think, you know, that's kind of my covering the trails. And hopefully, can we agree that I can forego the presentation on the trails?

Okay, here's my. So I love the picture of the green. I think it conflicts with the narrative that is in the number three, where it says the 2005 PDD 23W includes terms open space and development. Development was slid in, and that's 23W in the 2003, 2005 version, to support recreational facilities like roads, infrastructure, a golf course, buildings, sports venues, what I, when I read that I'm like, I don't want to see roads part of the open space. I don't want to see buildings and sports venues. That's not golf course is golf course. It's green. But this narrative conflicts, I think, with the picture presentation.

Well, I think, though, Peggy, you've got to refer to the planning area 23 W definition in it. It doesn't include these specific. I don't know. I've got the exact definition in my reading glasses.

Can I answer for you real quick?

Yeah. Would you mind, Layla?

I don't mind. So Peggy, part of the road references, if you actually look at the PDD, Grand Park Drive is an example. That's actually part of 23W as is Old Victory Road. So when we talk about roads, it's really referencing those portions, which are part of the PDD as 23W. So there are roadways within 23W.

So you're not correcting those out of the acreage.

It's part of the acreage. It always has been. And if you look at the PDD, you'll see that for those major roads.

She's correct about that, Peggy. And the one that's here, this is the 2003 PDD, which is not what we use. Here's my 2005. I actually think the note didn't change.

It changed. But you added the word in.

Well, the acres change, it got larger like that 2 acres development. You had a development. It's way greater than 2 acres because the 2003 included planning area 22 W, Leland Creek. That is not in the 2005. And if you add the open space that I dedicated in Leland Creek, which is open space, I don't care if it's in Winter Park or Frayser, it is open space. If you add that to what I have here, I'm way greater on open space than the 2003. Okay, so just keep that in mind, right? It's not just 2 acres. It's 2 acres plus all the open space I dedicated in Leland Creek. Okay, which is pretty substantial. So, um.

Well, I just, I like, I mean, the golf course, I get it. I mean, I'm not a golfer, but it's what was always planned. And if the acreage is what you said, how many acres over the 468? Well, right now we're at 501, but we're not finished.

So we'll still be over the 463 that's required now when we're done.

But we've got 49.5, I believe in the planning areas that we're discussing tonight.

Yeah, and I think, you know, the important thing in this note is it's open space and development. Now, when you actually get into this, it talks about open space facilities. Okay, and, you know, facilities are frankly, it could be the rec center. Frankly, if I had to do it again, the rec center would have just been in 23 W as part of it, which is effectively what the town board resolution did. by recognizing our 4.9 acres and put the rec center facility in 23W effectively. Right. So, I mean, if you think about that, there's other facilities that could happen in 23W. But it's largely going to be green space, Peggy. I mean, it just it is just by the nature of the terrain, the topography we have and how it's laid out in this new plan. And I think from your perspective and where you sit in rendezvous, you should should appreciate the fact. One of the things I didn't like that I like way better about this plan and we've already approved this. at this party, but we brought the golf up and over more like a green belt, Bob, uh, up and over the top and back down. And what it did was break up. What was just a giant, massive, big custom home sites. And I just felt like it needed the greens off or not the green connection through it. And that's why I work. Layla and her team over on, you know, layouts and designs and all kinds of ideas to break that up. Okay, so I think that that was a pretty important thing that we did here. You can see how it loops up and around. And, you know, let's say golf takes against could be a great green belt. And that is a great green belt if that were to happen. So, I mean, I think it is designed to function with golf. It's designed if golf never happened or if the market imploded golf happened and it just didn't work. It's designed to really function in multiple fashions. It creates space between homes. It creates enjoyment space for people. It's intended for golf, but it's laid out in a very good fashion that if for some reason that didn't happen or it happened and then died, unlikely, but that could happen. It's happened to many golf courses. Then this orientation is pretty nice. Yeah.

Well, I'm glad to see that I can now not have the handicap view and not just pick up on the dialogue and go, oh my God, what in the world are we doing here now?

No, and I think what I like about this, you know, doing, this was a big effort and has cost a substantial amount of money in design work and a lot of time. You can see everything we're doing now, Peggy. There were a lot of questions about where's 23W and what's it going to be and There it is. Everything you see in green on there is 23W. And, you know, like I said, I think that's pretty cool. And I think we created from an overall percentage of our development. And then if I factored in the open space that we actually are required to put in actual final plant areas outside of 23W, we preserved a lot of this land. A lot. And a lot more than most developers would. Okay, so I'm, I'm, I'm proud of it and I'm pretty excited to get going on it.

So, well, it looks good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, any other. Comments from I have. 2 comments 1. On the motion, so are we in general agreement that we're removing the 3rd.

The condition you want to close your public hearing before you get into that.

No, I mean, do you have we haven't we haven't let public have comment.

That's what I mean. So you don't want to get to that part yet. You want to focus your questions specifically on the application.

Right. I'm sure I can. I think I can help with that. Do you all think that I need to do my presentation on the trails that we went through last time? Or does everybody feel pretty good about what we've laid out?

I don't want to beat a dead trail here. So Clark, when you took Elliot out there, what was that trail route that you were looking at?

I'll go show you Andy. It's on the east side of the tracks and it's in the, I was coming up through Elk Creek. So literally between and that open space where I did the conservation easement once before, but we were coming up through Elk Creek. We were coming up through Elk Creek, up and over Cousins Point.

Yeah.

Okay. And then the big bank that is basically between Old Victory Road and the railroad, the big slope there. Yeah. We had it going along that slope. So he would be cutting it in with his mini excavator. Yeah. And then kind of through a grove of trees and right down to the trail that I built that's separated from the road that goes under the underpass.

So let's say that the railroad gets excited in the future, which we can still do that.

And actually, yeah, it's, that's, uh, partly open space and partly, could even be partly some of the town road roadway. There's a really wide right away there, but I mean, he and I walked it and he's a better trail builder than I am and has done a little bit more. Sure. He basically was like, this is where we should put it and laid it out. It was just really expensive. Yeah. And then it was determined that Isn't it going to be duplicative of the other one? I think, to your point, it's a great fallback option that's always there if something happened to the one that's so well established already.

Because all that's been platted through there already, right?

Yep. It's part of this 23W. And it's where we're not doing golf. So we don't care.

No, it's not part of this plant. It's part of the plastic.

No, it's stuff that's already done.

Yeah.

But it's everything that's between Old Victory Road and the railroad.

Yeah.

Yeah. That little slope right there kind of goes up and down. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Okay.

All right. We'll get back to the conditions in a minute. I just have, Alan, I have one comment on your staff report here. I'm taking a look at this right here. think that should be 12W.

That's all. I think I updated that in the presentation slide. I remember.

I just caught it in the staff report.

That's not any of the official documents. That was me putting labels over the land. Nothing to fix there, I don't think.

If there's no more comments from our planning commissioners at the moment, we can open Hit up public comment.

Yeah, I am except the only other thing that I was going to touch on just lighting because it came up. I'm with you, Peggy. We didn't do it. We didn't do an elk Creek. It's not require my code. But what we did discuss, and just to be clear, we talked about doing perhaps some monuments, similar to the ones that I have at our main grand park monument that are. Kind of understated shorter near primary intersections off of grandpa drive. Okay, so. You know, it would be kind of understated help highlight. This is an intersection to a neighbor. So not as tall, but the same. Like, you know, like, oh, yeah, those are not not the ones in the village. actually that same light, same fixture, I think, but shorter. So more like what we have on the one across from Emory's place, those shorter ones. So that's kind of our idea. And think like Cousin's Point, how we've signed it at the end. It's got lights on kind of like something like that because it's actually not a bad directional thing. But I don't want to have big streetlights on the West Mountain at all. Like, you know, I'm fine doing it down in our more organized village-like area. but up the mountain, we really don't want it. So just, that's all I have. So good.

Sorry, Clark. One other, what are you, what are your thoughts on trash enclosures?

Oh, well, I think somebody here admitted that I build the nicest trash enclosures of anybody in the state of Colorado. It's an award for that. Well, so, so our, our, are my thoughts on trash is one on single family lots, they do are afforded service, except I'm opposed to that. we will, we don't want to have it mandated, but you can be assured that we will, we have space already allocated in these developments where we would go and put trash enclosures where we feel comfortable and confident that they would work well, just like what we do now. And it wouldn't be like rendezvous where they make you drive to the bottom of the mountain and it's a hundred dumpsters or whatever it is. It's ridiculous. Your town code, and I can bring back the trash or phrase your PowerPoint one more time. Okay. It does require all trash to be closed.

I'm just talking about locations.

I know, but but the point is, we have space. Layla, we have space right in all our subdivisions. We have plenty of space.

Yeah, we just wanted to have options to get them where they made sense to us at the time.

Yeah, but I can tell you guys from a sales perspective, that is very popular. Way less expensive for our homeowners. It's built in their HOA dues. Way less expensive than individual service. If you had to just go contract for individual service. And we only deal with a pair occasionally at one or two dumpsters, not like turning over 200 cans down the street that we would have to deal with. So it's good planning. It's good living. And our homeowners like it. We will keep doing them. We just don't want to mandate it at this stage. This is not the appropriate stage for us to go design. Hey, we're going to put it right here. Okay. so that's all but I can promise you we will have I keep refining it you know I'm actually adapting and adjusting and No, I made them too big. And so couches find their way into our dumpster enclosures. Guys, I can't make this stuff up. So we keep working with the trash company and tighten them up and tighten it. Because I thought, oh, it'll be better if it's bigger. Not a good idea. So the last one we did, the middle apartments, has actually probably been the best. That's the very last one that I've done. And it's shallower, still has a man door access on the side. And it's working and performing like intended.

And then order of development. Bobby's just starting to look at this. How would you build this as far as order from the bottom up probably?

Yeah, most likely bottom up. I mean, we're doing filing one and two right now. And that filing one's contracted.

These two filings we're looking at tonight would likely be.

Well, these will be earlier stage. So these that we're having tonight. So think about Grand Park Drive cuts up and over. You know how it's like almost like a horseshoe. So it connects the railroad underpass to Elk Creek. I believe we'll develop below that first. That could change depending on product needs and market demand, et cetera. But predominantly, our goal has always been don't repeat the mistake we made in rendezvous where we went to the top of the mountain first and worked down. I've, if you've noticed, worked from existing infrastructure in and up. and believe it allowed us to be adaptive to changing market conditions. It's allowed for more cost-effective development and allowed for, frankly, easier maintenance for the town and less unused infrastructure. So I don't see us departing from that unless there's some sea change in the market that says you got to get to the top of the mountain. So I would prefer to keep doing what we're doing where we're kind of going from existing and working our way up. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you guys.

All right. Clark, thank you very much. And we appreciate that you've been working on these trails and what you've done with the green space. That looks very good.

Thank you. So we would like the resolution cleaned up just so you know. So, yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Perfect.

All right. I think we can now take public comment. Anyone in the room need to come up or do we have someone online? No one online, no one in the room. Well, then I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. I'll second it.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. The public hearing is closed. So one last time to weigh in commissioners before I ask for a motion to come forward.

So on the resolution, I think based on the conversation that you've had, what you will want to do when you make your motion regarding the resolution that's in your packet is you want to remove condition number 3C. from that resolution, so strike section 3c from the resolution, if that is your conclusion that the TRAILS system has been satisfied. If your conclusion is that the TRAILS obligations have not been satisfied, then you can leave it be there. But that would be your option if you did make the determination that that obligation has been satisfied.

Can we put that resolution up?

Jack, I know you said you've got two versions

You put the one up. What are you saying, Roger? I'm saying 3C.

This is the work, Doc. I can pull up the PDF.

That's perfect. Alan's got it right on.

I mean, it seems like by adding in an alternate location in West Mountain may be acceptable if the West Mountain location west of the railroad is not feasible. That takes care of

the if we continue to use the one that's on the railroad right away and if we get kicked off of that then Clark says he's got another alternative location but it does say that there's going to be a trail somewhere and again you would have options you can take that out and if it takes it out at what Alan's got on the screen is what it would look like if you want to leave it in you leave it in that's whatever determination you end up you saw this in previously planted parts of the project

and as a more logical location. So the only reason I kind of hate to give up on the trail thing completely is I still hope that there's some ways to interconnect some of this neighborhood. Because I understand and I really like sidewalks, but we know what happens to them in the wintertime. They're pretty much buried. And that's one problem. But the main problem is it's just hard to get around the neighborhood. These are long cul-de-sacs. But this doesn't really deal with that, does it? This is addressed elsewhere.

Correct. And relative to your maintaining of the sidewalks concern, as those sidewalks are developed, as they're designed, the town is going to work with the developer to make sure that we have a plan in place for maintaining those, whether that's part of that development process. So when we get to that stage, we'll address things like who's going to replace the concrete, who's going to replace that, who's going to plow them, who's going to, you know, Who's going to own them? Those types of things get addressed at the design stage of the operation. We're not there yet. No worries.

So Peggy, you did miss the trails presentation from the last meeting. And there's a lot of access up and over. And so at this stage, I don't have any problem with leaving that out and knowing that that other parallel track that you'd looked at will be available because it's not going to get built on should the railroad deny people access along that trail that we've been using for 80 years.

Yeah. But yeah, there's a place that we're going to all be spent. So I'll take Mark's assurance on that. And then he did point out, Peggy, that there's connection through the town sidewalk to the community sidewalk system to all the trails to the west. They're all that are also accessed by Leland Creek. And then the Leland Creek Trail that goes up the hillside parallel to this, we're still looking, they'll be plotting for that last, what is it, 23? 20. 20, yeah. Plotting or possibly open space. The last piece over here that's along Leland Creek.

Yeah, 20W.

That'll come later. So we're not seeing that on any of these documents.

So the Leland Creek Trail is going to be the access point to the National Forest?

No, there'll be one within the subdivision also. So you don't have to come all the way down the subdivision and go back up again. There'll be one at the top of the subdivision. And those will be public? There's a cul-de-sac that touches on the back.

I don't know if that's entirely true, but I know that Clark might want to respond to that.

No, I didn't know what Adrian was referring to.

Yeah, so there's multiple access points. So there's the Leland Creek Trail that we already built and dedicated and you know where it goes. I'm sure you've used it. And then as you go up the mountain where the snowmobiles go through, we're actually trying to figure out how we keep them going too, which is actually the golf course corridor. It may end up having cross country and some other stuff on it or snowmobile access. So That connects to, and to Andy's point, there's a cul-de-sac, there's two actually at the top, and we have arrows going out onto the Forest Service that are way at the top. But one of them connects in an existing road location. Okay, so we have multiple connection points where we have, but the Forest Service.

And then we talked about intermediate connection points over the Leland Creek, so you don't have to go all the way down and around, but that sounds like it's more.

We may end up doing some cutovers. It's challenging because of wetlands and things like that through Leland Creek, but there is one spot that I know of where we already have kind of a bridge that we built when we were doing the Leland Creek Trail. It's kind of there. And I think, you know, there's some potentials for a couple of cutovers as well.

I put the map up on the screen.

Later though.

Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry. 1, we got you back 20. Only W is is largely largely on Creek wetland or no, it's a planning area.

Um, and it, it. It may we'll see what happens with it. Um. It may end up being cold. It has to do with our partition many years ago. Right. It's still in my name. Yeah. We tried to work with them to say, what do you want to do? So it's got its own zoning and it's allowed to build 60 something in the town boundary. Yeah. No, it's part of the PDD. It just it was one of our deal points when we made our separation. So they have the right to that parcel, only I still own it, retain it, keep it. And so they could ask for me to give it to, they could ask me tomorrow. I'm like, you know, fine. But they're not going to do that. I mean, I work with those guys regularly, and I don't think they have any immediate plans. And I couldn't get them, and Layla and I both, we shared a lot of plans with them. We couldn't get them to get going on this. I just don't think it's on their radar, okay? So they're not on our timeframe. So that's why that piece is one of those that still has to be finished as an FPDP.

and we did talk about the potential where there is an old bridge structure that's kind of halfway in place at least yeah that might be a point for a cutover we talked about that last meeting and And I've been down in there. I know exactly, you know, it's possible.

We laid some huge spruces across. They were dead spruces. We just laid them down across the creek and then did these other ones over that. We were driving our farm tractor over when we were building that. We were cleaning up the old Jeep trail. I hope this holds. And yeah, it's still there and People walk over it occasionally, but yeah. So anyway, that's, is that okay? Yeah. Does that help you? Okay. All right.

Thanks guys. Thank you again, Clark. Yeah. All right. I'm ready to entertain a motion.

Can we have a discussion? We're going to close the public hearing, right? Sorry, we closed the public hearing.

We can.

Yes.

Yes, we can. But I thought that's what we were doing.

Well, what else do you want to discuss, Mr. Bell? So, yeah. Jack, you made a comment. So the review was Alan's. I'm sorry, I'm not recalling this exactly, but I think you commented it's kind of atypical to do this many subdivisions that are this far out. And these aren't subdivisions.

These are FPDPs.

These are FPDPs, but you commented about a one-year time period. Is this a typical process we're going through?

I don't think that I made that comment. I'm sorry. I've not been around long enough to know how long a review is supposed to take. Yeah.

We talked about, you know, with the previous agenda item that had me fairly well lost. I'm sorry, but anyway.

It's heavy stuff.

No, it is. No, but it's My objection to this at the last meeting was that we're planning so far out in advance here. And I understand that these are conceptual drawings. They've still got to come back for preliminary and final plots for subdivisions. But all of this affects the overall layout, which is good to see. This helps us make these decisions going forward into the future. But we may be making them under a different set of parameters, too.

Correct. But you're not making the... I mean, Alan has done all the work here. So I need to give him all the credit. I have done nothing. He has done all the things. I wrote a resolution. That's my only contribution. But regard to are we getting too far out in advance. I mean, that's what planning is, right? It's aspirational, and then things change. And so, you know, we're going to come back with plots. We're going to come back with preliminary plots, final plots. We're going to come back with, you know, site plans. There's still many, many more sites.

There are lots of stops.

Before anything is set in stone. This is entitlement land. It's what it's doing so that we can move to the next.

So the entitlement versus vested that you talked about earlier, okay, how does this fit into that? In other words, if he comes forward with a plat for one of these subdivisions, a preliminary plat, and conditions have changed, it doesn't work for some reason, how much right does the town board and the planning commission have to make changes to that, to request changes to that?

I'm unsure. That might be a legal question. Sorry, I wasn't really looking at Jack. I wasn't sure if that was a question for him.

So the right with regard to changes to anything in Grand Park is currently dictated by the annexation agreement, right? So we're within that 25-year window where the annexation agreement essentially controls in that everything related to the PDD

that is the vested right that has been given by the annexation agreement.

So developing according to the PDD. Obviously, these FPDPs and the individual documents that we've been seeing over the course of the years are all within that PDD. And so it's subject to the land use approvals and the applications within the PDD as well. So as far as, you know, if something comes in down the line, that's before the expiration of that 25 year period. the annexation agreement has determined that the town, you know, as we agreed, isn't going to change anything up to that 25 years. Right. And outside that 25-year period, that's where the distinction of an individual document, so for example, this FPDP If an individual document has its own vested rights, that would be for a period of three years from the approval of that document.

So let's say that this approves this tonight, the 25-year period lapses in two years and is not extended, or can be extended, obviously, but say it's not extended. The rights governed here would last one year beyond it.

No, because this application does not have vested rights. This is purely an, so there are no vested rights. Accompanying this application wouldn't survive past the end of that.

It could be changed again in the future is what would be so this. If something in this, this is the, it remains the unless and until. Clark comes back to us and says, I'd like to amend this. At that point, you would entertain the amendment and discuss what those changes look like.

With no time limit.

There's not a time limit on that.

So where does the three years come in?

So that is a separate item. So an FPDP has indefinite approval duration per the town. It says indefinite. Right. But vested rights do not last indefinitely. And that's right.

So this does not have a time limit. Right. Right.

Right. But in the situation that you are considering where, you know, down the road, three years from now, something changes where this is inapplicable to how the town is growing. the town has the ability to make changes at that point, you know, given certain other situations, you know, as we discussed earlier, if there's common law vested rights, you know, that may be something to consider. But if the town looks at this, you know, nothing's been happening for three years, this FPDP just doesn't make sense anymore. The town has the ability to make changes for that area. Yes, despite the indefinite approval period of the, that's not what protects against the changes. It is the vested right? That prevents us. Correct.

Okay. Claire is mud, right?

Well, I think I understand it. I mean, I'm just, I'm trying. What I'm searching for is the is a feeling of how much. We tie the hands of future town boards.

I don't think you're tying the hands of anyone. You're saying that as of today, this is the plan. But the plan could change in the future, and in the future, you could contemplate those changes. As of today, this is the plan. Let's go forth and do it. If circumstances change, then the applicant can come back and ask for a revision. But as of today, this is the plan.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Then I'm ready to accept a motion from the floor.

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-0602, recommending approval of the FCDP 7W-8WA for Grand Park West Mountain Fireman.

And a portion of 23W.

And with the deletion of Condition 3C.

Second that motion.

All right, we have a motion on the floor that's been. Made and seconded all in favor.

All right.

All opposed with no opposition motion carries. All right now we have a, yeah, we have a. Sorry section of discussion item 6. which Jack, I think you're doing that one.

Yes, sir. And I'm sorry, I interrupted you there. I got excited. So for the record, Jack Stewart Town Planner, this is, and I don't have slides because I'm not as cool as Alan for this particular part. So what this is, is if... there is an exemption plat which is known as 20w clark mentioned that just as just a moment ago uh that exemption plat uh the boundaries don't match what the the fpdp that you just uh approved is calling for. And so to resolve that discrepancy, and Alan's going to help me out here.

So do you want me to pull up any of your documents that you have on here?

Could you give, no, the documents don't have any diagrams on them because I don't have a diagram. But the conceptual issue is the FPDB creates a area and we have this old exemption plat that has a different area. Those two don't match. So we need to get rid of the old one so that then we can have the new one. Did I get that right, Alec?

Yeah, so the subdivision exemption plot is being vacated.

Yes.

And then the boundaries will be redrawn to align to the existing FPD.

When we get to platting the land, that plat will then show the separate 20w area which is part of an agreement between cornerstone and cobalt um that that'll get platted separately of the existing subdivision exemption plat which has a different design than what that is supposed to be So what this ordinance does, and Cooper wrote it, so again, I'm just throwing all my friends under the bus here. He can explain what it does specifically, but what we're doing is vacating that exemption plat. That's something the town and Cornerstone both agree is necessary so that we can correct the boundaries in the plat. But you can't have two documents that conflict with each other. So the FPDP that you just approved conflicts with the exemption plat, so we need to get rid of the exemptions. 16082389231st, Claire's mud still.

16082389231st, Just approved.

16082389231st, I could.

16082389231st, I said, Okay, recommended for approval in May. 16082389231st, Yes.

So given that, that brings us kind of back a step to you have an ordinance vacating planning area 20W exemption plan that we need to vote on, right?

You don't. You're not going to vote on it because the town board does that. What you're going to do is you're going to make a motion recommending that ordinance to the town board so that they can vote on that at the July 8th meeting.

Can you pull up that ordinance for us, that resolution for us?

I don't have a resolution. It doesn't have a resolution. It's just a simple, yeah, it's an ordinance there.

So I would say I make a motion approving the ordinance vacating planning area 20W exemption plan.

Your motion is recommending to the Board of Trustees the approval of the ordinance. You got it.

I make a motion recommending to the Board of Trustees approval of the ordinance vacating Planning Area 20W exemption plan.

Second.

All right. Motion made. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? All right. That motion carries.

Thank you.

All right. So now we get to the last item, which is And I kind of got out of order there, Jack, because I thought maybe you explained it before we voted on it. Now, so now we're going to other business. No, you're not. We still have B. Oh, it's six B. Okay. So it's you again, Jack. That's me again.

Internet, can you give me my phone? Thank you.

I'm going to stand up here for this part. This one I did make slides for. So this, we had discussions last month, and Alan and I have had discussions, and Cooper and I have had discussions, and Kent and I have had discussions about how the... About how there are portions of Chapter 19... that about making some changes to chapters 18 and chapters 19 of the municipal code. And so I've outlined some ideas for what those changes could look like, the rationale behind those changes, and then I'm hoping to get answers from you on kind of some direction on how you want it to go. Do you want me to just use my laptop?

Okay.

So, clicker. Okay. Go back here. So you have the authority under these two statutes. First is Title 31, Article 15, Section 103, the Code of Revised Statutes. You have the authority to make and publish ordinances. And then in Article 23, Section 301, you have the power to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, percentage of a lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation, the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes that provide for the manner in which said regulations and restrictions are determined, established, enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, or changed. What does that mean? Well, I don't know.

Let's talk about it. Oh, it also means you should get involved in local government.

Well, there are, these are the sections of the town code that I have determined are in need of a little bit of adjustment. And so the first one is our review process. So the process that the town code lays out for how we are going to review land use applications. And there's a draft of this ordinance that was in your packet. If you wanna read the nitty gritty detail, you certainly can. I'm gonna kind of explain it in broad strokes but we can get into the details if you want the proposals that i am making is that we're going to clarify a process for appealing staff decisions before the planning commission and the board of adjustment in reality those are both you all but legally they're two separate entities so we're going to make that clarification and we're going to also adjust the clarification of the timeline for the submission of applications and materials why are we doing that Right now, the turnaround time is just a little too short given our monthly meetings for us to be able, for staff to be able to effectively review that information and get it to you to make a thoughtful decision. We're going to extend it 30 days to 45 days. That way we have enough time. to get that to you all.

So Jack, in that section then, can you also restrict the number of applications that an applicant is allowed to submit at one time? You can do whatever you want me to do. I would like you to do that. Okay. Because that last planning commission meeting was ridiculous. We had five PDPs. Ridiculous. And how many fields wrapped? How many, I think, well, for staff, two?

I mean, the way that they could do around it is they could just say it's all one. I mean, they split it up, I think, for segmentation, but there's no physical restraint either. So I don't know if this would necessarily prevent that same size of go.

Maybe a language restriction?

I just felt like it was overwhelming for everyone. And for staff, it was unrealistic. So how do we go about making it more manageable? Look at the lawyer.

You know, I get to give my favorite answer I always got in law school. It depends. I think there's a number of avenues that we could potentially use. Well, so let me back up. So the concern is the amount of information that is received at each of these planning commissions. Is that correct?

Well, specifically, yeah. An example was last meeting.

Yes. Overwhelmed. Yeah. Deluge of information there.

For staff and the commissioners. You couldn't do a good job.

Yeah, I'd have to take some time to think about how we could really rein that in. I think there's a number of avenues that could work for different types of applications, like acreage was something Michael had just suggested. But then you think about, well, what if you have one single pretty simple development that happens to be five acres over? Do they have to come back and do a separate five acre approval? So that's something we can definitely consider, you know, trying to just parse down how much information and how much time each application takes. hearing can take up. But honestly, there may not be a simple, single answer with the differing amount of applications and different styles of applications that the commission may hear. So we'll have to spend some time really thinking about if there's a single way to make sure that we don't have what happened last month happen again.

But I hear you. And we're going to look into that.

Thank you.

And come up with a solution.

Thank you.

I've got on my list. Cooper and I have a list going between us. So we'll add that to it. It's a scroll now. bunch of things. So the other ones are we're going to make some clarifications to there's a table in the code for those of us that spend a lot of time looking at the code. This table is a very important table. Make some clarifications to that table to make it make a little more sense. And that then this is a big one, in my opinion, is that we're going to clarify that. So there's a section in the code right now that requires all comments from external agency I'll review comments to be addressed prior to bringing that application before the board or the planning commission. There's been some dispute over what the word addressed means. So I would like to resolve that dispute by changing the word addressed to resolved.

That would be nice.

So that the comments must be resolved because what we don't want to be in a place is where you're being asked to approve something like you were tonight, And one of the conditions is you have to resolve all the outstanding comments. By the time we get it to you, we want all the comments to be resolved. Now, there might be some one-offs. Maybe we need to work on this, that, or the other thing. And we can be transparent with you and say, hey, there's an outstanding comment. We'd like your permission to have some more time to work through it. But this general, we're coming to you with comments still outstanding, I think, Jack's opinion is poor practice. And so I would like to make sure that in the future, we are coming to you with applications that have all of their comments resolved.

Yes.

How does that feel?

It feels really good. Yeah. Cause if they're not resolved and there's a real reason for it, then we can, we can either say, okay, let it go. Or we can say the language says result.

Yeah.

And it makes a lot easier. Yeah. Okay.

On my clickers.

Can you, can you get so.

It's mad at me.

Thank you.

So the next thing that we do is we want to clarify. So there are timelines in the code that we have to meet. So after you all approve something, we then have to put that in front of the Board of Trustees within 45 days. I want to add a provision that allows you all to toll or put on hold that 45-day period so that if there are things that are outstanding that need to be resolved, we don't have to rush to get those done before we put something before the Board of Trustees. So we can say, hold on, let's slow our rolls, and let's get this done correctly. And then we want to simplify the subsection on the existing six-month waiting period for resubmitting a denied application. It's this really long paragraph about if you get denied, you can come back. And the wording that Cooper and I have come up with takes that from like six sentences just to make that cleaner. But essentially what it's going to say is if you all deny an application, they can come back to you one time. And if you deny it again, then they need to wait six months. This purpose is so that you don't have the same applicant bothering you every single month. Like go spend some time thinking about it and come back to us with a new one. We want to clarify the provision around the requirements around the applicant submitting the town for its costs. We incur costs for our legal counsel, for our engineers to go and review these things. We want to make it crystal clear the applicants have to reimburse us for those costs. Just to remove any doubt in the future of an applicant saying, I'm not paying you for that. We're just to make that crystal clear that if you choose to submit something, you have to reimburse us for those actual costs. And then the next part is a big one that Kent mentioned in a previous meeting. We need to have better version control. The reason why we got into that litigation over the conservation easement was because documents changed from version one to version two, and we didn't catch them all. And so we're creating a requirement that very firmly says you, the applicant, need to tell us the differences between this You need to be very detailed about that. And if you miss something, that whole application is null and void. If you don't call it out and staff finds it later because you were trying to pull one over on us, the whole thing goes away.

You're here. You're here exhibiting. Very good. It took us frigging 50 years to figure this out. We're getting smarter. I know.

Just not quite as nice as we used to be.

Oh, now the clicker is working. It was misbehaving. Okay, so part two of the ordinance, this is about public notice, and this follows a conversation that Bob and I had last week. First, the green sheet, which is the return receipt requested on the back of your envelope, sometimes those green sheets don't make it back to us. And under the current code, if we didn't get that green sheet back, technically the notice isn't valid. So I would like to remove the requirement that we send it return receipt requested and just require it to be certified mail. We still get a tracking number. We're still going to be able to prove that the applicant got it. It's just if that pesky green sheet doesn't make it back to us, it doesn't make the notice void. How do we feel about that one? Okay. And then the next part is from the conversation Bob and I had, which is the county requires you to put a sign on your property that says on this day, at this time, in this place, there's going to be a public hearing. We send mail to people within 200 feet, but maybe you don't live within 200 feet, but you drive past that address all the time, and maybe you do have some interest. So we'd like the proposal is to add to the code requirement that those signs go up. Again, staff will have to figure out what that process looks like. I'm assigning myself that job, but that way we can encourage more public participation. Okay.

I like those signs a lot. Yeah.

Then this next part is to a different chapter. This is chapter 18. This is about the building code. Chapter 19 is the land use code. Chapter 18 is the building code. And so these are the local amendments to the international building code. And what I want to do is change the section on building permit expiration to allow the town to impose conditions to a building permit expiration extension. So right now the code allows you to get an extension. Permit lasts for 24 months, essentially two years, and then you can ask for a 180-day extension. I'd like the authority to impose a condition on that extension, and that those conditions could be getting a letter of credit to ensure the project actually gets done. I spent a chunk of my day today working on a property that got their first permit in 2019. has been gotten many extensions to that permit. And then that permit expired in 2024 and they've been doing work without a permit for the last two years. And there are a lot of problems with that project. I think we can all agree that the goal needs to be to get project done. But if some people are gonna drag these projects out, we need some conditions to make sure that we're incentivizing to get those projects done. And then if they aren't meeting their deadline, allow us to call in the letter of credit to get the project done on our own.

Jack, when you say the letter of credit, are you strictly pertaining that to public infrastructure improvements?

No, that would be the whole property. And this is a question I wanted to pose to you. This is an option that Kent kind of suggested when I talked to him. I don't know if that's a good idea. I just wanted to pose that as an option to all of you because then the town would be on the hook for finishing someone's project for them.

So didn't we tie some of that into our code already where we required what do you call that? Money down basically or surety not just on infrastructure but on

completion of a project and it would have to i thought we'd get that already there's some of that for landscaping and then for like public improvement so our surety currently consists of deep wet utilities and horizontal infrastructure like roads and sidewalks and then recently we've started requiring the surety on landscaping that's required by code But, you know, our DIAs, our development improvement agreements do not require surety for any vertical construction.

I would strongly advise to not include vertical construction at surety. Landscaping, if you want to include landscaping, I think that's reasonable. But, yeah.

Even on commercial? We've seen, I mean, Winter Park, I'm assuming you have that, and you've always had it because they had to tear down a building, a big one, and they had surety, and we sat here and looked at that building since 2018.

I shouldn't have a development improvement agreement for that building. Paul, is there some aspect of the development improvement agreement that it requires some level of construction guaranteed i'm not on vertical it's all just the horizontal so that's the demolition bond that we talked about so are you saying because he's in a pud so you you if you want you you know if you guys want to discuss the difference between things like commercial and like homes like up on what pd where you have some homeowners who are just building their homes as they can um You can differentiate between commercial Highway 40 arterials, maybe something there. But as far as, you know, you want to promote people to get their projects done. But the reality is some people are building their homes. And this is particular that I see in Tabernash on a regular basis. Some people have been building a log cabin for a decade. They're building it as they have the cash to do so. Not everyone's a developer. A lot of people are just trying to build their homes and they're trying to build it in a way that they can do it financially. If you don't want to, there could be some alternatives to this, but.

This is, again, one option. It doesn't sound like we like this option.

It could be tied to scale and commercial. I mean, because the James Peak Lodge was the name of that building, I believe, at Winter Park. And the scale of that thing to get torn down, if Winter Park hadn't been covered, they would have been in big trouble. And the scale of the one we had for years is finally getting done. It shall not be mentioned. We talked about a demolition bond with him a long time ago.

I know that was tied to an economic incentive package.

But a demolition bond would have made that more straightforward. So maybe, you know, the scale of it, visibility of mainly commercial, large commercial, we do need some protection on.

Okay, great.

That's something to look at long term. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Oh yeah yeah and it's getting late, but let's keep that on the right, I thought that we'd already adopted something yeah.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Just just a quick question all development and proven agreements who are those applicable to.

PB, Peter Vitale PB, Peter Vitale Q&A to ask questions.

PB, Peter Vitale Q&A to ask questions. PB, Peter Vitale Q&A to ask questions. planning and creating of lots. So custom homes being built up in Wolverine, Ferret, up in Rendezvous or even in Grand Park, those are already plotted lots. So they're going through the building department. So I don't collect surety on service lines.

We've got just town-owned projects.

And so that brings us to the next line there, which is if You are getting the project done and we get to the point where your permits have expired. It's been two years. There's a problem. And you would bear the cost of correcting that problem, which might mean bearing it down and starting over. But to be clear that you bear that cost.

Again, scale and private homes and We'll tear down versus finish. Yeah.

Not now.

Yeah.

So let's noodle on this once more. We'll noodle on it some more. The next one is land use applications. This is a cleanup amendment. We would remove outdated land use application forms from the code. So right now, the form that we ask people to fill out actually lives in the code. But that is going to be problematic as we roll out our new online application. application system uh through this vendor that we have contracted with called cloud permit also it doesn't enable staff to ask for more unique information for for the project so what we recommend here is to change this section to remove the forms from the code and just say there will be forms And they'll be prescribed by town staff. And you need to fill out the staff, the forms that staff puts together, rather than saying, this is a specific form that you need to use. And you can only use this one that's in the code. As the times change, we need to be more nimble in our ability to update those forms.

We'll accommodate with that written forms for those people that Are older and frustrated doing anything online? No. Yeah, I know Katie.

I've been running the cloud for that thing. I actually can do it.

We are going to push very hard to move everybody online because that will improve the efficiency of step. Sure. And if you're struggling to use the systems, I will make a commitment now that anybody can stop by and see me and we can work together. But we're going to move away from paper forms and into the online system and we'll help people overcome those online difficulties so that we can do that. We're going to fix an issue in the signature block text. It needs the word trustees after the word board of. So we're going to fix that typo. And then it says he in every place. There might be some she's. So I'm going to make that gender neutral language and change it to they. That's what that section does. And then we repeal a whole bunch of outdated and inconsistent and unnecessary provisions that just aren't applicable anymore. It's from stuff back in 2018. 2018 was a long time ago. We just don't need that stuff there anymore. And then part nine fixes the citations so that it points to the right place. That's what our proposals are so far. Oh, and then there are three provisions at the end that Hoover was nice enough to write us for us that creates a severability clause and effective date and the publication.

So that intro paragraph that you showed us at the very beginning said we govern the height of trees. You can if you want. Can we get rid of that? I don't want to go out and red tag a nice big tree. You can take that out.

Absolutely. That was going to bring me to my next question. I've made a long list and it's getting late. So I'm going to send this to all of you. I want you to ponder it and maybe send me back some thoughts on how to respond to some of these. But there are a long list of things that I'm talking with. Well, just I've observed and then Alan and I have talked about a little bit that we just think we can, you know, mix up a little bit. To make everyone's life a little bit easier, right? Stuff around our push up reviews, our preliminary plans. You know, if it's a preliminary plan, do we want to take that to the planning commission and to the board of trustees, even though it's preliminary? So. It'll just all change at the final 1, like, what's the right approach there? Um. You know, in the other jurisdictions that I've worked in, you plat your property first, and then you make your site plan about how you're going to use that property. We seem to have a lot of site plans, but not a lot of plats. Maybe we need to think about having an order to things to make sure that, you know, do we want the site plan to go first? Do we want the plat to go first? Right now, it feels like for some developments, the plaque goes first and then the site plan and in others, the site plan goes first and then the plaque. Probably have some consistency across the realm there and make sure we're doing things like that. Final acceptance of infrastructure, right? Is that something the board wants to see or is that something we can trust our public works director and our town staff to be looking for? I don't know, these are things we should think about. What about our landscaping obligations and fences? Right now, the only time the code mentions the word fence is to say that a fence is not a wall and a wall that is over four feet requires a building permit. Do we want people to be putting up fences that are 12 feet tall? Because right now the code allows them to do that because the fence isn't a wall and there's no permit required for a fence. I don't know. Maybe that's something we need to think about. The fence was restricted to six feet. The code doesn't have a restriction on the height of fences. It says that if a wall is going to be more than four feet, it requires a building permit. But it specifically says the fence isn't a wall.

Yeah.

So... I don't know. What do we want to do there? Do we want to have requirements that people, you know, about maintenance of their property? Are we all right with people having shingles on their houses that are falling down? I don't know. Maybe that's something we should test the junk ordinance. Yeah. But the junk ordinance.

Yeah.

leaves room for interpretation. So should we clarify those types of things? I don't know. Let's think about those things, right? Do we want to require people to have proof of water and sewer service before building permit? I'll just say administratively, we won't approve a building permit if they don't have water and sewer, but that's not technically in the code. So someone should challenge us on that.

Yeah.

Uh, We have this outdated reference to an emergency service impact fee, which Alan tells me the town used to collect these fees way back in the day. But now that fire department does it themselves. Do we need to leave that in the code? Probably not. You know, we should probably clarify the names of some of our departments because the department's names have changed. What about a fee waiver process? We talked earlier, a group of it for a while, about durations of approvals. We want to take a look at that section to see how long should these approvals be valid for? Do we want an FPD of approval? We want to do, okay.

It's an alphabetical rule.

We have a lot to look at. This is supposed to be introductory to start thinking about these things. This is the last one. This is the last one. I just want you to percolate on the thing about these things.

And we did talk about dark sky. Dark sky, right.

What's the definition of a dwelling unit? Right? These are all things I want you to think about. I'm not asking you to do anything right now. I want you to think about these things. Start percolating on them. Because I'm going to come back to you next month And we're going to talk about where we want to go from here. And then I think this is an ambitious timeline. So we'll maybe slow it down a little bit and take the August meeting as well. Then we can try to put some of this stuff together. How does that sound? Yeah, great.

And you had mentioned in here about changing the requirements for plan reviews for the fire department from 16 days to 16 work days.

16 work days.

And that's good. Correct. He said that would be great.

So we can do work. So that brings me to the last thing that I wanted to tell you about, which is that I've made an administrative decision. that instead of using 16 days, there will be 16 work days to allow our external agencies time to review the application.

And we love administrative decisions.

All right. That's what I got. Again, I want you to think about it. I want you to talk to me about it. That's number seven there. That's my administrative decision.

Okay.

Yeah, that's all I got for you all. Again, it's a lot. I'm sorry. It's like... Think about these things.

I found a stapler in the bathroom.

Think about these things. Noodle on them. Next month we'll talk more and we'll see what direction we want to go.

Thank you, Jack. I think we can have a motion to adjourn. So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Meeting adjourned at 9... 18.