P&z - Regular Meeting

All right, let's call to order Town of Basalt uh Planning and Zoning Commission, Tuesday, August 19th, 2025. All right, roll call, please. Thank you. Um Mike Horvath here. Ben Firestein here. Katie Hostettler is not here. Bill Marin, yo. Eric Vozek, it's not here yet. Cindy Chris Hersshfield, it's not here. Uh Rob Levit, yes. Bob Kaplan here. And Kyle Obereter. Great. We have a quorum. We do not have our chair at the moment. Um would someone like to make a motion to nominate someone to chair the meeting until we have prom? Right. I thought I was prom. Oh yeah. Great. I nominate the prom. Thank you very much for the record. Fabulous. All right. Thank you, Bill, for taking on the duty. All right. No problem. All right. Item 2A, a continued public hearing 202 and 202 and 2024 Ridge Road, a minor subdivision PUD amendment. Uh Carlton. Good evening, everybody. Um we're here to discuss uh PUD amendment slope review uh for an adjustment to the pedestrian and bicycle public access easement. Uh and now a lot line adjustment on the approved and recorded plat for properties 202 and 204 Ridge Road, also known as lots one and two of the Basalt Highlands PUD. Uh this public hearing is a continuation from the July 15th public hearing uh where we discussed a slightly different application um for an adjustment to the pedestrian and bicycle public access easement as well as a building envelope adjustment. Since we last met, the applicant team has uh

heard the neighbors concerns as well as the uh direction from planning and zoning commission to make adjustments both to the geographic location of that access easement uh as well as uh an adjustment to the building envelope to no longer be moved up the slope but remain in its original location. uh per the original plat for the property. Um I'll give a little bit of background for those of you who are not here uh in July and just for the record as well. Uh lots one and two of the Basalt Highlands PUB were originally created in 1995 as part of the six lot subdivision uh accessed by Ridge Road known as the Basalt Highlands. Uh in 2006, a private driveway and parking easement was agreed upon between the owners of lots one and two. Um and the existing pedestrian and bicycle public access easement um which existed uh where that driveway now exists um was between the years 2006 and 2021 impeded by a boulder retaining wall uh which now exists on the property. Um that retaining wall was believed to be constructed by the owner of lot 2. Uh and in about 2021, um the owners of uh Lot One, uh also known as 202 Ridge Road, uh sought to resolve some trespassing that was occurring, um on lot one due to the um uh impeding of the public access easement by the retaining wall. Uh the town of Basalt reached out to try to resolve this issue to the property owner of lot 2. Um and during the discussions

that ensued was unable to facilitate a resolution to this property conflict. Um now that a sole property owner a Mr. Mayan um as the beneficiary uh possesses uh ownership to both lots one and two. Um uh the applicant team has come to the town to seek to resolve this property conflict um which has been kind of the uh the impetus for this uh application. Um again we are bringing this application back from the July 15th meeting um with several changes um which will illustrate um the applicant team has worked iter iteratively with staff as well as with a new surveyor to um accommodate the changes as requested by the neighbors as well as by the planning and zoning commission. Um we received uh an initial draft for that plat uh at the end of last week and then some minor changes have been made uh in the interim um since Thursday and those are illustrated on the plats that are in front of you. Um staff believes that these changes were um minor in in scope. Uh namely some changes to the notes on the plat and as well as some changes to the line weights to make the plat more legible. An additional sheet has also been added since Thursday um to increase again legibility uh for the record. Um discussion items for planning and zoning commission. Uh the proposed easement meets the intent and purposes of the PUD agreement. Um in regard to the trail easement relocation, the town of Basalt again has an interest in relocation of the public trail easement to resolve the

current inaccessibility due to the retaining wall on the property. Um, uh, again with the the new plat that retaining wall is a little bit more legible, um, from what you guys saw in July, as well as from what was in your packets from last week. Um, additionally, staff finds that minimal vegetation removal would be needed to relocate the trail as shown on the documents in front of you. Um, in regard to the encroachment of the retaining wall, staff has identified uh that the retaining wall constructed by the prior owner of lot 2 encroaches onto lot one. The applicant team has been amendable to a lot line adjustment which you'll see on the plats in front of you. It was also included as part of the packet from the end of last week and staff has deemed that the proposed lot line adjustment would while not entirely would sufficiently rectify this encroachment. Uh and further on the lot line adjustment, um the proposed adjustment to the lot line between lots one and two would relocate the lot line to the west on the southern portion of the property to accommodate again that that retaining wall encroachment. Um and then the at the northern end of the property there would be kind of an exchange of property with the lot line moving from the west to the east side of that uh existing um pedestrian access easement. Um and staff again feels that this uh as illustrated on the attached survey is uh sufficient to to rectify the encroachment as shown. Um staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission ask questions of staff and the applicant. Hear public comment, discuss the development application and provide a recommendation to town council regarding the application. Planning and

zoning commission may either recommend approval, recommend denial, recommend approval with further conditions, or continue the public hearing if additional information is requested. Um, the application meets town code and the requirements of the PUB agreement subject to compliance with the following draft conditions, uh, which were included in your staff packet. Um, I would be happy to recite any or all of those if planning and zoning commission wishes. Um, but staff recommends that uh, PNZ approve the application with the drafted conditions as shown. Um, we do have uh Mr. Dave Gianeti from the applicant team online. Um, and uh I guess this would be an appropriate time that he could share any further information. Uh, and then we will open up for public comment. Thank you, Carlton. I believe also uh Mr. M is there u and uh if he would like to speak if he is there. If not, I would be more than happy to uh to speak. Um, good evening everyone. U, my name is Tom May. Um, I'm the owner of uh lots one and two. Um, my wife and I bought uh bought 202 about 18 months ago. um and during the due diligence process found out that uh there was an encroachment issue and a subsequent lawsuit ensuing against the town of Balt the HOA and u Mr. Brower who was my predecessor he had built the uh retaining wall as I understand it to accommodate the needs of a fire truck turning around in that property to service lots one and lots two. Um what that precipitated was uh moving the footpath sort of

organically now moved onto what was then the Vernon's property and they lost two or three sales as a result of it and consequently there was no really good solution. So, uh, we very much liked that property and wanted to buy it, but in discussions with the town of Basalt, the only solution really was to buy the property next door, and in owning both properties, we could resolve it. Um, regrettably, I suffered a a a stroke uh a little while ago. So, it made the uh the use of that property, which is a stair everywhere you look, um kind of not so attractive. Um, and that's also the reason that I wasn't available at the last uh last meeting. Um, which I understand caused a certain amount of angst to my dear neighbors here and I very much apologize for that. Anyway, subsequent to that, we have retoled and hired a new surveyor and with the town of Basalt, we've moved the footpath basically all the way over to the back to the other side of it. Um, and it's really about 8 ft now from where it where it is supposed to be. Um, so that public can access the uh the BLM land u with I think a a good deal of safety now whereas before you know it was very precipitous to walk anywhere close to that um that boulder wall. Um so let me see I think Dave gave me some other notes here as well. So uh so including the lot line adjustment to lots one and two. The proposed new trail uh of the access easement is on lot one running along the entire lot line of one and two. Um and the retaining wall now encroachment issue will be sufficiently rectified. So the adjustments of the lot line means that the whole of the public access easement now will sit on what is now what is lot one or 204 Ridge Road

which I think in future will avoid any further confusions. Um I thought we'd had a lot of time to resolve this issue but now we find ourselves in a position where we need to sell the property and so that's why we are where we are. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. All right, let's uh if any of us let's start with Bob have questions of staff or the applicant. Um um just one clarification uh to staff and that is that the building envelope has not been moved. Is that correct? The building envelope has not been moved. Correct. From the existing building envelope. That is correct. From the July 15th meeting, it has gone back to the existing building envelope. the existing. Yeah. If you remember from the July 15th meeting, the original proposal also included moving the building slightly up the property. Um that also created a little bit of a buffer between um the proposed easement. Um but after discussion with the neighbors, the applicant has been amendable to keeping the existing building envelope. Okay, that's Oh, first Rob question. Is the letter for Mr. Mr. Infante, something we need to concern ourselves with. So, Mr. Infante and I spoke earlier today. Um uh and Mr. Infonte is concerned with uh addressing um the private access between lots 3, 2, and one. Um which there's a little bit of a a concern here. So the h however um it is not related to the application at hand. So in 2006 there was a private access agreement signed between lots two and one. So that was Mr. Brower and Mr.

Vernon. Um we have a copy of that contract uh on file with the town. However, that agreement was never recorded with Eagle County and is not a part of the property file per the county. It's not a recorded document. Um, and upon discovery of that, uh, that document also references a previous private agreement between lots three and two, which initially ease the property for, uh, lot two to construct a driveway where it currently exists. If you remember from the the site visit, um that private document that's referenced uh is not on file with the town and neither private property owner has a copy of that agreement either. Additionally, that agreement is not recorded with Eagle County. So, uh, the town has encouraged the private property owners who are all part and parcel to this, uh, discussion to resolve the private access easement, uh, questions while this is on the top of the pile and top of mind for everybody. Um, however, uh, that private access easement is not a part of this application. Uh, resolving that is not a part of this application. movement of the public access easement off of the driveway further unencumbers that piece of property. Um, and so again, I think Mr. Infante sees this as an opportunity to resolve the issue and has provided comment in lie of his ability to be here this evening. Um but uh staff would encourage planning and zoning commission to um consider that separate from the issue at hand which

are the lot line adjustment and the adjustment to the public access easement. As far as the public access goes, is there going to be any new signage up there? Um that was a one of the draft conditions um per that was suggested per staff. Um was that let me give you the uh exact language here. So, the applicant shall commit to financing the costs associated with rerouting the trail to the west and the restoration of the existing trail system. Uh, these costs should include any necessary signage to direct the public to the new alignment. So, this would be a a written condition as a part of the approval should you accept the draft conditions that staff has provided. Thanks. Thank you, Rob. Ben, questions. Does the private access agreement that you were referring to also affect lot 4? Uh to my understanding it does not. Again, uh only one of the two uh private access agreements is on file with the town. Uh the one that is on file with the town, while it references lot three, um is between the previous owners of lot two and one to ease property from what was the Brower property or lot two to lot one for access off of that driveway. We don't have any um documentation of the easement from 3 to two. So I I can't speak to four and I I don't know if there's a easement from 3 to four. But the trail agreements, the trail access that we're referring to as part of this application is on title and on file with capital. Correct. It's recorded. Are there any photos of the retaining wall that could be relevant today for the means of exposure or concern with public travel across the top of the

retaining wall? Uh I I don't have a a picture. We did conduct a site visit earlier this summer. I no that's okay. Um that that might be something that could be accessed via the internet right now. Um, I can take a peek for you, but at no point would a pedestrian be high above in a considerable fall distance onto the property of lot two on top of it. I can speak to that. Sure. So the retaining wall the retaining wall is is is very high. Um and there is a fence that runs along the top of the retaining wall as well as some significant trees and foliage. So it would be very difficult to get to the edge of the retaining wall. The retaining wall also steps down so it is not a sheer drop. Um, uh, so I I I think you would, yeah, you would need a ladder to climb the fence and you'd need a you'd need a a machete to cut back some branches in order to fall down that wall, I would say. And with with the updated survey, I would um point to that for a little bit of um reference. And I just did just check there is no street view that I could pull up for you while sitting in this room here. Um but uh the the new survey does show both the the trees and the stepped nature the terrace nature of the retaining wall there. Um so apologies there. We don't have any I I do I do see the trees located here on survey and and the step nature of the walls. I just didn't know how bushy those trees are or if pedestrians they're relatively mature. Um, but that distance is uh somewhere in the if

you're if you're speaking from where the retaining wall would be down to where the drive would be is somewhere in the the realm of 15 ft. That's your questions, Ben? That's my question. Okay, Mike, questions. Um, no questions at this time. All right. Thank you. Um, now we're going to open this up for um public comment. Let's open up the public comment portion of this meeting at 6:26. Um, if anyone in the in the audience wants to make a presentation, come up to the microphone and state your name and where you live and keep it to three minutes if you can. Thank you. I'm Ted Lee. I'm in lot four with my partner Mark Zakula. Um, first, thank you all for considering our comments last time and for Carlton and the staff working with our neighbors, the Maymons to to come to a solution. Um, I had hoped tonight to come to you and say we've got a written consent signed by all of our members. Um, two things have happened. The um, diagram changed just a little. So, we had referenced the last draft and we couldn't just change it to the new draft yet. So, we haven't seen the draft that came in this afternoon. I understand it's merely some notes and things, but we haven't reviewed that yet. Conditionally, everybody in our subdivision has said they expect they will approve of this, but they've got to look at that. And then Bill Infante, who's the owner of lot three, wrote the email message that said there's a question on this little clip on the of the property that Carlton mentioned about easements. And frankly, as I understand from him, he remember the cobblestone road you walked up. Um, a tiny bit of that is on lot three. He wants to make certain he hasn't given away his underlying

property rights to that clip of property and he can't find the document that shows this. So, he wrote in his message to Carlton, to all of us, that he can't approve tonight of that. I think we're going to get there. I want to make sure that my neighbors get to sell when they want to sell. Um, if that's what their goal is. Um, I don't have the solution to that yet. We're happy. Mark and I are happy and the McMahon's who own lots five and six have said they're satisfied with the proposed placement of the easement, frankly, back over to the other side of the of lot one. So, and and thank you all for working on that, too. Um, but we don't have an approval yet. We have a everyone's told me, tell them we like where it's going. So, I don't know what you all do with that. But that's the first two things I want to say. But I want to ask you what two questions. One is, am I going to be back here in 5 years having this problem again where the new owner of lot number one is going to come back and ask you to move the easement back over to my side of the property? Is there anything you can do to to record that it's been heard, it's been resolved, and that's where it stays? I don't know this how this process works. So, I'm asking the question. We'll get to that when when we make our comments. I'll I'll I'll address that. The only other thing I would say is that there's a comment of the requirements. One of which is that the applicant the Mayman's um Carlton summarized it exactly right about um paying for the improvements or the signage or whatever those worlds are. Um that's actually it says commit to do those things. It would be swell if you could come up with a drop deadad date when that has to be done. I don't mean tomorrow. I don't mean a month from now. that so that in 20 years we're not back here still saying people are using the bandit trails and I don't know what you can do about that if it's 3 months 6

months or something. All right. Thank you. That's all we have. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Uh any comments out in internet land, James? Uh no, there's nobody from the public on the internet. Okay, good. So, what? I didn't have any questions. I didn't have any questions, so I have comments, but we'll we'll get there. We we'll get there. All right, let's uh close public comments at 6:30 and move on to uh commissioner comments. Um Mike, would you like to start? Um I was not here in July. Um what has been presented today seems reasonable to me um and with the information I have but at this time I have no comments. All right. Thank you. Ben, I was also not here in July. Um and what presented appears reasonable. Uh have no further comments. All right. Thanks, Rob. Comments. Um, I feel like the concerns we had in July have been addressed. Um, if the neighbors are happy, then I'm happy. I would like to see that in writing officially before we made any kind of motion or that would be part of the motion, I think. Um, well, hold that thought. Okay. Well, I'm also happy with the outcome as long as the parties are. Um, I do want to reiterate that I think the signage is very important because the distance between the building envelope and the

wall is very narrow and in today's world, somebody's going to maximize that there are building on that building wall. I think hikers and users will get um confused that the the trail is this close to the house. So, I think putting that signage in place sooner than later is is very important. All right. Thank you. That's the only comment I have. Thank you. Uh first off, um I do have a bunch of comments to make. Um you know, I think uh Bill and Fonte's question is um salient but kind of beyond the scope of our understanding of the the the legal requirements. I don't even know if we could even make that as a part of an attachment to the to the um conditions on this. So, um I I don't know how to handle that part. You know, I I think when we make a motion, we could have this read through by the city attorney will be anyway, but we might want to add that into whoever makes our conditions that that part happens. Um the the signage component, I agree with everyone on that. I think that needs to be very clearly defined. Um because for what is said there, if I was acting as a developer, I'd put up a 3x5 card that was handwritten that said trail because that would satisfy the requirement. So I think that we there it needs to be much more clearly defined to be acceptable to town staff. And I also do think that whatever signage there is has to be visible from the public right away, meaning the culde-sac, not just the driveway, because people won't walk up the driveway, right? Because in old time basalt, you could have gotten shot doing that. So you a lot of people won't want to do that. So it's we need to, you know, right from the public access know where you can go and where you can't go. Yeah. So I think that that that should be part

of whatever motion we make. I won't make that motion. Um and as far as the HOA is concerned about being back here, um this is a PUD amendment. This is not a simple or or or quick thing to do. And um I I I really doubt we'll see this again, though. You never know. Um, I I think this uh I I don't know how to answer that unless staff could answer the the shy of of not being, you know, this is a town of rich people and rich people can do pretty much anything they want with enough legal muscle. So, that may happen. And I I guess I could respond to that in part. Um, you know, if a private property owner came and made an application, staff could consider it at a future date. Um, but again, the impetus for this application in the first place was an encroachment on the town's public access easement. Um, and so the town's willingness to move the easement was out of a necessity to to retain the town's property interest as well. So the the ability to even get legal leverage diminishes over time. Okay. But you never know. Rich people can do all kinds of stuff. been around here long enough to see it. Um, let's see. And as far as timing is concerned, you know, you guys may be close, but we have to act tonight because it's in front of us tonight and we make our recommendation to council tonight. So, we're going to do something now. Um, so if anybody has a motion they want to make that includes um the the legal component and the signage component, I would be lovely to hear and the timing. Can we make a motion contingent on getting that formal HOA or

neighbors approval? Um, what I would do is I would make your I would make your um recommendation of approval contingent on a future acquisition of an HOA letter of approval by the time this gets to the public hearing in front of council. Okay, that's a month away. That sounds really good. We like that language. I think the timing as well of his sale is also salient to this argument. And if he's not, if the property owner is not going to execute the signage improvements, then money needs to be put in escrow for the town to do that. Okay. All right. Does do we have a motion here, Rob? You see, I'm ready to make a motion, but it's very complicated. I'm not quite sure how to word it because we have the staff recommendations. We want to include we want to strengthen the signage component of your recommendation. We want to add the contingency on getting the HOA approval. Yes. And am I missing one? And that's my motion. Bob Bob had suggested as well setting a date. Is that correct? Oh, how does town deal with that? We can't. Um so typically with these land use approvals there's there's um there are requirements for recording the documents. Um and so I we cannot arbitrarily pick a date or a deadline. Can we require a bond to be put in place so that the town can execute those those the signage those those pieces upon their own purpose? Um could certainly maybe let council

you can leave that to council. You performance bond or something like that recommend. Yeah, I I think that um you can just make it a condition of your recommendation of approval that the signage um is installed. Um let's see. We can figure this out before final approval. I think can we say that the signage has to be in place 90 days from the recording of the documents? Yes. Something like that. Yeah, we can do something like that. Sure. Yeah. Well done. Yeah, I think that's Well, because our next one has something like that. So, why? Yeah, that's fine. So, Rob, take it away. That's the motion. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Is that Is that clear? I don't want to be The motion is it's contingent upon the HOA approval. It is contingent upon at upon 90 days past the recording of this document or prior to the recording of this document. Yeah. The signage is posted at the culde-sac of Ridge Road. Yep. And the signage should be acceptable to staff. Staff. Okay. Um and That was it. Correct. I thought you three HOA signage and and the other conditions listed in the staff and any other condition. There's no reason to rehash the building envelope. That's good. It's I think it's the original I understand it's the original location. So that's a part of the PD. Great. Not going there. So is that a second? That is a second. Okay. We have a first. We have a second. Great. All in favor? I I motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you all very much. You all have a great evening. You're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. So much fun. Let's give everyone a few minutes to change out here. Stand up too. Go to the next [Applause] Just hold on a second while I get to the next next memo here. plug. That last memo is a lengthy one. Hopefully, it won't be that long and won't need it, but I always bring it. You got two eyes. Here we go. If we're here in 2 hours, we got problems. All right. Uh, public hearing 263 Park Avenue PUD amendment. Um, James.

Yes. Thank you. Uh, we have the applicants here this evening. We've got Mark Chain uh representing uh the applicant who is Tim Forier who is here. Uh this item is a public hearing on an application submitted by Tim Forier uh for special review PUD amendment uh mixeduse parking reduction and waiverss from some of the community housing livability requirements. Uh and it's to legalize four dwelling units uh in the 263 Park Avenue building as deedrestricted category 1 units. Uh 263 Park Avenue uh is the uh Aspen Marble and Tile building uh that the PNZ conducted a site visit at in May of this year. Uh it's in the Basalt Industrial Park on Park Avenue. Uh the property includes a marble and tile shop on the first floor. Uh and received approval for two deed restricted units uh in 1997 to be installed on the second floor. Uh those two units were constructed and the applicants also added four additional units uh without the necessary development approvals and building permits. Uh the four units that were added are uh two two-bedroom units, one one-bedroom unit, and one studio unit. And once again, the PNZ toured these uh units in May. Uh so the applicant has applied to legalize these four additional units uh that were added without approvals. Uh and they were uh brought in an application after staff did enforcement on the uh illegal units. Uh, additionally, the applicant added some office space uh, which is in the form of uh, three shipping containers that are on the north side of the

building uh, that were added and PNZ saw those. Um, so that requires a PUD amendment uh, because they're in the setbacks and so they proposed to amend the setbacks. Uh, as noted, the applicant requires a special review approval and a PUB amendment approval. uh and a mixeduse parking reduction. And so the PNZ is the recommending body to town council on those actions. Uh and as I noted, they also require waiverss from some of the community housing livability requirements uh as the four units were added uh after I'm sorry, before the town enacted the livability requirements that we have in the housing guidelines. Um staff has identified a series of discussion items that are in your packet. Uh they include consistency with the master plan. Uh the community housing livability requirements and the waiverss being requested. Uh the community housing categories. Uh the PUD amendment to maintain the office space. Uh the mixeduse parking reduction that's being requested. Uh public pedestrian access uh consideration. and then public uh I'm sorry building and fire code improvements uh that are required uh in reviewing the application uh based on these uh discussion items uh the first being consistency with the master plan uh staff believes that these units satisfy a niche uh in the mid valley inventory as they currently serve and are proposed to serve uh very low income levels. Uh the master plan expresses in the goals and objectives a desire for a broad range of community housing units uh including housing units in the lower income categories and staff believes

that these units uh to be legalized uh satisfy these objectives. Uh the basalt affordable housing community housing commission bach also uh supported the uh legalization of these units. Uh in terms of the community housing livability requirements, uh the applicant requested a series of waivers, uh they included uh a uh waiver uh from the installation of two burner stoves with ovens, uh the kitchen sizes, uh the blinds uh not being honeycomb blinds on the exterior, uh and they didn't have storage space. Um the applicant in discussions with Bach uh consented to uh venting uh the stoves and ovens to the outside. Uh they also consented to installing honeycomb blinds which is a requirement of the housing guidelines as well as providing a storage shed uh for combined storage of the units. And then Bach also recommended that the applicant be required to uh install twoburner stoves with ovens in the two units that didn't have stoves with ovens. Uh and then also uh Bach recommended uh the addition of one clothes washer and dryer uh to better accommodate the needs of the six units in the building. Uh with regards to the community housing categories, uh the applicant proposed all the units to be legalized as category 1 units. Uh Bach recommended that the units be category zero, uh which was a new category that was added here recently uh to serve uh uh

individuals and families making 50% of the area median income. uh except that Bach uh recommended that the existing tenants in the two-bedroom units could be grandfathered at the category one level uh for their tenency. Uh Bach thought that the units better fit as category zero uh with regards to the size and the amenities that were in the units and so staff has included conditions that reiterate box recommendation on the categories. Uh other topics for consideration included the PUD amendment to maintain the office space and once again there were three containers shipping containers that were added to the building on the north side of the building. Uh they encroach into the current setbacks and so the applicant has proposed a PUD amendment to establish the setback at 2 feet on the north side of the building. Um staff has included in the draft conditions an acceptance of the setback change uh with the requirement that the fire separation uh be uh improved to meet the building code and fire code requirements uh to the satisfaction of the building official and the fire marshal. Other topics included the mixeduse parking reduction. Uh they currently have 13 off- streetet parking spaces on the site and 17 spaces would be required uh with the four legalized units. Uh and the applicant is proposing to actually add uh several tandem parking spaces uh by removing a grass area that currently exists here. Um, this was a recommendation and a requirement of the homeowners association

uh in their consent to make the application. And so the applicant has agreed to add these tandem spark parking spaces, but the applicant does still require mixeduse parking reduction. And so the applicant has provided some data in the application in terms of usage of these parking spaces and staff has monitored the use as well and observe that the applicant's conclusions that there is sufficient parking uh and that there typically is several spaces off street uh that are available during the day uh is accurate uh per staff's monitoring. Um, so, uh, staff recommends approval of the mixeduse parking reduction. Uh, a couple of the spaces are partially on the town's ride ofway. And so, as a condition, uh, staff has included a requirement that they enter into a license agreement uh, with the town for those parking spaces. Uh, so that the applicant would be required to maintain those parking spaces that are partially in the right of way. Uh, other topics for consideration include the public pedestrian access. Um, when we were on site with PNZ, we discussed the potential for a public pedestrian access uh to come along the south uh edge of the property. Uh the town has been looking for the potential to have a public pedestrian access uh from Willlets Lane up to the Mid Valley Center area uh in the original road bus stop for quite quite a while and uh we've been unsuccessful to this point. Uh there are probably some better uh locations to be able to get that access easement, but those property owners haven't been willing to work with the

town to get the access easement. Um staff does believe that this area um could could serve a good uh public pedestrian purpose uh to get those that live in units in the industrial park up to the bus stop area at original road and highway 82. And so the applicant has indicated that they would be accepting of such a u access easement uh to get up there uh as long as they received a waiver from the parkland dedication fees um in conjunction with that. Um and staff believes that's reasonable. So we've included that in the draft conditions. Uh, additionally, this public pedestrian access would also have to serve as uh, egress out of the building. Uh, because when the storage containers office space was added, uh, it kind of took away the, uh, egress that went along the north property line, uh, so not only would this serve as a public pedestrian access, uh, but it would also be egress out of the building. Um so staff is included in the draft conditions a waiver from the parkland dedication fees for the units uh in exchange for the dedication of the public access easement. Um other discussion items include uh building code and fire code improvements. Uh staff has been working with the applicant on uh coming up with improvements that are required uh to meet the building and fire code since these were built without uh the approvals of building permits and review of building permits. Uh there are some improvements that will have to be made uh to the structure and the fire sprinkler uh system. Um, and so staff

has included a condition requiring that those improvements be made uh to the satisfaction of the town building official and fire marshall. Um, so this evening, staff would recommend uh hearing applicant comments, uh, taking public comments and providing P&Z discussion. Uh, and you could make a recommendation on the actions to legalize the units and the office space. Um, it should be noted that Bach recommended approval uh with the conditions that are included in the staff memo and those include that the units be category zero uh except that the tenants uh that are currently in the units uh could remain at a category one. So with that staff would suggest uh hearing from the applicants we have here this evening. And let me please stop sharing my screen. and I'll bring up your slides, Mark. All right, Mark. Okay. Um, thank you very much. I'm Mark Chain and I'm helping Tim Forier, who is the owner of the project Aspen Tile and and Bath Gallery. Um, I'm not going to go over the application point by point. Yeah, you've had it. Some of you have been out there on a site inspection. Um, and the, you know, there's three different applications in there. So, I think you've hopefully you've had time to read through it. I'd like to just point out some things, uh, give a little bit of a history, talk about um, some concerns with, uh, potential conditions, and then be open to questions for you because you probably have a lot of questions. So this this project, you know, um the Basalt Industrial Park was part of Eagle

County. It wasn't in the town limits originally. I think the industrial park started in ' 84. Uh phase two, which this uh lot is part of, and just pay for Okay, great. Um phase two was platted in 1988. Tim bought the property shortly after and he built his uh building in 1989. In n in 1994 is when the town annexed uh the property and it's a PUD industrial zone district. Um Tim came forward and through the special review process had two apartments approved in 1997 and they're approximately 1790 square ft um of of total. Um in about 2015 to 2017 is when these other units uh went in. And in terms of the big picture, the lot is 18,734 uh square ft in size. Uh the building footprint is 5938 and the business takes up the entire uh first floor. Uh the containers total about 1,600 square ft and a lot of it's actually storage. Uh there are three different containers in there and the one container uh pushes to 2 feet from the property line. The other two are 10 ft from the property line. The um residences in question would end up being about 1721 square ft in size. That does not include uh the hallway.

Um, let me just touch base on the outside first. Uh, because we've paid more attention to the outside at this point. Uh, while our code representative has been working with Mitch, um, we're at a point now where more work more work will be done if there is an approval and if there isn't then, uh, you know, that building code analysis will go away. Um, the building initially had this 500 plus square ft of open space in the front of the building and it was fairly useless. It was uh it's blue grass. I believe it's more used by the workers in there and there were three parking spaces to the back which I'm pointing at right now. And one of those actually even had uh some some storage in it. spot 13 over here on the side. Uh that's really where the loading and unloading and storage area is. That would have been difficult to uh make work long term. We were proposing that and then would sort of try to reduce the size of the loading and unloading and storage. Uh in the back there's a pretty big hillside. It's about 3,800 square ft in size. It goes up to where the Mid Valley uh medical center is and and some condominiums. Over here there is a sitting area and there's always been a sitting area there and uh Tim has improved it uh in the recent past. Um there is an egress from the second story out to the rear is basically a ramp and come down a stairway. There was a stairway down to the back storage

area, but that really faced into the um the containers and it was not a good safe access and the fire and um building department called that out right away. Um some of the improvements from the outside, uh James did talk about the property owners association. They have concerns with parking in the whole in the whole development. Uh but one of their ideas was to do away with the open space in the front and do tandem parking spaces and those tandem sparking spaces would be assigned to um individual units so there's no conflict with different units having the different spaces. This is the approximate edge of the rideway and you can see there are six parking spaces that are out one degree or another in the rightway. It's about 12 or 14 ft uh to the edge of the asphalt uh there. Uh Tim has cleaned this up. He's also improved the stairway which goes up to the ditch above. Um, and in the long run it would be to the idea would be to put the emergency access and the steps down here with an easement 3 and 1/2 ft uh in width. Uh, and that would be guarded. Uh, James has a condition about a 6ft chain length fence. uh our building guy thinks there's a better solution with uh you know 2-in diameter you know metal railing and um it could work just as safe and probably be a bit more attractive. I do not have a section of that right now. I have here this here are the community housing standards, you know, the

livability standards and this is the existing situation with these four units that if you want to go and talk about them, you know, we have them right here. Um, one of the concerns uh that we have is the category zero designation. It's it's pretty low. Uh, I'll let Tim speak to it in a minute, but sometimes it looked like to me like it would be hard to um have people start renting the space and if they're good employees, you know, they're going to get other jobs. They're going to be bumped up and we're not sure that they'll would be able to stay there. Uh we would propose category one that also allows uh Tim to recapture some of the costs that would be incurred built uh bringing the building up to code which may also include fire sprinkling of the uh second floor and right now his rents are between category zero and category one and I just put here some of the notes that I have on the conditions. I've talked about the rental rates, category zero. Um, additional washer and dryer. I'll also let Tim comment on that. The pedestrian easement barrier. Um, I would just suggest that if we do get to the point at this meeting or another where you're talking about conditions that has some flexibility uh with that barrier. And then condition number five, which is really related to the PUB amendment, it talks about updating the containers with fire separation, what has to be done with the walls, roofs, and foundation. And it implied to me that that needed to be uh completed within 60 days. I'm not

sure if that's realistic. I look at that would probably have to be involved with the last recommendation which is 180 days to complete the project but I just bought that out to um uh clarify that uh the other conditions uh you know I think we're willing to live with that and they they've been um reached out through staff and and discussion with them and discussion among themselves and then we did have a separate meeting with Bach where went over a lot of these things in great detail. And right now I'd just like to turn it over to Tim to see if he has a comment or two and he I would like you to address the category zero. And if you want to have comments on the washer and dryer, that'd be an appropriate time also. Okay. I'm Tim Forier and I'm the culprit here. Anyway, um on the category zero, I am honestly my rents are pretty much cheaper than those anyway. But what's really concerns me is how much money a person can make. And with all this employee housing, according to James, um the city requires like show tax returns of my tenants, right? And I believe that, you tell me if I'm wrong, James, but 35,000 is about all you can make to qualify for category zero. And truthfully, I mean, I ran a aspen tile for the last 40 years. And pretty much the minimum wage of anybody that actually can fog a mirror is about $25 an hour. And with that said, they really barely qualify for that. And then if they're good, they get a raise. So, I really have a problem with the category zero, not on a financial rent matter, but just on qualifying people to that can actually live in category zero. So,

that's why I suggested I'll be category one. I mean, apartments are above the marble shop. A lot of you guys went through them with me. And um I mean, you know, basically uh you know, you can only get x amount of rent for that. And I've kept it very low. I get $825 a month per bedroom and that includes all utilities. So really, I mean, I'm like the cheapest rent from here to Parachute pretty much. So keeping the rents low isn't my problem. My problem with category zero is what the town is going to make me do to make sure that those people only make a certain amount of money. And anybody that comes into town, if they're good, as we all know, you get a raise. So, I don't know what happens in category zero. Might be a question for uh for James, but I mean, literally, if he starts off or he makes exactly what it's supposed to make and then he gets a raise, do I have to evict them? So, I really have a problem with with the category zero for those reasons. As far as the washer dryer is concerned, we have a coin op washerdryer on the on the the uh off the hallway upstairs in the apartments. And truthfully, um, they're coin ops, so I can tell exactly how much they're used. So for six units right now, according to what I'm collecting for quarters, right? If you do the math, they're only getting used about half the time anyway. So I if I really thought we needed another washer dryer, I'd certainly put one in because you make okay money with a washerd dryer. So I don't really think that we need another washerdryer. So that was another thing that Bach suggested. So really those are my only two things. Um you know I did this originally and and obviously I apologize but when I came here in 97 the town really uh didn't want employee housing. They didn't need it. And Jod Edwards used to

be you guys' attorney. And anyway you know basically you guys didn't want it back then. It cost me a lot of money to get what I got. Originally I wanted 10 studio apartments back in 97. So I ended up with a lot of meetings like this and got two two bedrooms. So anyway, so I went ahead and did these and and I apologize for that, but I really didn't think uh that you know the town was I don't know when you when you actually came up with needing employee housing. I don't know if anybody was on the board here in 97, but I really kind of had the vibe that you know I I couldn't wouldn't get approved anyway 10 years ago. So, I apologize for what I did. You know, I've been a builder for 52 years. Everything was done legally. I mean, in terms of, you know, licensed electrician, licensed plumber, and all that. No one was ever, you know, in danger of anything from the building aspect of it. So, anyway, here I am today and um, you know, I'm asking to have you guys let us uh, keep the apartments and go from there. All right. Thank you. instead of going through, you know, the application or anything else, I think it'd be more fruitful. Any questions you have, we can answer. We'll get to that in just a minute, but you guys are all done with your presentation. Yes. Okay, good. Um, Bob, questions. Um, a lot changes in 20 years. You built your first two units in 97 and the last four in 2017. A lot changes in 20 years. So, um it's disappointing that you still felt there was no need to that you would get shot down for building affordable housing 20 years later. Um on the public access, um who is paying for that for for the construction of the

walkway and everything? The way the conditions are structured, the applicant would be paying for the barrier to be added in between the marble yard and and access. Okay. And then the stairways are the stairway already exists. The stairway already exists. Okay. Um and the fence is for safety reasons, it appears. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Um, I agree chain link may not be the most attractive and we should look at other options, but I had a feeling it was for um, safety reasons. Um, are the shipping containers that are the one that is used for office space, is it properly vented, fire hazard approvals, etc. And all that is part of the plan to have that those all come up to safety standards. They have to be upgraded per the conditions and per the requirements of the fire district. Um and they have to be updated or removed or removed. Okay. Um I agree that uh the Bach recommendation is a bit too restrictive and category one is acceptable to me personally. I'm sure there'll be further discussion on that. Um, those were my my questions. Uh, and the the application also requires them to get caught up on and pay the fees that they did not pay previously as well as penalties. Correct. Yes. And and they've been in conversations with the Mid Valley Metro District on the water and sewer fees. And so there's there's a requirement there to get caught. I'm good. All right. Thanks, Rob. Questions? Yeah, just uh picking up on Well, I don't either one. The the um easement

through will there be signage there? Yeah, there would be a requirement for signage. Okay, that's in the conditions. Yeah. Um category 1 zero, I don't know, maybe mix is the way to go. Um and then when we start mixing industrial with residential like we did across the highway, we had some particular like clauses in the lease with people acknowledging this is going on. Yes. Is that going to be part of this? I'm not sure if we included that in the conditions, but it it should be. I I seems like it should be, but the lease could include that. Yeah, it was just language letting people know that they're living over a noisy, dusty industry. It's pretty obvious when you're there, but you know, I understand. I understand. Parking signage, Tim. Oh, that's all I got. All right. Thanks. Um, Ben, questions. There's been a lot of loose language about the fire suppression system and the building requirements. What are the building requirements that department and the fire department building department and the fire department are looking to impose? They're still working through that generally. Um they they were working with the applicant's code consultant and they got to a point where they had uh updated had to get through the approval process with the development review before they could go further and and you know get access to the applicant's code consultant. So, you know, what they've worked through to this point is uh improving the fire separation on the storage containers uh adjacent to the property line. Um improving the egress out of the back of the building, which as we noted has to come around the south

side now because the storage containers block it off on the north side. Um there have been conversations about the need to sprinkler uh portions of the building and uh there's uh been discussion about whether there's a need to upgrade the water line coming into the building um that's associated with that additional sprinklering. That was my follow-up question. Has there been any capacity checks on the water line on the electrical service that's coming in with Yeah. additional ovens that are being requested and washer and dryers that are being asked for? Tim Tim can probably Yeah. So, basically when this all went down like a year ago, last June, uh Mitch, the guy that the building department, he uh had me uh get a state electrical inspection. So, the state came through and we passed everything. So, we had that done to kind of answer that electrical question. And then last fall, um they thought that we needed to put in a hard hardwired full uh fire system, you know, smoke detectors and heat detectors in the attic, right? And then strobes and all that. So, went through the expense of doing all that last fall. So, that's all been done um to answer your question as far as the the electrical and then what we have done for the fire so far. But you have panel capacity to add in additional Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. stove top units and washer and dryers. Um well, they're talking about two two burner stove top units. So, I would have to have my electrician make sure that but the building does not have adequate water service to add in fire suppression. Well, you know, there's another way actually this guy was telling me about it. I've been doing some research on it and basically we have part of the marble shop. But anyway, we would use it's a

huge storage container for the water. So, as far as what they're thinking about for a main line, I think we can probably get around with that with just having the the water storage on hand. So, you are willing to convert one of your storage units into a water tank? Well, basically the water tank would be downstairs. It's actually already there to be honest. Water tank is already there. Yeah, cuz we do like a recycle water thing for our machines for all the cutting. Yep. So that part like I said have to I don't have that ironed down but it's pretty clear that we can get away with a big water storage. Now there again the other thing about it is is that there's a fire hydrant in the back of the building and a fire hydrant in the front of the building too. So, the fire aspect of the sprinkler system is something that's going to have to be worked out. But truthfully, I've already spent about 80,000 on this and until I can, you know, if the town really approves my apartments, then we'll do whatever the town wants and can continue. So far, I've done what they thought I needed to do for safety. And all that fire suppression stuff is very prescriptive in the NFPA. So, it's like I'm right there with you. It just says it and they'll just have to do it. Yes. Whatever. Whatever that may be. Yeah. I was going to say there's nothing, you know, I can't get around what you're going to make me talk. Yeah. And we have a bid. We have a bid for fire suppression in the on the second floor. That does not include uh you know, increasing a water line size or probably a tank or whatever. Whatever whatever will be required. Uh that's not in that bid yet. And that's we're not really sure everything will be included. So it's it's a bid to give more of um you know an order of magnitude both to the town and to Tim

about what it would cost to go forward with fire suppression. And then the only barrier that we are that is part of this application is the barrier associated with the containers at the property line. There's no additional barrier requirements between the two changes of use of industrial for fire separation. For fire separation um that's still being discussed as well in terms of you know first floor and second floor. There there may be a horizontal separation. Yeah. Yeah. that that their consultant will come up with that and they'll just be required by whatever we tell them to do they'll they'll have to do. Yeah. No further questions. Okay. Mike questions. Um the easement that would be granted for public access. Um what requirements come along with that for like stair like does stair way have to meet building code or is there are there requirements on the access provided within that access easement or what what does that look like? No, you know there aren't uh many requirements on that. um it it can't be made ADA accessible gi given you know the grade um and you know it would be up to the building official as to whether there would be a need for um handrailing added to the steps going up the the slope. Um in other uh scenarios uh they've interpreted it based on landscaping standards and haven't required handrails in most cases. Okay. Thank you. That's all. All righty. Well, thank you. I have a couple questions. Uh, first off, this

isn't a question, but I looked at renting a old Victorian farmhouse from Leroy Dox that was right about there in 87. And the fact that the snow would blow through the walls was a kind of problematic. And also the oil stoves that heated it were a little subpar. So, I didn't quite take it. But it that part of town has changed a lot since then. I wanted to ask staff um I know that they weren't this is not your first choice for public access easement, but is this satisfactory? Yeah, I think it's satisfactory in order to, you know, get a a decent access up to the bus stop uh from the industrial park. I I think staff would continue to look for other access options as well. Um, and we've been trying to get other access options for at least five years, probably longer, and the other property owners haven't really dealt with us. Um, the um there is the potential maybe if will it's been goes through to get a pedestrian access easement uh that way, but that's a big question mark. I was on this board when he was here last time, which is a long time ago. And um it was talked about then. Yeah. To get access to the highway. And there was an application on the property next door that was maybe 10 years ago or so. and they came through with a mixeduse building and they proposed uh stairs up kind of at the back of their building and I don't know why our zoom is been lost here. Um

but they never built the building so we would have had access then but okay well that's my only question. Um, let's uh open up the meeting for uh public comments at uh uh 7:20. And if any members of the public wish to speak, make comments, please step up. And no, anyone online, James? Uh, let me get the Zoom back here. We lost the Zoom for some reason. Okay. Uh, we don't have anybody online. All righty. That's I'll close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 7:21 and comments. Mike, would you please start? Sure. Um, I would be supportive of opening it up to category one. I think category zero in this valley is just very very restrictive. Um, so I'm I'm open to that amendment. Um, no other comments beyond that. All right. Thank you, Ben. Comments. I agree here about the category one. I don't know if there's a hybridization that we can discuss uh to continue to keep rents low while allowing folks of a higher category to achieve rentability within these spaces. Um, having walked them, I understand where Bach Bo Bach is coming from, but would agree that it is extraordinarily hard to capture that. Um, I don't know what kind of safety amenities we can review here on the separation between the easement and the back of all of the

quartz slabs, countertop slabs that sit will sit adjacent to that easement. Having walked it in person, um I certainly understand the operations of lifting, moving, relocating, uh all of those pieces within the boneyard there and how that could potentially provide concerns with people walking behind those large slabs. Um, no further comments. All right. Wow. Comments. Yeah, I you guys know I generally go along with what Bach recommends because that's what they study and that's their job. But I don't know. I would if you guys felt strongly about sticking with one, I'm probably okay with that. If it was a mix between cat zero and cat one, I'm okay with that as well. Um I think washerd dryers probably, you know, everyone wants to do their laundry when they get home from work at or 600 or 7 o'clock. So might be only two hours a day, but that's when you could need two. So, I might go along with Boach on that one. Um, signage for the uh easement we're going to have. And then just uh something about uh living in industrial area we're going to add to it. Sure. Um I think we have standard language for that. Yeah, but I didn't see part of this. So, which needs to be adapted here. Yeah, that's all. All right, Bob comments. Um I have no further comments uh from what we've discussed already. Um I'm good. Okay. Um I will add mine. Um first off, I think the this pedestrian easement has been discussed for so damn long. I'm glad that this it happens that this there can't be enough of those. There's no way

to get through there to the to the buses. And that's really important. There's a lot of affordable housing down there now. And so I think that that's the greatest attribute of this whole project I think is the town gets that easement. Um uh I think the affordable housing proven I I agree with everyone about the uh the mix of categories up to category one. I think you know that the complying with the categories can be ownorous. So I think I agree with you guys. Um, uh, I would like to add a condition to keep the antique bike in the hallway no matter what. That's That's a joke. That's a joke. But I do I do appreciate that bike. You can clean it up. You can drive it around. Bill, I would do that. I would do that. I'll bring it home and take put it up on the bike stand. All right. Um, let's see. I find all the parking changes acceptable. I don't see any problem with that. Um, uh, I think that the public access rail, we could add some language to how that rail is determined. I think anything other than a chain link fence would be useful. Um, so if they can come up with something good that and have council weigh in on that, I think or have to staff's approval. I trust you guys for things like that. So I think that's that's yeah better that's a decent way to do it. Um also if we could you know I I would support uh condition extending condition five for these guys a little bit like to 90 days they asked for 180 days I think right I think extending it a little bit would be useful but doesn't you know I think we could be flexible there and um that's

it. So, in light of all this, would somebody like to make a motion that sums this all up? There's a lot we're going to add. Um, you're very good at this, Ro. I'll give it a shot, but I think we all need to weigh in here. We are going to uh uh support as written conditions from staff adding our own conditions. Yes. which are uh category one. Cat one. Stick with cat one. Do you want to throw any cat zeros in there or we just go cat one? Just cat one. Cat one. May I just add one quick piece of background from box comments on that? You don't usually see units come in that ask for multiple exemptions from the livability requirements. So that was a strong feeling from Bach that these units are they're substandard, they're subsiz, they have sub amenities. The applicant is going to work towards getting that, but they'll still need to they're still not going to meet the livability requirements. So that was the reasoning for saying, are these valuable enough for category one rents or are these really category zero rents? And just how do exceptions work with approving people that make more income than cat zero? Sure. So something that would just for everybody that's watching as noted, we would want to maintain the existing residents. Yes. Um, however, if the next residents come in and they qualified as category zero and then they did move, they did get a raise and now they're category one or two or three, um, but they wanted to stay in the unit, there's an there's a process for them to go through special review to apply to try to stay. So, that would be something that we would look at. These are really unique units. So, I think that that probably wouldn't be a difficult thing to do

just when we're considering what the other units are in the mix of the inventory and where we're at. That's just might be something you want to know. And that was a hearty dis discussion that Boach had. So, you are certainly welcome to have that, but I just think the the discussion about the livability requirements needs to be noted. But I also think that the documenting components of that were are that's one thing he's talking about is difficult. The tax forms they have to you they have to add tax forms but the tax forms have to be done at at a cap one level as well. It doesn't change it doesn't change regardless. That's true. That's true. And the housing needs assessment recently identified category zero. So that's they didn't it wasn't a boach driven discussion. As crazy as that sounds, I I think where we're trying to go with this is so people don't get kicked out because they get a raise. That's that's kind of how we want this to be. I don't know what mechanism that we we're not smart enough to come up with that on our own. Well, I look at it as more of the markets going to dictate what you can get for units and they're not as nice as most category one units. So perhaps only the studios I don't category zero and the rest without category one. Is there a way we could leave the determining of this to staff to find a way so people don't get kicked out because I think that's where we want to go. Well, the the way the housing guidelines work and the process works with any of the categories is that when somebody is in a unit, the the AMI changes every year in like April or May. And so the category rents go up or down, usually go up uh in in May. And then the maximum incomes go up or down in May as well.

and and so um you know what is currently now a category zero sometimes pops up to close to where category one was and and so on. Um we haven't seen those go down in the last 10 years that I that I've seen. Um, so are you saying there's a certain shity that there people won't get kicked out if they get a raise? No, I I'm not. Um, there there is the ability in the guidelines to prove that over the last two years of tax returns, if they show income that's not over the as an average, even though their current income is over, then they can stay in the unit. Um, but you know, we we haven't had a lot of issue with with people, you know, qualifying and then staying in units and and then bumping out uh because of exceeding the income, but but it happens from time to time. Do do we want to just leave it to staff or leave it to council? Leave it to staff and coun because there'll be a time period between now and council where staff and the applicant can come up with some we suggest a mix between category zero and category 1 to be determined by council andor staff. There we go. That sounds Yeah. And Tim Tim wanted to make it clear that we've never had a category zero before. So this is new territory. It's new for us, too. It's brand new. Yeah. Like I said, as far as I've been keeping low rents and I'm not planning on jacking it up because it is above a marble shop like everybody knows. I just want to make sure that I mean, you know, I get somebody in there and I that's why I'd rather just have a category one for the

simple reason of people making money. As far as what I get for rents is pretty much some of it's lower than cat zero even. So that really isn't my main emphasis. It's just all about policing. somebody gets a raise could just be a nightmare. But I think our comments will reflect that I think in the minutes, Mark. Well, well, don't the guidelines I mean I haven't worked with with BALs for a while, but a lot of them have a provision that if if you're a category one and you can't find anybody in a category one a certain time, then you can you can increase that in order to get someone. I'm not sure Balt has that. No, you don't have that. No, I Aspen does, I think, but I don't think Balt does. Um I I think we're we're all comfortable with where we are right now. So, let's let's call that good. Get us that will get us to the next level. We kicked that can. That was good. Um other um is a cat zero. What else do we want to add to this motion? We washerdryer people. I'm for additional washer and dryer. I am. I am too. There it is. I I I we did 90 days, right? In 90 days. The chain link fence or something more safety oriented. Safety oriented. Visually appealing. Appealing. I I I I also think that understanding that these slabs are going to be sitting at an angle and the operations that are going on in between that no obstructions can impede this easement. uh needs to be firmly written in in that understanding the business that's going on and the dimensions geometry that he's going to be operating under. Uh I could easily see them hanging something over a you know installing a fence that's 36 in high or you know right

and and all of a sudden you've got a slab hanging over that further tightening the 3 and 1/2 ft easement. Randall, there's definitely a safety issue there, but I'm sure that will be in the part of the discussions on whatever we come up with. What's written as a sixoot chain link fence, all we're having a discussion about is the look of what the fence is going to be. Yeah, they already predicated six feet. So, if it's predicated six feet, then is six foot steel fence or equal. could could be adjusted to say a six-foot uh fence or other barrier as approved by the town planning director. Sure. I like that. Michelle, you okay with that? Just works for me. Yeah. You mind if I say something? Yeah, go ahead. Say it. Basically, what I was thinking about is just cementing in like down two feet like 3-inch pipe and then doing a chain link fence with four feet on center of the pipe. And we have those right now that we have slabs. And number one, the slabs will be put in standing up straight, nothing leaning over. Standing up straight on an angle so they're easier to get from the forklift. And a six foot long six foot high chain link fence is more than adequate of what you know it's not going to topple anything over. And I I kind of want to just restrict the fencing to a minimal because space is of an issue. So safety first. But the sixoot high chain link fence done right is more than adequate. Tried and true. That's all I'm going to say. I still think our comment stands. I think will determine what's appropriate. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um is I think that's it. I think that covers it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We So that's that's my motion. That's that's his motion and he's

sticking to it. Can I ask the amount of time to went to 90 days? Went to 90 days. 90 days. Okay. Thanks. One more thing. So, is that 90 days after the city council approves this? Yeah. Okay. So, basically it all starts the clock starts. The clock hasn't started yet. Supposedly, I get two more meetings. It does not start now. The city council. Yeah. Right. So, after the last city Yeah. Thank you. Just advisory. I was going to say they don't make the decision. They recommend that the council the council gives the final. Okay. So, that's a 90 days. That's Do we have a second? Second. We have a first. We have a second. All in favor? I. Thank you. Motion passes. We're unanimous. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Thanks very much. Have a great evening. Zero. Okay. Zero and one. Special events code amendments. Courtesy referral. I don't know whose this is. This is going to be Carlton. It's Carlton. Carlton. Carlton. Back in the hot seat. Get to back again. [Music] Thanks. movement next door a couple months back. Thanks, Mark. All right. So, for a little background for you guys,

yeah, we can Carlton. Um, so, uh, I'm back here to discuss some potential code amendments for you guys, uh, for a little background. Um, this process started last year, uh, and through discussions with post, uh, as well as, uh, planning, zoning, and town council. Um there have been recommendations to uh make some amendments to the town code uh with an acknowledgement for uh new uh capital improvements and uh an advancement uh of the park system and and with that having code to uh protect the town's assets. uh and also to create some clarity for folks uh looking to utilize uh town infrastructure as well. Um, so staff has had a conversation with post um, uh, regarding the town code amendments before you guys and, uh, staff is seeking feedback from planning and zoning, um, and a potential recommendation, uh, to town council, uh, in regard to the code language in front of you. So, uh, with that, um, I will I currently have up the, um, series of 2025 proposed ordinance language. Uh, it's about five pages long. Um, so I guess we could, um, open that up for any in particular questions that you guys may have. Um, and then we can move to the schedule or the proposed schedule for suggested park uh

facilities. And uh, that's fine. Maybe I'll just give a quick summary of of where we're at here. Could you please Yep. The quick summary is that we have two different policies right now. a parks reservation policy for smaller events like birthday parties and those sorts of things that don't require closing off parking small events. Um and then we have a secondary policy for special activity event permits. There's too many words in that one. That's for things anytime um public rideway is closed when people need to close parking. um that almost always triggers this kind of permit with a few exceptions on a few certain streets. Um if there are more than a certain number of attendees, if there are um if there's a liquor license involved. So there's certain things there. None of those standards have really changed. What's changing is the policy. We have historically asked that you please submit your special event activity permit 45 days out before the event because often we will get a permit for say a marathon 10 days before the event. It's not enough time for us. It's not enough time to get emergency services. Um and so that's puts us in a real bind um because we want to promote activities and events to occur in town. this requires that 45 days or we have the right to deny your event. We really don't want to do that, but we need to have some teeth to to make that happen. Um secondly, it's streamlining some of these things. Sometimes there's going to be a park reservation required um potentially in addition to but maybe not um the policy. And then um lastly is increasing the fees. So, we're not

looking to um charge birthday parties more fees. We're looking to have fees for using facilities that um have significant waste. You have a big You have a marathon. I'll just use that one as an example. And they do a great job cleaning up, probably no fees. They do a poor job cleaning up, they leave all of their refues for our public works to have to pick up the next day. There needs to be a fee. So, it's basically our goal is just trying to pay for service that we haven't had before. And as we're having increased events and bigger events come into town, we're trying to capture those impacts in a more streamlined and a more specific policy. A lot of this code language has been in informal policy documents and Carlton turned it into code language for us that we can actually implement it. It's pretty dry. So that's why there's not a lot of fun here to talk about. But previously were these things flat fees and are they moving to floating fees based upon staff time? Is that fair say? So so I can uh refer to that. Uh the fees have been um existing for special events and however those were also again an internal policy um and didn't and were were far behind our peers and neighboring communities. And so uh we've now created a schedule that includes both a fee and a deposit for different kinds of events. So those being the facilities reservations which we're considering again like your birthday parties, your retirement parties that are just essentially reserving a shelter or having a reservation on on a part of a park um for some exclusive usage. Uh and then the special event facilities, uh those reservation fees and deposits are going to be substantially higher to bring us more in line with our neighboring

communities and also again like Michelle said to account for um the the greater impact that those have um on staff time um on our assets and resources. Um and so uh after bringing this initially to to council last year, council instructed staff to go back and and bump those up uh quite a bit higher than uh was proposed initially. And so that's happened here. And then additionally, um we've again formalized some of this language that's been informal, pretty difficult to enforce. Um, and I guess I'll make one comment on what Michelle said as well. Have picked a few things that were already in the code out and put them in a single location. So, some of those changes are coming with the the full scale uh code update that's uh going on right now. Um, but this is is seeking to to take some of those parks related and um facilities related code pieces and put them all in the same place. So, we're going to we're going to revisit all of this again with the code review. That's not the intention. This is separate from that. The the overall code review will probably be more on subdivision and PUB sections and mitigation. And you said fees were in line with other towns, correct? What about the 45 days? Can we be are we standard on that? Yeah. in a in Aspen it's I mean we're not Aspen and we're not looking to be there but it's it's 60 days or longer. Yeah. Um and and really very truly it's about having emergency services have time to look at it. Um it's just we're in a really awkward place when they have two weeks to look at something

and really the conditions of approval are based on their standards a lot of the times. What is the review time for Eagle County for special events permits? I don't know off the top of my head, but I it's certainly 30 days or longer. Okay. So, there's no concern about interfacing between the parcels that are Eagle County parcels, but obviously are using town assault services with No, because anything that's in the town, our um police district will have authority over and will be required to review. they might partner with Eagle County, but it it it doesn't quite work like that. Okay. And I would piggyback on that and having been in conversations in our technical review committee, um oftent times uh there's an unfair burden placed from applicants um for some of these larger special events to on on the town because, you know, we want to be good team players here um and allow events to happen. But, you know, there have been circumstances in my tenure here where applicants are, you know, pressuring our review and referral um organizations to permit uh uh an application that is substandard um and that is not meeting the requirements needed to to host a safe and and effective event. So they're trying to make lack of planning on their part to be an emergency on your part and we would like to and we would just like to codify this to to give us something to to fall back on here. So I stole that from the financial aid office at school. Yeah. Yeah. So um is this is this going to be posted somewhere on the website so people could find it easily because this is probably a question you guys get a lot. How did staff come up with the 50 attendees limit for allowed reservations and sanitary facilities? Yeah, that's that's based on our existing facilities in most of the

parks. And you know that goes back a long time um at least 10 years. you know, we did some assessment when we originally did the special event activity permit and kind of looked at other jurisdictions and tried to figure out, you know, how many attendees really triggered more. Um, how are you going to handle camps that are not required to participate in this but absolutely have more than 50 attendees? I think of Gary's camp, Army KD. You've got sanitary facilities there on site. There's commonly more than 50 people. How are we handling that? Well, Gary's camp is a little bit different. Summer camps are different because they're not reserving the entire um facility or the um structure entirely. So, it's it's not as clear-cut. Yeah, they use it quite a bit. You're not wrong. Um, but since the question was about restrooms, uh, that feels like the undue burden is that sure you know those are those are the facilities that are most common here to use in Basalt and very common situations where 50 attendees will easily show up with families included. and and now we are potentially putting the burden on police officers to mitigate these scenarios. Uh well, not to mitigate the summer camps, the the burden is mitigating um is making emergency plans for events and is for enforcing parking that's being closed off. So like for a summer camp in a park, for example, we do want to make sure that there are the right amount of facilities and if there are too many people then we need to work on that as well. Um but the 50 people in the

restroom facilities has worked because we would know we would be getting the input that it's not it's overburdened. Um so that number we feel confident with. Um the other aspect of this um code amendment is really born out of um our facility across the street the Balt River Park. Yeah. And really wanting to manage that. So this is really to have teeth to accept or deny applications that come in on that. I from this from the special event side I I completely agree. It's it's more of the discussion about that the the loose informal parties of you know that happen regularly throughout our town. Yeah. And the the things that are intention and and some of those you know those are good things. It's a sign of good community. People are having social events and and we want people to continue to have social events. And if you read through the the policy, uh there's a reference to that as well. Is that um uh for the the idea for the facilities reservations for those smaller events is to uh reserve the right to use a facility during a given amount of time um without excluding others from using the rest of the park space. The larger events like the special events which require an additional layer of scrutiny are the ones that we're intending to bring to the technical review committee in front of police and emergency services. Um to take a a greater look at how many attendees are anticipated whether security and sanitary facilities or security services and sanitary facilities will be needed for for something like that. And additionally to give emergency services a heads up that a serious number of people are are are going to be gathered somewhere. You know, the idea is, you know, you most

informal gatherings in town are not going to be 200 people. And if they are, they're likely going to be seeking out reserving that space ahead of time, in which case we now have a a codified process for totally addressing that. Yes. So, putting my um business community hat on, I just want to make sure that we're competitive with our neighboring communities, both on price and timeline, if not a bit below the others. I'm sure the folks on Main Street here who just endured two years of of construction will want to make sure that we're competitive in what our requirements are. Yeah, they're I they're they're specifically in line and not um prohibitive, although we we do really want to maintain the Basalt River Park as a community amenity and not have it be privatized. And so we've uh I would say that we're definitely in line with Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Um maybe slightly higher than than Carbondale and some of the other Eagle County um municipalities. Uh we're significantly lower than some of the other um mountain town communities such as Telide uh um I'm I'm sorry, Breen Ridge and and Steamboat Springs uh have some ex extraordinarily expensive public park reservations. Um and so I would say that we are in line with our peers. Um and then additionally, a lot of the increase in cost has actually been um attributed or uh aortioned to the deposit side of things. And so again, as Michelle alluded to, that you know, creates a little bit of a defense so that when we do have people not abiding by um our policies that were able to recoup some of those costs without um passing those um you know, uh over, you know, Yeah. without overburdening applicants in

So you're saying this will not create a municipal arms race of of ARPs? Race race to the bottom, right? Yeah. Um, I think I think this is a both addresses town council's desire to increase the fees um and uh like with consideration for for where our peers are at. So, what's what's our desired action on this? This looks like a a uh town council action in our packet. Yeah. So, this is a town council action. I think um you know we're wanting to honor planning and zoning commission's review of code amendments and technically this is a code amendment. Do we need to vote on this? Um we're not presenting it as a resolution. So it's it's really just um a general recommendation at this time. Okay. So, do we want to give a general I love you guys getting the worth of your time and energy and not going to the race rat race and making the commissioner commissioner seal of approval on this informal seal of approval. Thank you. But good housekeeping. That's basically what it is. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Maybe not quite as weighty as good housekeeping. So, uh, we're done with this referral. Um, commissioner comments and staff updates. Um, I have a comment to make and this is one of those selfserving comments that we do all all of us do from time to time. Um, there has been talk of a crosswalk from the between the two bus stops in front of my subdivision for a decade now. Yes. And I was wondering is that a possibility of happening? I was going to say before I'm retired, but I've already retired. So that's we've missed that deadline

in Bill's lifetime. It's Yeah, before I before I die, can I get from one side of the because the the it's gotten a lot busier on Two Rivers Road than it ever used to be for some reason. Um skipping the lights. Oh yeah. Yeah. us designed. We It It has been designed the crosswalk. Um we had to have engineers evaluate it and design it. So we had SGM originally designed it and and then it was also reviewed by Rafta um because we had to loop them in uh because the bus stops right there. Um they approved of the design. So, we've got a design and uh now it's in kind of the town engineers hands to put it out to bid and get it built. Um, so that should hopefully happen this year. So, it's happening. It's like really happening. It is. It's Yeah. And just as a as an aside note, how do you get like the groovy colors like on Lewis Lane? Well, those they do that. Lewis Lane did that. No. If you like those know somebody. Yeah. You have to know somebody. the salty. Could we get Could we get the Could we get the groovy colors? We'd have to review that with RAFTA, though. So, I I don't know quite go there yet. It is. Does C do have to weigh in on it? It is still a state highway. No, it's not a C dot. I'll make a motion. You like the colors? All in favor of Bill's colorful. Oh, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. Will you guys vote on my colors? Okay. Um, the contingency that's assigned that says this is Bill's crosswalk. That was that was that was my that's my Oh, you maggot people call. We'll talk about the Bud Light later. Okay, let's move on with special Oh, not

special events, commissioner comments and staff updates. Okay. Well, you've got uh two last summer concerts coming. So, um, that's super exciting. Um, so I highly recommend you attend those. Um, if you haven't seen the art installation in front of the art base, um, I recommend that you go look at that. Um, and I ap we're working on, um, signage and a plaque to recognize the artist who has passed away that donated that to the town. Um, her husband brought that in. And while I'm speaking, I'm going to try to find her name. She founded um the Aspen Art Museum and um helped start the art base as well and is a major contributor. So, this is a very significant piece for a lot of reasons and also getting our art consignment program um just kind of that much more further along and realized. Um demolition of the bridge um behind 7-Eleven is anticipated to happen this fall. Um with construction of that project um really occurring in the spring of 26, but we're finishing the design of that bridge and the surfacing. Um and once that's up, you can find it on our web page. So the residents will not have a crosswalk there. All the kids going to school and stuff. They will. We're the I apologize. The demo part is that we have to remove those landscape planters finally. It's just it's just surface level, right? The structure is stained. Yeah, the structure is sound. It's we just um it's took a little bit longer than we had anticipated to confirm that the structure was sound. Um and so it's solid. We're good to go. um just finishing kind of the design of the surfacing and how um landscaping will fit on there because those current landscaping planters we had hoped to

maintain but they are not um lined on the bottom so they are draining onto the concrete and that's caused some of the um deterioration of that used to be a county road I know yeah um but that that'll be coming so that's exciting um hopefully tomorrow there'll be a new swing In the Basalt River Park near the mini golf, we have replaced a tree that was going to take 50 years to turn into something big enough to do anything on with a swing set. So, installation was happening today. I've got a couple things. Mhm. um 5:30 to 7:30 this Thursday at the Balt Library in the community room, the town manager candidates presentation and meet and greet um for the four finalists for the town manager role. Um and then additionally exciting in my world, our world, uh an open house at Cliffs Hillside Park from 4 to 6 tomorrow for anybody interested. Uh we will be replacing hopefully but at least removing the play structure that is existing there. Um and we'll be meeting with neighbors and anybody from the public who's interested to hear feedback and brainstorm on what that's going to look like moving forward. So do you know how controversial that old play structure it was? Yeah, I've I've heard a little bit of the history, but I'm sure I only have a small piece of it. Can you can you limb up that tree, the big one, a little bit? My daughter got stuck in it and the police and the fire department had to come. She climbed too high. I'll drop a note to Chris. I'm not sure. Just like give me one truth. Just give one classroom. That's great. That's awesome.

And then one other note, um, town staff is working with our code consultants, design workshop, and EPS on kind of an overall code revision. Um, and so we're looking to have kind of a code working group. Um, and it's going to be made up of uh uh individuals from the various boards that we have. And so we we have one or two identified from the P&Z. Um so sounds like Katie and Cindy to me. We we'd like to hear if uh you guys want to email us if you're interested in being part of that code uh guidance committee. Bill's got his hand up. So um I Great. It looks like Bill and Ben are interested. second is is that is there any update on the historical preservation code efforts? Yeah, so I can give an update there and um so we have uh a signed contract with GMHA who is the finalist that we uh introduced to you guys and then were approved at town council. Um their efforts are beginning in earnest this weekend. I actually just remembered that um right after James mentioned the code updates. Um so if you guys are interested at the uh Basalt Sunday market um they'll be doing a tableabling event um during the duration of the Sunday market um and engaging with members of the community on um the downtown district and on Midland Avenue. Um, so if you're interested in that, stop by, say hi on Sunday. Um,

this coming Sunday. This coming Sunday, the 24th. Yeah. You say just this Sunday or the rest of the markets? It'll just be this Sunday. Um, and then we'll keep you guys apprised of future um public engagement as as those opportunities come up. And this Thursday evening is um town manager, correct? 5:30 to 7:30 at the Basalt Library in the community room, Cliff Hillside tomorrow. Will there be 4 to 6 presentations and a meet and greet on Thursday? Yeah. And as far as future P&Z meetings go, uh we likely won't have a meeting on uh September 2nd. The next meeting uh we'll have a public hearing at is uh September 16th. Right. Thank you. Laura Thorne is the artist. Pardon? Laura Thorne. Laura Thornne. I've seen the piece. It is nice. It's very nice. All right. Are we ready to adjourn? Motion to adjurnn. We have first. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? I. We're done. You are. The agenda says 7:45. No, we're going to be playing meetings.