I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Good evening. I want to welcome everyone to December 21st. Please note the date. Four days away from Christmas. So y'all better get shoppin' done. That is if you're Christians. But I know some of my other friends also do presents as well. And Mel's all excited because he got a brand new lift for his Christmas. No, I think it could put, huh? Well, we want to welcome so many people here this evening that are in the audience. This is a very important meeting because in front of us this evening is the second the second reading of the ordinance number nine. But before I do that, I'm going to ask, hey, Barb, how are you? I almost said Rhonda, well, hi, Barb. You want to do row call, please? Here. Don't add some air. Air about there? Here. A circus. Here. Okay. There's no proclamations this evening, so we're going to move into public comment. I will see if anyone from the public would like to come up and make a few statements. Anyone? Hey, Mike, come on up. Hi, Mark. Hi, everybody. Hey, how are you? Good. Mike George was a snow massaging company. I just thought I'd ask for an update on that parking matter that we talked about last week. Got some different signals on it and not sure what the actual position of the town is right now. So this is what happens. So we, yeah, so, hi. So you know, obviously the stop sign we're talking about is at Wood Road and Carriageway. And that stop sign was put up after evaluations by two different sets of traffic engineers in order to improve that intersection. For 10 to 20 days a year that intersection operates at a level of service F. And through part of the evaluation through base village, there's shown that a stop sign could improve that intersection. And so we've gone ahead and installed that stop sign to see if in fact it does. So our commitment is to make sure we continue to monitor it and see if improvement happens. We know that the major drawback is that Wood Road traffic that was downhill, that was unimpeded before, is now impeded, but the idea behind it is to improve carriageway traffic, making it allow for that left hand to earn easier. We've analyzed and looked at the stopping distances, we've looked at the grade, two sets of traffic engineers have done that to make sure that it's done all the compliance requirements for that intersection that it is. And so our hope is, our plan is to monitor that and see if in fact it creates an improvement over previous seasons. If it doesn't, you know we'll go back and remove it. But our hope is to see if in fact the engineering is correct. If it does make an improvement, we want to put it to view since if it does. So my only statements and responses that are all the people that I know that drive for living, they're not traffic engineers. But that curve is a really icy curve and as we get busy, the points that I put in right, I think are I'm afraid they're going to actually come true that we're going to end up with a wreck in that place. And as the traffic backs up just because of where that stop sign is located, I understand it's located at the bottom of the snow melted section to give people time to stop. It blocks the left turn exit out of base village. So the garage. So as soon as there are two cars there, there's no way for someone to turn left to come out of that space. Out of the garage. So those are the points that I want to make. I don't think that it's a safe situation as it stands now. I can say as we are monitoring it, and we are well aware of the drawbacks. We put them in that left hand turn out of the garage. It was one of the things that was hoped to be improved with the stop sign. We're going to try and see how it works the next two weeks. If it's an improvement great and if it's not, we're going to learn our lesson. But because of all the engineering and work that went into it, the analysis, that the level of service analysis on that intersection, we wanted to give it a shot. And our commitment was to try it through this winter season to see how it works in our busiest time. And if I am confident in saying, I don't know that it is any more dangerous. We've had enough engineers look at it with that great analysis. We did put up with the comments we received last week or two weeks ago. There was an additional warning sign put up to hopefully let people know that the stop sign was there. So we are listening, but we really want to try it out and see if the engineering absolutely, if it comes true to reality. The only other point I would make is acknowledge those points, you know, the points that I made that were, we disagree on that point. You know, but I believe there's an understanding that there's some change in the plan and that the purpose of that stop sign was to prepare people for something called a mini roundabout and manage to at least from the papers, a mini roundabout supposed to go into place. So I don't understand the purpose of the study if that's a precedent for that piece. And everybody agreed that the roundabout was ultimately the best solution for traffic and to move the traffic the best. And so that is, if this in fact is improved, will happen. But in the interim, the engineering show that a stop sign would make that intersection work at a higher level of service. And so having no stop sign, it would operate in a level of service F, and I don't remember the number of days, but it's between 10 and 20, with a stop sign that that level of service F was decreased considerably. So the idea is it'll make that intersection function better. The roundabout is clearly better and that's what's in the application now, but the stop sign through the engineering was shown to be better than no stop sign. And again, our eyes are wide open, we're monitoring it, our police departments are our engineers, our public works we're trying to monitor as best we can to see if in fact the engineering matches reality. So we are paying attention, we do appreciate the comments and if we're wrong, we'll get a fix as soon as possible. Thank you. Clint, could we have an update right after the holidays here the next two weeks to see what we've learned or is it to premature or is it three weeks? Can I just give you an update as soon as we have info and I don't know how long it long I would seem like most of it is. The updates will come from transportation will come from police department We can put together an analysis and see if it's in fact working and public comments We know we know that the point made that it's a more of an inconvenient for that. That downhill traffic used to get to go through unimpeded and now every vehicle, every time has to stop and we recognize that is not as convenient for that traffic. Yes, it's just not a lot of fun coming down from the enclave. And we knew that going into that was the major drawback to that. But we thought it would be a good thing to try and see if the engineering match reality. We have another hand up in the audience. Mal Blumenthal, president of the Enclave Homeowners Association. I'd like to reiterate what Mike said. I returned to town this weekend as more people are starting to come into town. Did notice that there was some build up starting this weekend. I think it's going to get a heck of a lot worse as we get into the holidays. I don't remember specifically that was an entering test step prior to deciding on the many roundabout to experiment with that intersection during the winter I think is a major mistake if we were going to experiment with that intersection during the winter, I think, is a major mistake. If we were going to experiment, probably during the summer, it would have been a lot better. Because I hope there are no serious accidents. But as we get at the on-play, now, we're starting to get to be full. I assume Crestwood, Woodrun Place, Chamini, Woodrun 5, are all experiencing the same additions. A lot more people up there coming down and around backing up. So hopefully nothing serious will happen in the next week or so. The interim step was everyone agreed, at least the engineering wise, that it was going to be an improvement over nothing. And then the idea was if it didn't meet the level of service required of C, that's the roundabout. And then again, like I said, in the application currently it's automatically to the roundabout. Right, right. Yes, Doug. Please come forward, state your name. Yeah, hi, Markey. Doug, far just to add one thing to what's already been said about that intersection, if it was a true two-way, two-stop sign intersection, where cars would alternate, then it would then it'd be working. But keep in mind that the cars that are coming off a brush creek road, coming off of a brush creek onto wood road, if they stay on wood road, they don't have a turn signal. And the cars that are coming down snow melt obviously are yielding to them. Cars that are turning on to lower snow melt. More often than not, don't use their turn signals. And so the cars are still waiting to see if anybody is if they're turning or not. So it's not functioning as a true two-way two-stop sign intersection. And that adds to that backup still up on lower snow melt. Yeah, we got our we got a lot of homework yet to do on this. It's not a simple solution obviously. Okay, we're going to move on in to consent agenda. Do I have a motion for approval, the consent agenda? Yeah, I mean. Thank you, Bob. Second. Thank you, Tom. Any questions? Any? Yeah, I just want to, okay. So, Chad, make a suggestion that I believe that we didn't have an agenda for the work session on January 11th maybe. Is that the work session date? 14. Yeah. That's the date. 11th. So I wanted to throw out to my fellow council that we try to we try to get the parking permit program on the agenda for a work session sooner than later since it's been an issue that's been raised many times throughout this PUD review Okay. Mr. Dresser sir. I guess someone clear if it's part of this PUD it should be discussed in this PUD. No, but it has to do with it has to do with the current situation where base village owners are exempted from purchasing permits prohibited. Prohibited, yes. Prohibited from purchasing permits for the numbered lots. Right, and that's, isn't that a, isn't, I don't know if that's here in this. It's a condition of the original PUD. Okay. So if you want to discuss that program, you would be amending a condition in the base village PUD. Okay. So you have to bring it up tonight. Right. Yeah. Well, I mean, right. If we're going to get into it. It's apples and oranges here and if you want to talk about the way the program is structured, that would be the prices, the accessibility to certain lots, et cetera, and who's eligible, but not the condition is in this PUD. So in other words, you can't change that at a work session. Okay. Okay. Well, I mean, I still think we did discuss wanting to review the format, if you will, of the permit program. Yes, right. I think I can do. So if any of you feel similarly, I'd like to see if we can get that on the work session. Agenda. Okay. Okay. The only other thing on that is just so you know is the Board's and Commission's interviews would be that night as well. If you guys agreed to that. Oh that takes a good hour. We'll see where we get. Every council has since I've said on council goes through this parking permit to look at the prices and what have you. You do adopt that. You guys do adopt that. You've already done that earlier this year, inter-regrenement with SkiCo and others to make that agreement happen. But you're talking about a broader overview of the parking program. Yes. Yes. The January 4th meeting schedule shows those interviews, correct? That's where we had originally scheduled and essentially you guys a memo on Friday suggesting that we push those dates back to 11 for the interviews and appointments on the 18th and I read this the first we've had a chance to talk about it but we thought it would make it a little bit cleaner to interview in 11th at a work session and then make the appointments on the 18th if 18 if that was acceptable to you all. And on the minutes on page five, 924, Barb, there's a name that is not correct. It's Fred State, not Good State. So any other discussion on the consent? Okay. All in support, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Thank you. Let's move on in to the public hearing. As you know, this is a continuation of the public caring from December to the 14th and today is December 21st. We are here this evening to discuss and determine whether or not we want to move forward with the approval of the ordinance number nine series of 2015, base-villied major PUD amendment. And this is the final plan. Julianne will speak and then endgym. And then we have our applicant. And the way I've always started these, I go ahead and open the public hearing. So the public hearing is now open. And as we go through the various points this evening, please feel free to come forth and make your statements. Okay, having said that, Julian. Thank you, Mayor and Mayor. This is the second reading of Ordnance 9th, series of 2015 for the base village, Major PUD amendment final plan review. This past week we did receive a second amendment to this application, which essentially did some cleanup of the PUD guide per council's direction and made some changes to the height graphics and matrix for building 7 and 8 again as per discussion with town council at the meeting on the 14th. The second amendment is before the town council for your consideration at this meeting. And we recommend that town council take formal action necessary to accept the amendment for discussion and consideration purposes only, again similar to last week's meeting. The one issue, the one concern that staff had with the PUD guide, the language that was in there, is it still does not include language that would require the applicant to come back through a PUD amendment process to vary the height. And we had discussed at the meeting on the 14th that it'd be appropriate that when council considers architectural review for those buildings east of the ski back trail, that the height be considered as part of that and we could handle those applications coincidentally. And that language was not specifically in this PUD update. So we have added a condition with that language in your ordinance because we still think that that's the appropriate way based on your direction to handle that. We also want to mention in their PUD guide in the update, one of the last pages in there was the Milestone matrix and it had green on it. And we just think that that really because that specifies dates we think that that really shouldn't be part of the PUD guide that that should be attached to the development agreement because of any subsequent date changes then you'd have to go back through an amendment of the PUD and we just don't think that that should be necessary to do that. So we have, we think we have incorporated all of the changes that were discussed at the last meeting into the ordinance and we've also included a language that would allow the applicant to finalize the agreements and the application and plans within 90 days of the PUD approval. Should you approve that? So there was a whole series of agreements that would subsequently come forward to the town staff to be able to review and subsequently sign. So that's the language that we have in the ordinance as well. We have draft of that ordinance with conditions that really ensure that it's in the best interest of the town, of course. And we believe that all the issues have been addressed and either the ordinance or will be addressed in the final agreements as they come forward. The only issue that was still outstanding was whether or not council felt it was necessary to have an additional community purpose related to the one foot, 19 inches on the other, on the two buildings, seven and eight, because that was not real clear to us from your last meeting if that was consensus or not. So with that, staff recommends that town council discuss any remaining items with the applicant. Take public testimony and review the ordinance, the draft ordinance for any remaining issues. And take final action on second reading with that that concludes our comments. Do I have a motion to accept the additional amendment? So moved. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Billy. Further discussion from Council people? No. Just. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. All in support, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Okay, let's move on into Greg, you want to speak? Andrew's going to open. Andrew's going to open. Well, what surprise do you all have for us tonight? No surprises. Thank God. So we had in the past week, what's the pardon? Oh, sorry, Andrew Dan some behalf the applicant. Over the past week, continued deliberations with East West and obviously everyone's aware of the statements that were released on Thursday or Friday of last week, Thursday. And it was not for a lack of interest on East West part that they think of the project as a great one. But in order to move forward with this project, and we are committed to doing so, and in the forward of these approvals, we did not see where we're going to bridge the gap. And there were some very public concerns that they had that you guys were, and to move forward, we couldn't agree on terms. And we're here though with a firm commitment to you that this is going to get built. That the plan in front of us is a very logical, actionable and buildable plan. We have discussed very quickly with our investors to make sure everyone's behind this. They are and we want to get going. And I think we've spent a lot of time with the Aspen Scheme Company. We understood your concerns from the last meeting. And I think they have some very valid concerns about the project in terms of the plaza agreement that we started discussing last week. And I think there's some, they've certainly I think you, fewer in their issues that you don't understand their issues. And them and yours, they would understand yours. But I think where we are as a unit is we all want to see the thing move forward. I think the realities of timing are this project needs to get the podium going. Interestingly building six is kind of a cornerstone of the project of the podium because it holds up the plaza. It also serves as a front door to the limelight hotel. And in order to get building six designed, I think the program approved, I think we need to move tonight on this approval so that the town council, staff, hopefully us and other community participants can be involved in a program process to determine a final program here in the next six months so that we can get to drawings so the building can start construction in the spring of 17 as well. So that in the fall of 18, we're all having a grand opening of buildings 45678 with the roundabouts that have been discussed tonight, completed in this spring. So that's the commitment you have from us. That's the commitment you have from us. We think it's a very achievable business plan, anything something that would make, take a lot of progress, put forth a lot of progress for this project and for the town. So Andrew, could you tell me what the game plan now is for building seven and eight? Are you building it? Who's designing it? Yes, we're going to build it. You're going to build it. So that's it CCY is it Oz who's who's the architect? We have my first and foremost priority was to can can make sure that we had our investor support to move forward that project and With six because we had been in a much different mode as you can imagine over the past few months with East West. We do have support to move forward. These are not overly complex buildings to build and I think the design that we would have to set forth a design process, we'll start right away on that and move that through the architectural review process with the town. move that through the architectural review process with the town. Andrew, you talk about all these, you know, four through eight, all being completed by 2018. I'm really concerned about four and five. At a 2018 delivery date, it is possible to start that building in the spring of 2017. That is the kind of 18 month turnaround cycle that everyone has been talking about. Is that the plan? Yes. Faskiko? And I have to say I'm very disappointed in that. I think this town needs construction now in the podium, not two or three years from now. And you've asked us to really work our buns off to get to this point. And there were commitments made that if we got to this point and if we pass this tonight that we would have construction on the podium in 2016. So I am let down and I just have to come right out and tell you all that. Mike, I see you back there and I have to say that my opinion, your ski company is not showing the leadership that I was hoping for. This is your community, this is your mountain. Everything about this helps ski company fulfill its vision and complete its mission. And I think you guys are just, you're not showing the leadership that I would hope. I mean, you usually are leaders in the community. And this is a time to step up and be a leader in the community. My Kaplan-Aspon-Skin company, the feelings mutual, Bob, very, very disappointed that we're not moving forward in 2016. I'm very, very frustrated. No one has more at stake than we do. I stood here 14 months ago and was next to related, and we asked for an expedited review. Okay? We were looking for a June 1 resolution back then. Our outside date, outside date, worst-case scenario, was no September 30. All right? Here we are. Okay? We all know what day it is. It is very, very late in this process. There's a major project to have to spin up. All right? And we have a ton of loose ends still, a ton of loose ends. All right? So I'm going to read from you exactly the issues we're facing so we can have clarity, because nobody is more frustrated or upset than I am. So as Andrew alluded to, 2016 is off the table. We're not going to be able to start in 2016. Both parties, I think the town and related have expended too much time and energy on alternative community purposes and what I'd call an overly detailed review of every aspect of the development. As this has been going on, this is not provided the clarity we've needed to release architects to work at risk and concurrently. At the same time, we finally got pricing back based on where we are now and while this thing has dragged on, our construction costs have gone up $10 million. $10 million. That means we need a full year to work through our drawings, to work through opportunities for efficiency. We got to go out and reprice this thing and make sure that a 2017 start is possible and viable and feasible. So that's question one. When are we going to start maybe in 2017, not in 2016? Honestly, our ownership is now concerned about the viability of the project. We need clarity on the event, Plaza Management Agreement and how that's going to go. We need certainty on can we book an event and count on that booking being honored. We need certain protections and certain controls. We also need to make sure that our sponsorship efforts, that benefit this entire community and the entire town, are not compromised or undercut through this agreement. We also need certainty regarding the timing, as you guys were just talking about, of construction of the lot three buildings. Building six is part and parcel and integral to the construction process on Lot 2, right, of Building 5 and the Plaza. And Building 7 and 8, also critical when you think about it from a programming standpoint. We need to know what it's gonna look and feel like outside our front door and who our neighbors are gonna be. And then finally we've got this issue around all the outstanding agreements and the issues that follow from them. There's litigation right now that's a cloud on the entitlements. It affects our ability to pull permits and construct. It affects what the building code is that we're going to be subject to. It affects the quantity of play housing mitigation. And all those issues got to be resolved before we can proceed in any manner. So to sum it up, we're more than a year into this process. And there's still too many loose ends to deem this a complete approval that meets our deadline. Both developer in town have failed to manage the review process effectively and has put the entire Limelight project at risk. And that's where we stand. We can have a pretty short meeting tonight then, in my opinion. Because if you don't think that we have gone far enough in working through this development, in working through this PUD, then I don't think we should vote on it tonight at all. I think we should work through it as best we can. Try to work on some of these loose ends, which I tend to agree. There are a lot of them and just continue this into January and keep working away at it. Because I don't see a benefit to the town to pass this tonight with all these loose ends that everybody is recognizing and not have construction until maybe 2017. And that was a maybe. Correct. And I appreciate you being honest about that. But that's a maybe. So I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I don't see any purpose at this point in trying to work tonight to vote again on this ordinance. I have a question for you, Mike. Yes, it's very, very disappointing. And now, as you begin to list the issues, the plaza for the events becomes kind of the red herring for ski co. Kind of, nada. It's an issue. So if you had your brothers, what would you prefer that the ski co would have control? You know, we've proposed something in the current application that we think works. It's similar to the event lawn. Slightly less restrictive, honestly, than the event lawn. But we could live with what we proposed. And here comes a real question, and this is one that I've lost sleep bond. It's not specifically for ski co. It's one for the community. And it is proposed as a community benefit, but it's interesting. We have only scheduling control. I'm not sure that it meets the definition of community purpose because it appears that the Master Association is handling all the expenses. And if you will, SkiCo and if you will community could be considered benefiting, but it's not, it's not an ownership. So I have really, really tried to look at, doesn't really meet the true definition of community purpose. And yes, the negotiations have been long and rigorous, but that's just a question that I would put forth. And I also clearly understand where you are coming from as well in terms of events and sponsorship. I mean, you've got to have sponsorship to do the various events. So it is an outstanding issue, but I think I have to go all the way back to really ask the question does applause meet the purpose of community in our town. That's just I'm just philosophically going through that one. And you talked about then. Can you help me understand what would be your drop dead date for our 2017 start? We really need to have this resolved in that 90 day period we're talking about by March 31. March 31. And I think that speaks to your point Bob. We don't want to let this slip beyond that. No, we really don't because it's critical that we start going vertical or else we continue to sit here and see what we see across the street, which brings another point back and this is not related to ski co. We've had it set over the last few weeks. Now come back and ask a few more questions. I've been really troubled by the fact that we set here for two weeks. And if you will, I don't want to say side-tracked, but we had another person in the room that we were trying to respond to as a council and as a community. That has gone off the table as my understanding. If I would take us all the way back to what we approved at the time of the preliminary PUD on September the 28th. It did not increase the height elevation for building 78 versus what we did last week. And I still, I can't figure out what we really did last week because I see differences in the numbers. And we moved 13B until last phase. And we've already had that particular program. It's already had three extensions. So at the end of the day, what have we done to ourself? We'll come back and revisit. I'm just giving you some of my thoughts over the last week. But I think a lot of this spins right into, are we doing the right thing with the plaza? And then requiring, because the bill believers are not paying for the expenses for community purpose. On an ongoing basis, you're saying? Yeah, on an ongoing basis. It's the base village homeowners. And the sponsor who owns on sold units and pays the master association dues for the majority of the share. So we do have a direct impact. I would also just want to say something that while we are all in the same spot here in terms of wanting the ski company to move forward with the limelight, they're not currently the owner of Lot 2. And if they make a decision for some reason not to move forward, we need time to react and move forward with a plan to make sure there is a plan, a viable plan for Lot 2. And I think from that perspective, we need some certainty here that this is going forward, so we can make sure that our efforts, both on the design side, on the program side and on the financing side, are appropriately managed to get this thing going. Because this is not a lot of time. I know everyone thinks that from starting a January 16 to April of 17 is a whole heck of a lot of time. And this world of development, that's a very tight timeline. When you've got a draw build and you've got to conceive, draw finance, get everything going if we're in this position. So if they're not moving forward on law two, so we want this, we do need this approval to happen this evening. And I understand that that's a different opinion from what Mike is expressing, but I don't think they're divergent. I think that there's a process that the staff has set forth that's 90 days to move through these agreements where there is some, I guess, the loose ends. We don't think there is as many loose ends as there are, I think there's very specific loose ends to resolve. And those can be done probably in 30 days, not 90 days, given the way that the developer and that town staff have worked together in the commitment of the council. the commitment of the council. So I think that this is, you know, I think a vote of confidence in the project to move this thing forward will give the ski company more confidence that this is something that the town wants. It gives us the clarity to move forward with all the designs and spend the requisite dollars to move this thing along to meet the requirements that you're setting forth as approval. Well, you know, I'm just going to comment back, Andrew. Sure. I heard that, let's see, how many times have I heard that promise? I remember back in October of 14, was October of 14, when we extended the vesting rights, et cetera. And we were on this plan. We heard the same thing, and we as town's council gave in to false pressure and nothing moved forward. When I walked out of here last week, and in fact, the day after when I heard that East West was, I said, I'm back to where we were in 2014 same damn place excuse my Fritz how do I know that you really mean what you say because the last time I saw either you or Mr. Blow or whoever it was it was represented to me that you had no commitment to continue to build and you wanted to get out of building and wanted to get out of Snowmass Village. So now I hear one of these, oh, we're back into the dance party. Now, how can I trust what you're saying? Because every day I'm, excuse my fridge, I'm hot. Every time I hear you say that, we step up as a town. We've worked our butts off, if you will, on this council. A meeting every week, a minimum of 10 to 20 hours every week a prep for every one of these council meetings. And what do we get on December 21st? We can't do anything to 2017 because you've been playing around if you will. So how am I going to trust you and relate it to get something done. And why is this not this, this business deal not consummated as a yet? I'll step back and answer this thing a little bit more globally here. We had an approval last October and November that extended vesting, but then did not actually, that also required a full PUD review process that was not what the intent going into the all those discussions was to have a, I think, it was a minor PUD review that had a accelerated plan. It wanted to go without sketch plan to being quite frank. That's right. That had been added about five months to a process. So that's something of the town decision. I think there's something, the revolving door that you're referring to of having kind of this things come up and over and over again is because there's never any certainty. So when you end up with a PED extension but you have no certainty that you actually can build something, then you get right back to this point again. So if you want to move forward to the job, then you got to get make the grant the approvals that are required to move forward so you can get financing, give people confidence in things moving forward. And that's where we are right now. And I think we spent the last few months. It was not an exercise of frivolousness with East West. They expressed a genuine interest in the job. They spent an enormous amount of time and money analyzing the project. They liked the project, but they couldn't get there for a variety of reasons. And that wasn't because we were trying to not get there, or we were trying to be jerks in a process or not being trustworthy. They couldn't get there because of certain reasons that you've heard, and certain reasons that they're still trying to work through themselves with their partner. So I think the short answer to this is we have we are reacting quickly to a to process. We have a there's a distinct project here which is buildings from our perspective, build a roundabout, or the two roundabouts, build buildings six, seven, and eight, and make sure that our partner, ski company, is able to deliver on their project. That's what we see as a very discrete, financeable project that we can move forward with. It adds 40 units of condo inventory. It is not adding the 70 units that were in 13b. It also is completing what is the false front of the project right now. We think this is something we can do and actually we think our interests are aligned with the town. Because we need, we want the land to be valuable for our purposes, the future land. We also want the, and then we think that is accomplished by creating a place with the podium. We don't think that's accomplished with 13B at this point. I think that's a very good outcome for the town. And from our perspective, if 13B is not the next project to go, they think that is if the money and the efforts and the condominium absorption is focused on the podium, the town's going to end up in a much better place. So back to my question, what's it going to take to finish up the kind of contractual obligations with ski co. We work with them. We talk every single day with ski company. We will continue to talk every single day with ski company. And we will do our, I don't know how to say. We can't do anything without an approval. So I don't know what to say in terms of us forcing their hand. But. Like this, the approval this evening, is that the pathway to moving forward or is that a lot of other issues and you referenced several than once. Yeah, I mean that's one step but yeah these other issues are I think clearly outlined by me and hopefully on the record those are the things we need. I'm going to change subject for a second. Go back to the plaza. As you know, the capital peak residents have been pretty vocal about their concerns that they, as well as the other kind of many owners, will end up having to shoulder the cost of the plaza operation. Am I mistaken, mistaken crag or? No. Okay. Okay. And, you know, in some thinking about, you know, what's a public, what's a community purpose, what fits it, how does it work? And I look back at building six and I think okay That to me okay, that's pretty clear, you know, we're getting a building built for us. We're getting the Carrying costs of that building for a period of time and then it will be up to the town to Figure out How to pay for the carrying costs. When it comes to the plaza, we're getting it built and as it seems to stand now the carrying costs are being covered through the Master Association. Right now the Master Association association. Right now the master association is taxed at its max and as a result the metrodistrict is taxed at max and master association is not okay okay sorry about that Craig that that's great so have do you have any information that you can provide to us? That might give us an idea of what it is anticipated to cost to operate that plaza? And I guess that's the first part of the question. And the second part of the question is as base village continues to build out, And I guess that's the first part of the question. And the second part of the question is, as Bayes Village continues to build out, and they're more and more condominium and hotel, hopefully owners, the amount of money that the mass association raises through taxes gets higher. I suspect, and the developer's contribution may drop off because you've sold units that you don't have to cover through the master association. Do you have any numbers or any figures that could give us some concept of what we would be asking the base village owners to shoulder. Once you once the developer has gone. You know, so with the aquatic center, there was always going to be a soft city to be paid by the residents within base village. It's not as if we're imposing something new upon the owners in base village. These types of developments, the obligation does not live in perpetuity with the developer, it just doesn't. There has to be another entity that picks up the cost of that and happens to be the metro or the mass association depending on which specific improvement we're referring to. Specific costs, I mean, cost in the winter time, it's operating the ice skating rink. And most of that is in utility costs. What does it cost to operate such rink? We've spoken with the consultants and it's anywhere between three and 5,000 a month to operate in the winter time. Summertime, you don't have that expense. Your expense is really just maintaining, and that has more to do with labor to clean the plows and things like that. And those costs are to be recovered through the events that are put on the plows. And that's why allowing the town to have absolute control is concerning because we need to be able to cover those costs by the ability to rent out that plaza to have a stream of income. The base village conference center, that is an asset of the metro district right now. That is running at a deficit. It's a subsidy to the master developer. And that has a lot to do with also just lack of density and as you add density there is this additional revenue stream that comes into these specific facilities which offset those types of costs. Thank you. So what's the break even point for the master association? So right now we forecast that to be with delivery of 678 and 4 and 5. Because we are in a subsidy condition. We are funding into it. So right now we forecast that to be with the delivery of 678 and 4 and 5. Because we are in a subsidy condition, we are funding into it. 2018. Right, so we need more development online. The three years for those guys. Well, for us, correct, that we're currently sponsoring or funding into it. And so that subsidy will go away when additional development comes online. I have a question, Madam. Yeah, Tom. We are subsidizing not the residents of Capital Peac and Hayden. Are there taxes cap they can't go any higher? For the metro district and I'll let Joey speak to this, but yes. The rate is cap, but I mean, the rate is a rate in a base. As values go up, the dollar amount of pay can go up. Correct. Joey Lebenzky for the applicant to clarify the taxes that are imposed by the Metro District are capped at the shared mill levy between the Metro District and the GID. The Master Association derives its revenue through private assessments that the Master Association levy is independent of the tax bill that anyone pays to the county. And there is not a set cap on that dollar figure, but to Craig and Andrews point currently that number, the developer is making up a delta independent of the assessments it pays on its own units. It pays full bore on the units at owns plus makes up a little bit more. And that is not capped. Correct. And that is not capped. Well, I mean, there is one. There is sort of an option perhaps, and that is that the town can accept the construction of the plaza as a portion of the community purpose. And then let the master, let the master association do what it wants to do and make up some other difference in terms of some other community purpose for to offset the fact that the town isn't going to be any manager, they're not going to have any revenue from it. They're just going to be another user like anybody else. from it, they're just going to be another user like anybody else. Mike, in terms of the events, Lawn, is that controlled or owned by SkiCo? The land is owned by SkiCo, and it's managed under a management agreement that is almost, you know, sort of a mutual check-in. I'd have to have Don or Somber. Ron actually give the exact details of it, but we work together on that. And we have certainty on when we can book it and vice versa. And we have strong enough sort of protections on the sponsorship side. I wonder, I wonder to ease that burden on the events pause and here goes just another question. Would it be easier to mirror the events, and the pause agreement to be almost one and the same of who would control so you can move the events based on the potential size or use both places. I mean what what you're thinking on the plaza? Yeah I mean we're proposing that that agreement really mirrors the event law and agreement and in many ways is more favorable to the town. There are less for instance sponsor categories that are restricted. And yeah, for sure, we're working together typically selling these groups or whatever it is and tough mudder and whatever it requires on mountain and off mountain coordination. So yeah, we think having another event plaza in the mix will only improve the situation. But we have to make sure we can get certainty, especially from a hotel operation standpoint, so that we can book a wedding a year out and not have to call a bride six months out and say, sorry, we've moved you. That'd be harder than standing up here today. harder than standing up here today. I think the intent was not so much to have ultimate control over the plaza, but to answer to the electorate who we are saying this is a community purpose. Personally, I haven't seen the event plaza as a community purpose throughout this whole project. I've kind of discounted it. I'm banking on building six being our community purpose throughout this whole project. I've kind of discounted it. I'm banking on building six being our community purpose. I think that's where we're going to get the biggest bang for the buck. So having control, I think, and I don't want to speak for the mayor, but I think was our quest to answer to the elector room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. What was shown to us in Planning Commission and Council that was they were moving forward. You had mentioned that if the ski company does not take control of building five, you're going to be put into position to design it, build it, or find another builder or another owner. What's happening with building seven and eight then? I mean, what makes me feel so sure that seven and eight, where we're having trouble right now with building five, who doesn't have an owner yet except for the developer. I'm not certain about building seven and eight and let alone building six yet. And that's why I say the horse before the cart here. You've already talked about the plaza. I think I want to see what the podium has to offer before the plaza. Building seven and eight as conceived conceived, are effectively one building. Related is a very experienced developer of residential condominium product. And we have built quite a few here. The plan is for us to design and build. And it complete the designs for that building, building 7.8, and construct those buildings starting in 17. But that is a 12 month process at a minimum to get these things designed to get through a construction drawings to bid out. It's been done this many times, and it as is not a this isn't fiction. It just we need to know today so we can kick off while higher whether it's CCY whoever is happy to accept input from the town. We've seen the designs have been put forth and I think there's some pretty interesting. We want to move advance the architecture along for those buildings and at the same time we want to do the same thing with building six but that's got same thing with Building 6. But that's got to start with program first. We got to understand what's going in there. We understand there's a process being set that's underway with the ICHS Discovery Center. For their, it's a fundraising study or whatever it is. That that's to complete, I believe, end of January. That that would be feed into the programming discussion for building six, but it really is paramount that that building get programmed and then to the design by, say, in six months, so the design can be commenced in, say, July, so it can move forward on an expedited basis so we can start building that as well. It is, I would defer to Jim, the Agustino here in terms of construction practicality, but it makes a whole heck of a lot more sense from my perspective to have six, seven, eight constructed all at once, along with the plaza, along with four and five. And I would just say to one last thing about the limelight hotel, the last thing as the ownership group of the hotel in town, the last thing you want is to have the limelight hotel open up with a incomplete plaza or plaza. It's just held up by some sort of wall where building six might be as a temporary condition so that it gets a 72 rating on TripAdvisor and everyone hates it because it's just that you don't want that. You want a grand opening with strands of light over the ice rink and you want to have it to be a very positive experience because you only get the chance to open once. Thank you. I'm still not certain. There's still a big question mark, obviously. I mean, I know for everybody here, everybody in the room and everybody in the community, and the point of moving forward is very important to everybody. To Mike and SkiCo and related. To me, it just seems like, I feel like Madame Mayor here, hit it right on the head, you know? I mean, we had some people standing in the wings ready to start and do a couple, two different times, two different builders or two different owners. And they went out the door and now you're making guarantees to us that you're going to finish the project. When once ago the papers or everybody else said you were gone, you're leaving. So you understand the question marks. I hope of course. Okay. I mean, so where do we go from here? I do agree with Councilman Matson in regards to the amenities for the plaza is not necessarily a community purpose. Those are things that should be happening for that hotel and everybody that comes to base village to that. That should be the event area and the vibrancy that we have been looking for to have for everybody at these hotels. And as we always said, we want to capture those people. We want to capture them so they don't take the bus to go into town as much as we can capture them. Unless we have that vibrancy, we can't capture them. There's nothing to keep them there. So to that point, you can define the plaza as a community benefit. The purpose of that plaza is to create vitality, to create reasons for people to want to stay in base village. We have huge leakage to Aspen. We need to be able to keep those folks in snow mass spending their dollars in snow mass. We need to give them activities. That is what defines a community benefit in terms of what is the economic impact to the town that's one of the measures. The limelight hotel is a huge community benefit. The driver in terms of the lodging tax revenue and activity is immense. So much better than any of the previous plans that were presented or the entitled plan. I think that we're losing track of what we should be focusing on. The master plan, the master plan that's been presented the amendment, is that a bad plan? I think that everyone believes that is a good plan. It's a better plan. It's a better plan in many different aspects if you want to measure in terms of the economic impact to this community. There are specific time frames that have been established for this development to move forward, focusing on the podium. So I think that's what the focus really needs to be on. Jo, I'm sorry, I'm here, it's not Joey. Sorry, quite frankly Craig, I'll determine what we're going to focus on. We're all not done venting up here. So when I get there, I'll let you know. I have, I'm going back to my notes. And what's interesting? And when we talked about building six being a community purpose, we all accepted that. Along with the 14 year, if you will, with a metro, and also a half million. We also considered the plaza with some value, a dollar point, which was about a million, and you were going to put in a million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 I'm talking to you all. You listening? I hear you. And if it's kind of a deal breaker for Ski Co, it's very important we get the line might. That's me saying that the community would love to see the line might. And what we will do is not consider that a community purpose and look at a financial obligation from related but first John can you tell us what a community benefit let's know can you read what it is I can tell you what a community purpose okay I'm sorry not interchangeable okay thank you this will be quite a long time for me to read, but I'll endeavor. It's like four pages in the code. Can you do the highlights? Sure. Community purposes for PUDs and purposes have to be achieved to exceed the build out analysis and parcel dimensional limitations to be achieved to exceed the build-out analysis and parcel dimensional limitations to be varied. Provision of restricted housing, encourage sustainable development, provide open space and or avoid wildlife habitat, encourage better design, develop necessary public facilities. Those are the six broad categories. If there's any of those you want me to further. Can you go into the public a little bit more? The very last one. Public Facilities. Yes. A parcels maximum buildout may be achieved and as dimensional limitations may be varied to provide an incentive for an applicant to develop or contribute to the development of necessary public facilities such as public parking and transportation facilities, public recreation facilities and other public facilities consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan on the town's goals and objectives. The facilities may be located within or outside the PUD, but shall be facilities beyond the required mitigation for the project that meets the needs, not only of the project residents, but also of other residents of and visitors to the town and shall promote generally the public health safety and welfare. the There's a qualifier, doesn't it? Supplies a qualifier based on the public? Does it qualify? The public doesn't mean they have to be residents. Yeah, it says public recreation, which I think we could, certainly the ice-kitting rink, you know, fits into that. It would be for not just residents, but just beyond. So I think that the plaza itself can fit in that definition. I will go down. I agree. I mean, I think it definitely, if you just look at developed necessary public facilities, it needs that. I mean, if you just look at that part of the definition alone. I mean, I'm sort of struggling because I think I'm struggling to kind of figure out what would be a reasonable option for the town giving up any supervision or management function of the plaza, which is I think what we anticipated was a part of this community purpose. But I also, I mean, just listening to the conversation that we've been having, it would simplify and remove at least one of the issues. If the town were not the supervisory or management entity and I don't really see a downside to giving that up. But I'm struggling to come up with something that I could present to say this might be an acceptable alternative. And it's my last week, what we had before, it was a draft agreement, and that three parties agreeing to the schedule, roughly speaking. And then the concern that was raised was, who's gonna have the ultimate authority? The concern was, three folks can't make the decision what happens. And then the suggestion from the council, the direction from the council was, make sure the town's in charge. I think that's what's raised the red flags, and I wanna speak for SkiCo, but I've been in enough meetings the last few days to know that that's a major concern. If you guys could say, take the agreement, make sure the town's protected, and to make sure that our community benefit purpose, I just switched them, is protected, that's one of the things, if we could go forth and negotiate over the next couple of weeks and finalize that agreement. But I kind of get Mike's point about, you know, if the hotel wanting to book out a wedding a year in advance, and, you know, what, and maybe they want to book out 10 weddings a year in advance. And that becomes significant economic return to the town. And the way we've gotten that agreement, the plaza agreement going, that kind of a private event is lowest priority. Well, you can't be lowest priority and book out something a year in advance. Those two things seem to me to be in conflict. But to that point, if we could just have booking windows that are then sure booking windows. So if it's booked and we have a, like you said, mutual agreeable sort of process for that, we can book up to x, x far out, and then those are for sure. And then there's, again, these different thresholds by booking window. We can figure this out. I think what Clint's saying, I agree with, we agree with, which is, I think we'd prefer to see this deemed community purpose. I think it does serve a broader community purpose. We're actually talking, I think, about a small part of the functioning of that plaza. And I think if we've been having good conversations with the town, I think we can find a middle ground that works from a sponsorship and booking window standpoint. But what the staff told us in these conversations in the last week was Direction from you guys last meeting was Town needs to control and manage in sort of on a more unrestricted basis so if we can work through that if you if you want to empower them work through that I think we can work through that so let's say that we can work through that Mike I clearly understand where you're coming from and I was the person that was kind of boyheaded. I heard that. I do have that tendency here once I've been boyheaded. Because I just really want to make sure we can ensure our community that we're satisfying exactly what their expectations are of of of community benefit. But let's move over. If that issue is resolved, then I heard you mentioned one other thing is it or several other things in terms of your list of not done. One is price point or is it that that price is not that's our issue, but it does impact our time. It will need more time to deal with that. Okay. I would say this the development agreement needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible because that addresses a lot of these other loose ends. So I think the development agreement right now is March 31. Is that one, it comes on, Clint? There is 90 days. What would be this? And this is a point I'll bring up that, I mean, the applicant has done several times, asked that the development agreement and that restricted housing agreement be processed first. And I've taken the position on behalf of staff to say, no, there's 10 agreements that still need to be negotiated. And I've pushed very hard to make sure all 10 agreements are negotiated and finalized at the same time. If we do them all faster, great. But the logic is there's five agreements that are probably very important to us and five agreements that are very important to the applicant. And if one side gets more and done than the motivation for the other side falls away. So to stay keep motivated, what I've pushed forward to say let's get all finalized quickly and together, but to say we're going to do some before others I think is a recipe to not get everything executed in that timely fashion. And we've had discussion with the applicant. I think the applicant concurred with that. I don't want to speak for him, but I think we all know that they're all important and we can get them done in quick order, but to say that we're going to do two and then let the other eight lingers my absolute fear. And it happened in the previous approval in 04 and we still are dealing with that. And that's part of my motivation to say let's get them all done at the same time. It's plausible to have everything done within 90 days. Like I said, it's the first question. It has to be. I mean, if you guys approve, that's what the ordinance says. One of the things that we've been discussing is to maybe have the development agreement and the restricted housing agreement finalized within 30 days of the approval and the other documents follow. And I do understand Clint's point in wanting us to not focus on the agreements that we think are important. At the end of the day, actually, we think all the agreements are important. And it's important that every single one of those documents is finalized within that 90-day window. It is a condition of approval, so we do have to meet those specific obligations that are listed within this ordinance to be able to continue to move forward. So I do believe that there is still some, you know, there's teeth within this in terms of having all those agreements. So we do ask for those two agreements. Spell them in agreement, restricted housing agreement, 30 days post approval, and then all the other documents follow. I mean, even if we can say 60 days, you know, 30 additional days beyond that. It's a combination of staff having enough time to work through those other eight agreements. And I don't know if that's feasible to think that we can get through all those in 60 days I would defer to Clint. It needs to be, it needs to be the law says. I mean we are doing this in such a fashion that normally everything is buttoned up before you adopt on final. As you know we've got the two past, the past that's really before you tonight is we're going to have a number of agreements that are outstanding if in fact you would approve it tonight. And the law says it needs to be wrapped up within 90 days of approval. So my short answer is it has to be. We have to get it done. We know it. It's going to be a lot of work. We're willing to get it. We're willing to do it. Okay. Anything else, Mike? So if we get this done in 60 or 90 days, can we get there? I hope so. My hope so. Can't commit to that right now. Okay. Any other questions from Mike? I just had a question about the Venslone agreement because I just want to, if you could give us an opsis, anyone who knows, just explaining how it works. And then I want to know from town staff, is there any drawback to mirroring the plaza agreement after the events law and agreement? We don't want to mirror it. I said we don't want to mirror it because ski co-owned the event lawn. I mean, it works fine. Our operations folks make it work very well. We work very cooperatively. We've been very successful since it's been constructed. And so if you want to keep that informal process going forward and I think Mike made the point, they're very willing to make concessions on the plaza agreement because it wouldn't be as restrictive as the events law and agreement is. And I think right now there's a lot of timing things that we need to go through in order to get permissions. They've been flexible with us to allow us to get things like heritage fire scheduled that didn't actually go through the whole process. And I think the short circuit of the process, operationally we work well together. I think it's the plaza we just need to make sure it'll be in place longer. And we want to make sure that it's, in fact, meeting the community purpose and ski coag can get what they need out of it as well. So I don't think it's going to mirror it to answer your question, Councilor Schenk. I think it's a framework for cooperation, but there needs to be some differences that we can get to. The differences fixed that we can get to. Mike, come on up. Yeah, we concur with that. I mean, yeah, if we can work with staff on sort of what we proposed and managing that using the events lawn as a template, but the difference is this is we own the events lawn, we won't own that, right? But if we can get certainty again on ability schedule events and protections on certain sponsorship areas, we'll get there. Okay. I want Mike one more question. You say that resolving the outstanding legal issue, Okay. I want more question. You say that resolving the outstanding legal issue is an issue. I guess I'm understanding to mean that that Skiiko wouldn't be ready to finalize their deal until that case is resolved and we get a final decision. Is that correct? So what I understand from discussions that we've had with John Dresser, there are procedures or options that the council has to basically just make sure I'm saying this right, John. But to basically, if the decision went the wrong way, to basically essentially agree to what was agreed to, a second and without any lapsing in investing. Have I said that generally right? Sure. Okay. So if we can do that, then this outstanding issue about investing goes away. I'm sure, I'm sure your attorneys have evaluated it too, maybe they're telling you something different. I guess what I'll say is yes, our attorneys have been evaluating this and working with John and we still have too many loose ends and we're hopeful we can get through those. For these other things we're talking about. Not sure I really can say much more than that. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you very, very much, Mike. I'll see if there's up to pause here and see if there's any comments from the public. Mel Blumenthal, please go forward. Mel Blumenthal, president of the Enclave Homeowners Association. I mean, I have several comments. The first, just a general comment, I think it would be terrible mistake, and I'm not even sure I see a real necessity to rush in to approve this final tonight. There's too many loose ends that aren't going to get resolved. Some of them don't even sound like they're going to get resolved with you guys. They're going to get resolved with staff, which I think is a big mistake in the complexity of this project. I think, I'm sorry to say this because I've got some friends that are related, but a lot of this is very disingenuous and it has been for a long time. When we entered and when you made your final approval at pre-limm, which is basically where we are now, this is, you know, maybe it fits some kind of illegal definition, but we're really in the middle of pre-LIM right now, not final, but when we ended that pre-LIM, we had a lot of understandings and agreements in place. And one of the key ones was that 13B was going forward. Meaning the milestone for 13B didn't come up until the last couple of weeks. This community is expecting in 2016 some vertical construction not just to roundabouts. Having gone through all of this aggravation that you've gone through, that the community has gone through, the blood sweat and tears to end up in 2016 with two roundabouts is ridiculous. You guys have worked and the community has worked long hours to do this. All of them knew that. Ski Co was never raised an issue that I remember that the line line couldn't meet its deadlines to order materials if you were approved by December 21st. That's always been related, keynote, it's been ski companies and that's why you guys went along with that. And here we are, you're nowhere near being completed and it would be a make mistake I think to rush into this. I don't you know, Markey Ray or the mayor raised the issue of how can I trust you? We've gone too many times with this to feel any comfort from related because the issues within could change tomorrow. We don't know the motivations. 13B to the community is additional rooms to rent now. If they've now been, you know, been impressed by East West's interest in moving it forward, that's, it's just a financing basis for them. They've got the resources, they've got the investors to build. They've always been planning to build 13B in 2016. It's ready to go. It's got plans approved. Seven and eight are starting all over again. They did have plans well along, but that developer is no longer here. I just think to rush into this tonight with no ostensible, grud reason doesn't make sense to me. I agree with Councilman Matson because it's kind of been my feeling that the plaza really, when it got into discussion, was never really fully a community purpose. It is clearly a valuable immunity to the line right. I want to see the line right here. I want to see it successful. And I think they should take over that plaza. Okay. And let the town, when the town has events periodically, we'll go to them. But clearly it's been important to them to have somebody else pay for it. It's their immunity somebody else pays for it. The town deserves a community purpose, another community purpose, in its place. I think the mayor suggested when last week for you know increasing heights I think we need to do it for the community purpose facility of the Plaza area. I think the community is gonna be very in let down and very disappointed just rushing through and approving this tonight, because that's not what this mission started with. Thank you. Thank you, Mel. Do I have any other comments from the community. We're going to take a five minute break because we're going to make some decisions here relative to moving forward or not moving forward with the ordinance. So let's give ourselves five minutes and then come back together. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the We ready? Is that ready? Yeah. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're ready. We're good to go. And for those of you who did not sign in when you came into the room, could you please make sure you do that. So we have your attendance to suggest the following. I would suggest that this council now focus on the ordinance, number nine, series of 2015. I'll tell you where I'm coming from and then I'll ask my fellow council members to weigh in. And this is at the end of the day, I don't know if we'll approve it or not, but worth that's going to be our next focus of attention is the ordinance. I do harken back to all the history of going through this process. And the tough, tough days that we've all been through. Everyone has had a lot of difficulty with getting to where we are now, but we've made strong progress on behalf of the developer on behalf of the developer, on behalf of the town, and on behalf of the Council on our Planning Commission. Countless hours were spent. I think this evening that as we start through conversation, if I have support from my fellow council people to move forward with a reading of the ordinance. What I would encourage us to do is focus on that 90 days as one of the conditions. And second of which is any agreement that does not cannot be resolved between the two parties come back to council, which therefore means there's probably going to be a lot more town council meetings. I mean, I can name some of the agreements that I see are still problematic. One would be the development agreement, the SIA, the PUD guide. I mean, you know, went back through all those again today. So there's a lot of work to be done. It's going to require people to roll up their sleeves. But before we move into the reading of the ordinance, I'll ask my fellow council people if they are ready to go into the second reading of the ordinance. Alyssa, or do you wanna go first, Bill? Well, saying you wanna read it doesn't mean you're gonna approve it. That's exactly right. I mean, I'll read it, but it doesn't mean I'm going to prove it. There you go. The second one. Bill. I think we should get into second reading. OK. I don't think we should be in the second reading just as a point of reference to you, Alyssa, if we get into a second reading, I don't know, is there an abstention that we can are allowed to do? No, no. So there's no either, yes or no. And I don't, I'm not suggesting that we want to turn down and defeat this PUD amendment. So I feel the safest approach is not to go into a second reading. Run through some of these other agreements that were in the packet to see if there's any other changes or direction or questions that we have. Question Mr. Dresser had up his. Right. Bob used the word to stay and that's a little different than what he described than in terms of process. Just because you begin to go through the ordinance, it does not have to be voted upon tonight. It can always be tabled. It may not even receive a motion once you start your discussion. You may get to a point where you continue this meeting or continue the public hearing, but the state means to refrain from voting. And that I wanted to clarify because that's what he said and I answered no. What he described was over. We don't have to bring it to a vote tonight. Okay. No, if we have questions and considerations and we can always put those on the table. That answers my question. I am all for reading of the ordinance. Okay. Okay. So we are not going to start with a motion on the ordinance. We're going to start with the reading of the ordinance. And I'm sure you have all been through it with fine detail. Where's my red line version? Oh, it's on here. Oh, we going to. I'm going to the red line version. Yep. Once I find it with the red line version. Once I find it with the red line version which is 193 thank you Gillian do you want to provide the leadership in terms of the changes? Or I'll do a by page and then we'll go into the changes where there's differences of what has been written. Whichever you prefer. Okay, let's. I don't really start with the warehouses. Yes, let's go through those. The one that you see there on line, starting on line 59. This was specifically to add to the record that there was a second amendment that had been put forward by the applicant. And which was accepted. Moving on. Moving on. That's what the language says. It's accepted for discussion and consideration. Moving on to page 195. Lot 3. We just clarified in there that it wasn't specifically a coffee shop because there is reference with the declaration of commercial uses. So we went to the commercial food and beverage in building six. On lot six, we clarified that there would be 27 lockups. These are the easy pages. We also clarified, I'm sorry, on lot two, it would be line 107 that 612 spaces provided under the parking garage, which is consistent with the application. Any questions on that page? Starts getting a little deeper on the next page, but on lot three, this is where we are trying to clarify the height specifically based on your direction regarding building seven and eight. And so that's why you see a lot of markups here. That's what I'm confused. Last week we heard that the height was increasing by one foot. And now I see 11 feet and then I see a 4.6 or down on building 8. Was I, is that what it is or where is a one foot that we talked about? The one foot was the difference from the previously shown drawings, not from what was presented at preliminary. I'm sorry. What? It's a foot increase over what we saw. A foot increase of what we saw over preliminary plan. So the other number that's being used is compared to entitled. 2004. That's From 2004. That's the 2004. That's correct. So the 11 feet over 2004, the extra foot was in the, it requires the canes to do with the amendment last week. Right. So it's 10 feet plus one foot is 11 feet. Correct. Okay, that's helpful. You know, Julian, I'm still having some trouble with the total height of that building in a building seven. And when I looked at the I guess the PUD guide that had the you know the heights for seven and eight I come up with 101 feet and and to the from the chimney to the existing grade versus the 95 feet. And to be honest with you, I tried to print out the height matrix and I couldn't get it in a form that I could, where it was big enough that I could read. So I don't know, I just, and only to say that I have, I can't come up with the 95 feet and perhaps you can help. Well, the one thing that actually Jim's probably the better one to explain it because he has a lot more history on how we measure height. But the intention is that we're not going to be measuring to the very highest point because that's what we would consider an impertence. So we wanted to really be talking about where the bulk of the masses and so that's why we were talking about the ridge. You'll see some language in here. Well, but in that online 171 it says the highest roof form of the chimney. So is that is that the top of the chimney I think the 84, 84 was what I remember seeing on the height side, but as I saw it, it was 101 feet, not 95 feet. And I don't know, in the big picture, I don't know what that means. What the difference is, if it were 95 feet, does the applicant get stuck with having to find any other five feet or other six feet? What would happen if there's a mistake in that number like that? Well, depending on the magnitude of an error, they could go through an administrative process and there's language in the period that allows for that kind of thing to address those, which was not unusual from the 2004 approvals that happened. So I'll be honest with you, we did the best that we could. Yeah, no. This has been a moving target and we were basing it on the latest drawings that we had received from the applicant and you know this this is our best estimate. No I know and I think that the applicant is actually an agreement with the way that this is worded. I mean believe me I don't I this is a tremendous amount of statistical material to have to work through I get it. Right and I don't, I, this is a tremendous amount of statistical material to have to work through. I get it. Right. And I don't know that I'm even reading it the right way. And so it's as much a question of, am I, you know, am I reading it right or if not help me to understand why I'm not. I see Jim thumbing through the pages. And so the question has to do with where that 95 feed is coming from is that correct and why it's not 101. So the existing grade is where it's being measured from on point D which is 8390. Craig you have to reference the drawing that you're referring to. I'm looking at the height matrix that's included in the amendment that was submitted last week. The problem with the height matrix is you can't read it. And you know, as it's come through on the screen. Okay. So, can you do this? Let me see if I can get let me see if I can find this page. I can put this up on this screen. Yeah, let's put it up on the screen. Craig. Craig, if you would refer to page 145 of the packet, which is part of the second amendment, There it is, the height building 7 height study. Okay, got it. Good luck reading it. Well. Oh, that was this hope rid of the top. Well. Oh, that was this hope rid of the top. Yeah, but, Marky, look at the bottom, the existing grade at the bottom. Right. 83, 83. And then my little eye is, I'm going to have to get different glasses on. I'm going to have to get different glasses on. So I see 83, 3 right here. Everyone see the numbers on the screen? Yeah. So this is the existing grade. This is the proposed peak. Can you say what they are for purposes of the audience? Craig, what page do you want? 147. Okay. So we're on page 147 of the packet. We're specifically looking at the height matrix. And so we'll call them. They're defined over here. So this is the existing grade. And this is what it's being measured off of. And so this is existing grade right here, which is 8,390 feet above sea level. The proposed peak of that building is 8485, which is 95 feet. Okay, so now if you go back a page or so to building seven Right there now scroll back down a little bit to the bottom of the building and that says 83 83 existing grade At point B And then if you go up to the top of that You get 83 I'm sorry 84 And then if you go up to the top of that, you get 84 at the top of the chimney. So that's a different point. So all of these are different measurement points. So we have to see what specific point that's referring to and that's referring to point B. So if we go back to the height matrix on point B, that's where you'll see the 83, 83. Yeah, because on this chart, Bob, it says existing or the picture, it says existing grade at D is 83, 90. And so that's where over here, you can see right here, you're in existing grade at point D. That's the big one. So you have to look for existing grade at point D. It's always been that way. OK, that helps. I'm sorry. I was in. So yeah, I mean, each point has been identified from the original PUD. We tried to recreate or use them as best of our ability and it's always been what is the greatest impact? And so it's the lowest to the highest point of measurement But on this picture it says to the chimney which is D is 84 84 The lowest but you just said 84- 45 because of the one foot increase. That's correct. Right. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Craig. Okay. Do you have another in that section? Nope. Okay. Jim, did you have any comments? No, just that the existing and finished grades, they're both measured. We apply the worst case scenario in this particular case, the worst case scenarios from existing grade. And you can see by the drawing that the heights would actually be less if when measured from finished grade. And for example, point D is actually recessed from the front of the building. We decided to apply the worst case scenario, which was the from the front of the building. We decided to apply the worst case scenario, which was the front apex of the building. That's what you see from Brush Creek Grove. That's kind of the highest visual point. So we applied that to the ordinance instead. Point D is actually recessed and that's why the elevation is actually existing elevation is actually higher because it slopes up the hill You know from front the back so That's why we wrote the ordinance way we did we try to apply the worst case scenario, okay As you would actually see Thanks Jim okay So we all understand. Everybody's got it. Fine. Yeah. I'd like to ask a question though. The risk of going slightly off topic if you don't mind. So a lot of the changes that you're requesting to foot on 7 and 8, understand the other, you know, these buildings are going into preliminary. But essentially what East West came in and presented, you guys are sticking with their plan. And it looks a little bit like you went to school on them and said, all right, we're going to take 13B out. We're going to take these height exemptions and move forward essentially with their plan is that right? Now would you like to answer for us? When we presented the the development plans a year ago, and we had been working with various potential partners, purchasers, and what we were looking to do was to provide a variety of product so that we could sell into the market. So you could build 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, B concurrently with a diversity of products. There wasn't competition among those product types. That was the planet and at the time 13B as whole ownership condominiums, who I'm largely a hotel, and the sunrise plans were, as initially discussed, what were to be largely fractional. That was a strategy that has been proven time and time again, that if you've got multiple product types, you're meeting the demands of multiple people and their price points and whatnot and it works. As of today, we are in a position where we have a process in front of, by the way, that was driven by a schedule we had to meet. In order to meet the schedule of building all these buildings and meeting the development timeline, that was the, in our mind, the only way we were going to be able to do that was to have a variety of prototypes and bring in other folks to try and do this. The other way of doing this, which is a, I would say, probably a less risky way of doing this is to focus on the podium and deliver a hotel and 40 kind of medium units into the market so there's not, again, not competition. We have, we're able to put resources towards those buildings, we have to build the plaza and building six. And so where we are today, this is not a function of us getting educated by East West. This is a function of with a singular developer. This is the right way to do it. I hope we that answers the question. So why was it not requested in the preliminary PUD? In fact, we felt there was a lot of pressure to have more development be built by a date certain. And that was, so we brought in more developers to be able to do that. Okay, I'll see if the fellow council people agree with that one. Okay. Let's move on to the next one. Building eight. Did you have questions on building eight, Bob? Same type of question. No, no. I don't know. Okay, we got it. Okay, moving on. Okay, so we are noting that that the one sentence online, 171 should read Reform of the chimney is at eighty four eighty five that was an oversight on our part Okay, okay So building aid it didn't sound like you had any questions on that The lot five portion was stricken because that was where we were, a week ago, but now we're not there anymore. So that was stricken related to increase in height. His council landed just down the 7 and 8 buildings. As you continue down on the next page, 197, line 200, 202. We had put in these to be determined because we weren't sure where you were going to end up. So those have been stricken. We also just cleaned up some language to make sure it's clear. Under that, let's see, line 203 and 204. Lot eight. We said approximately in there just again to give us a little bit of wiggle ring to make sure that the numbers are is accurate as we can get them right now, but we put that in there. 2-11, we struck that because again that was when they were asking for a high increase on those east of the ski back trail buildings. Go down to 223, that section. This is where we added the clarification. We were just clear about what was the expectation related to the community purpose and building six. So we were specific by adding the cash contribution of 500,000 for the building six improvements. The common area maintenance fees waver for 14 years. And just added language about to be documented in the services building six or a lot two plus agreements and those were the documents that would fulfill those agreements as committed to. To 34, that was a placeholder item because it wasn't clear to us that that was a consensus of the consul or not related to community purpose offering whether or not the additional foot, foot and a half for seven or eight, needed to be a community purpose offered. So that's a point of discussion. I think pointed out in the staff report. Let's do that right now, Tom. I absolutely think it's a point of discussion in regards to more money. I put a number value on it and do you want my number value? Sure. Okay and this is just for these particular buildings and I thought at a minimum of $200,000. Okay. Other comments? So what we heard last week and Andrew you've stated that this is what you always thought was that additional foot. Those are going to be taller ceilings which my understanding is a far more attractive to purchaser which will command a higher price. Yeah, we are okay. If we... The simple answer, and Andy G onion had from me, it wasn't made the statement that I will reiterate and I will confirm it. This is about being able to have marketable units to meet the requirements of today's purchasers. And the price point is not 2,000 a foot. We've not sold one thing even close to it. The vice rate 2,000 a foot, I don't think that anyone at SkiCo has eyes to that type of number. I think the objectives here would be to get some with some were given the work construction costs are, I think the break even on these buildings is at a thousand dollars a foot. So before you make any money, is probably, add it depending on where your land base is. It's at or above a thousand dollars a foot just to cover your costs. So, and where the, that is a, that's, these are simple facts. So to the extent you can sell something in this market, I think the highest price point we've sold at the vice is just just north of 12 hundred foot. I think the highest price point we've sold at the vice-rate is just just north of 12 hundred foot. That's to meet the market demands. I think the one thing we like about seven and eight, whether it has the extra footer, does not have a foot. We think it makes sense to have nine foot six ceilings. We do not, as a company, have a mandate that they be 9 foot 6. We sell all different heights, but East West has their parameters. It's a better product to be a 9 foot 6. I think the community would benefit from that. And I think you'd have a better chance of selling 40 condominiums at $1,200 a foot with the slightly higher ceilings. Yeah, but still, Andrew, that's your cell in it. We're not saying not to build that extra foot. You find it to be necessary to be that attractive, to have 9 foot 6. That's great. You're the developer. You could do that. But you are going to benefit from the sale of the unit. The community, as far as the community purpose goes, looking after the community is what I'm doing. And what can a community benefit by you selling these units and that is a little more cash to the ante here and in regards to depositing it that way? Now you don't have an option to lower any of these buildings that are already in place. You do have an option to 10 A and B or 11 and 12 if you want to dig deeper and keep the same view line then be there you could do that if you want. But it's gonna cost you more because you're gonna be excavating more. And then you have to deal with the grades and everything else as opposed to where you are. You understand what I'm saying? I don't follow. Okay, so with last week East West was talking about whatever building maybe 12 was maybe 36 inches higher originally on on the site plate and even 10 a and b being higher and then that's when we kind of said well I don't think so right all right now 10 a and b does not have a foundation in the ground if you still want to get your nine foot six ceilings maybe you have an option to dig deeper for that first floor. You could be lower on your foundation and your footers. So you could still probably get your nine foot six, but it's going to cost you more money there because you're going to excavate more. Maybe it's going to be a deeper footer or whatever. You could still go that direction because that foundation and that footer is not in place. I didn't realize we were talking about buildings 10 AB right now. Well, I'm just bringing it up in regards to where this all came from from the height differences and the height variations came from. That's where I'm coming from on this. So the community, if we're going to just say, okay, here you go, take 24 inches, take 36 inches. There's no benefit to the community here. I mean I think everybody has made Some agreement okay, and I said this maybe a year ago in planning. I've already I've already given up the idea that I can't see Fannie Hill from driving up the road anymore. So I'm okay with the height changes. So maybe another foot, I'm still okay, but I think the community needs to benefit a little bit by it. Well, reading the community purpose definitions, and I know we didn't go into great detail in all of them, but B towards the end does state the economic benefit. If we have a more marketable unit, therefore we can sell that unit faster, therefore the town benefits with additional rent. I mean you can say this many different ways at the end of the day we need a vital sustainable resort. That's a community benefit and we need. Correct, there's no doubt you're on the right page, but you being a developer, you have the the right page, but you being the developer, you have the biggest benefit. Your developer is selling the unit. You're the biggest benefit right here. Okay, the community is sure the community's gonna get tax dollars later on. Later on, I mean, the fact is you'll get tax dollars as soon as the sale is completed. And the sooner that that sale is completed, it generally has to do with how Markedable such unit is you know in in viceroy 13 a there is certain units that are harder to sell and the town won't see the benefit Neither will we and so the fact is we need to look at what we can do in terms of what the market wants and delivered to the market what they want And I think that you know it's important to see globally. I think we're all fixated on a dollar amount. But there is a benefit. There is a benefit directly to the town, because at the end of the day, if we have a building we can't sell, it's gonna sit empty. It's not gonna generate large impacts. You have to think globally. You have to think about, if and when we get this project moving, okay? And let's just say the shovel goes in the ground in 2017. I think we'll be thinking again what we have to do in regards to what the economy wants out of this whole base village. Adapt this fantasy village is what it is right now. That's the way this community thinks about it. I mean, I understand your point, but I still believe there's gotta be dollars that have to go into community purpose for the extra benefit that you're gonna benefit by selling these. And when do you propose $200,000 to be paid when again again? I just put that number on there thinking that there should be a dollar value for the extra roof line I don't know what that dollar value is exactly that's that's just based upon more cash in the pocket for the community That would add on to the $500,000 I'm not talking about you. You're saying some of that on money paid at the same time as a $500,000. I'm not talking about you. So you're saying some of that on money paid at the same time is a $500,000. Okay. I mean, I think the community needs to benefit if the community is going to say, okay, council has agreed to make these buildings taller. But they didn't ask me, what am I going to get out of it? Everybody's going to want something out of it. Well, maybe the maybe a little more cash towards the community purpose might benefit the community and might satisfy people thinking that way. Because I think the bottom line is the community knows that the developer in the long run is going to sell these units, they're going to get the money and they're going to walk away. Because you made the most attractive unit you can to gain and sell what's going to be available on the market to your advantage. And the same token, I think, to community needs to get something out of it. Okay. I guess one other question, I guess, of the entire council. What is the, I thought I heard a direction before about the plaza not being a DMD community benefit. There was a straw poll take in and it said maybe it could be. Is this a conversation that's in its entirety? Were we looking at thing or is this something where you're, because the realities here for us are that the plaza, which we initially started out with designs with SkiCo and looking at, we started out with about a $2 million obligation. That's well north of that, probably 50% north of that at this point. We think that the, we agree that that helps amenitize the overall project. I think that's one way to say it, but that's also creates kind of the iconic center, a little heartbeat of the town of the village with building six. It makes building six a very viable building in whatever it's finished form is. But this is, this this project really can't afford a lot of, you know, a lot of, a lot of, extractions from it, from to add basically to the land basis. But I think as long as we know what the full picture is, we'd like to know that tonight if there's, if this is the blank that we're looking to fill we can move forward and I will say you know I think that the characterization by one of the earlier public speakers that there are you know so many open items and this saying so many there are near final drafts of every document that have been worked on tirelessly by a lot of folks there are a few loose ends that are really important to some of the folks in this room at this table and from ski coast perspective and from the town's perspective. But not, you know, we're not sitting here looking with something that's just kind of, oh gosh, you know, this is, we're miles away on this stuff. I agree, Mark, there's going to be a lot of hard work here in the next 90 days. I think we think it probably can be shorter than that. But they're not a ton of open items here. And this needs to move forward. And I think if we can entertain a discussion about, you know, this, additional community purpose, if we know we're moving forward, because that from our perspective is important. Because if we're kind of in limbo, I don't know if you feel like you're limbo, but I'm telling you, the cart before the horse here is, or the horse before the cart is getting an approval. So that we can move forward with plans and build. That's the process that works. It will work with, that's what skikiCo will need for the limelight. They need to know there's approval. We've got to start taking some uncertainty out of this. Let's come back and revisit line 234. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Julian, let's move on. Okay, 238. This is to reflect that we were, that the town staff did review that unit and we found it acceptable in lieu of what was going to be proposed at 8th unit in 13v. Okay. Next page. This is the action section. The first one is just the acceptance of the adamiment per your discussion at your hearing. 254, 258. This is where we essentially separated out what you found acceptable from your direction to staff versus what we did not find acceptable. What you did not find acceptable. So you want to quickly go through the people listening on TV. The first one had to do with the proposed changes in the parking garage and I believe that you have a letter submitted to you asking for a clarification or correction regarding garage gate versus fence. That's just a point for you to discuss. We included the many roundabout design and there in lieu of the snow melt, the phasing removing building 13B from phase two, the creation of the car share program, the applicants NUP LUT2 plaza that was presented to you at last week's meeting and including modifications to the licensing agreement of course that still needs to be more fully developed. The additional height in building seven or eight which we just discussed and the current drafts of the agreements being back within 90 days, in other words, wrapped up within 90 days. So those were the additions that we had indication that you wanted to accept. The ones that you were not comfortable with was the proposed elimination of that second parking garage level and building 11, which I believe the applicant did withdraw at that meeting. And the second one was the language regarding Planning Director Authority to administratively approve heights beyond the one foot two foot in there. So those were the changes in that section. Could we go back on this 90 days on these various agreements that would be line 274? Yeah, 274. So I'm trying to figure out, okay, this is a process question. So what appeared to me that there's 10 agreements. There's questions on like the development agreement and the SIA blah, blah, blah. So it would appear to me that we as council don't want to see all 10 agreements at one time. It would appear to me what would be helpful as as you work on each agreement if there's a lack of agreement that comes to council at that point in time, not waiting until the end of March. Is that plausible or what is your thinking, Julian, in terms of process? I mean, tonight is the final council action by the code. I mean, if you want to, if you want it to be, if you want to approve the PUD, then what this ordinance does is it authorize town manager, it's weird to speak about myself and the third person, but it authorizes me to then get the deal done. If we get stuck, if we can't, then there's always that, I'll call it the right of appeal by the applicant to get it to you. You guys have to assume that we're going to make sure that we're getting the best deal that we think the council wants. If the applicant comes back and says no, we don't think that's really what the council wants and we're going to hold firm on it. They'd have that ride with Peel to bring it back to you. But otherwise, we'd be negotiating within these conditions within the direction we received to get the to put everything together. So the question for this council is are we comfortable delegating that Authority to our town manager? Okay, well, I'm very comfortable Deligating it to staff not there's a town manager also I don't do any I mean I I Actually, it's my signature I don't do anything. I mean, I actually, it's my signature. But we do the world. There's more people in the church than I said. I'm assuming we're talking about staff when we're talking about it. Yeah, it's just me. I am very comfortable delegating that to staff, correct. I have some comfort level with it. I don't think it's necessary, though, given the status of where we are. Because I think that the staff will continue, I believe it's not necessary for us to approve this tonight. I don't see the value to approve it tonight. It doesn't achieve what we expected it to achieve. And I feel that the staff will continue to negotiate these other agreements. And that periodically we'll get the results of those negotiations. And we'll review them and put them into the ordinance. And at a more appropriate time bring the ordinance up for second reading. So I'm gonna play devil's advocate. So I'm very comfortable with delegating this to the town staff. So if we're comfortable in doing the delegation of the agreements to the town staff, then what is really fundamentally going to change in your mind in those various agreements that you're not comfortable in giving up. Well, right now I have to say that after the last three weeks, I'm not sure how clearly I think about a lot of this project, that my thinking has gone in many different directions up and down in sideways. And frankly, I wouldn't mind having two weeks to clear my head and basically see where I land on this. Okay. Okay. I see where you're going, Bob. But I also have confidence in the staff to get this done. I think there are items like a second level of parking and building 11. You know, if that push comes to shove, that's going to come back before the council. I think that's perfectly acceptable. And I think that passing this will show a sign of support. It will show a signal of leadership from the town. And I think that's the position that we want to be in. I think we need to lead this project. And I mean we've seen a lot of different people come in here trotted before us and they've told us what they think they want to do. We have to just work within the code, approve the process, and let these guys do their business. Beyond that, I mean, I think that's really our role. Alyssa, are you comfortable with the town stand? I am. I think my biggest hang up was on the lot two-plaza agreement. I mean, I think we got a little more clarity tonight. But for me, that's the one that I really feel like I want to make sure. I want to see that when come back is what you say. Okay so that might be a condition right there in terms of the lot to Plaza agreement. Let's move on to the bell. Yes, Schuster. Gosh I thought I saw you back there and good morning. I've been good evening. Don't choose to ask me a skink of money with a boss is here. So in online 269, I know it was talked about that revisions potentially might be there, but I'd request a potential of maybe rewarding that where it says the control of the plaza to the town, at least to broaden it so that that conversation might broaden this part of the agreement. That is something we talked about earlier, Mike, was up there, so I think that conversation I have been talking with that for a good. You could change that to read something to affect that to develop master schedule and control of the plaza. Whatever you go back to the previous language or something similar to the previous language this language in ordinance number one, first reading. Let the town staff had suggested. But I would suggest the Plaza agreement comes back for approval. I mean, just to that point, or you know, Councillor Matzins point about the parking. If we're gonna do that, then we're essentially on what option two or Bob Circus. I mean, you guys as a council and either approve or you don't approve and if you're basically giving yourself a second bite of the apple at that point, which is I'm not trying to dissuade you from it, but if we're going to do that route, then kind of that route too, let's get everything buttoned up and bring it back as one package for approval When it's all said and done We've seen staff recommend you one of the two ways the one way is what you're what you're heading to a little bit ago Of hey, there's 10 agreements go forth do the best you can make sure you're following the conditions that were in preliminary plan Follow the directions of the council We've got that language in here that will negotiate. If we get stuck, they have the right to bring it back. Or to bring it to appeal. I'm using the word appeal loosely to you guys. The other one is, hey, I'm going to pin it on, the council's circus for a second, but get it all together. Let us do a final review and it's going to take you the 90 days of the way, we'll consider it 90 days. But if you start picking apart, say this one needs to come back and this one doesn't, it's a weird middle ground that is, I'm going to leave it a weird, I mean I think it's got to be one or the other in order to kind of be with the code and be effective for staff and the negotiations and all those types of things. Okay. Do you want me to continue or? Yes, I do know that the list I wouldn't pout person on council would like to see the modifications to the plaza agreement. Okay. Okay. Let's move on to beginning 291. This is basically acknowledging the second the specific as accepting the the I'm sorry. See that first amendment. Hold on just a second. Okay. Hold on just a second. Okay. Yeah. It should actually read on 296. Council accepts the following within the second amendment. Right. And that has to do with the building heights for 7 and 8, which we just discussed. And then having that language, which we've included as a condition later on in here, regarding how amendments to the height would be handled. Great. Moving on down to line 317. We just added some clarifying language in there because we had gone back and forth with them about The cap what they wanted to do is to be able to have the latitude if they come through Administrative modifications to be able to get up to a certain number and that was the 520 But what you are proving tonight is The 506, which it had been shown in the plants. So that's a little bit of wiggle room, if you will. Any questions on that? Otherwise, we'll move to the next page. Line 30 or 340. This is where we actually did include the alternative parking plan in the PMP including the updated P2 level in the first amendment which you already had discussed. Then we just have some remembering that happens. Going all the way down to the bottom of the page over arching conditions, we added some language in there that specifically says that the show that, as determined by the town manager as a language that we put in there, to make sure that, that you know the inconsistencies that we've seen Basically would be up to him to to finalize. Did you help me on 367 this gets in to the point of delegation of authority to the planning director To approve the final architectural plans for to approve the final architectural plans for 6, 7, 8, 10, 8, B, 11, 12, and 13, B. It's with Councillor Peruvio though. Look at 368. Oh I got it, okay, with Councillor Peruvio. She can start the process, you guys approve. Okay, you guys approve it. Okay, got it. Okay. Because there was some big thing in the PUD guide on the social too. Okay, so moving on to 201. We just again kind of, you know, clarified some of the language in line 391-392. And again, this, we have language in here that says if outstanding issues can not be resolved between the applicant and town staff at the administrative level, these mayors will be referred to town council for final determination. So that could include, unless if you will, the clause agreement, etc. Yeah. Okay. Then if we continue on, we struck that second level of parking where they had wanted, did not want to have to be obligated to that but then they withdrew it. So that's been stricken. To that point, just for, I mean, at preliminary, the way it was approved was the second level of parking is required unless it can otherwise be determined that it's not necessary. The request was to eliminate that, that was since withdrawn, but when, if that were to be a negotiated issue, we would just go back and say, listen, it's in the preliminary stop and wouldn't be negotiated much longer, I don't think, because we're really trying to stick to that preliminary approval, and what we're negotiating, if anything, is just that final nuance to make sure that in fact, it's the clear direction of council, it's getting implemented. And beginning at 406, this is basically just again, talking about that car sharing program. And the applicant has been very clear that it's not their intentions to operate that. So they wanted to have some language near that successors or assigns maybe the ones that end up operating that. So we've included that language in here. We also included that the program could be used by town and community members as well, which they had agreed to. We struck on 416 because we clarified it in that previous language about the maximum number of units. Beginning online 418. beginning online for 18. This is where we accepted the height and approve for building seven and eight only. And the subsequent buildings, East of the Skibach Trail would require, hold on a second. would require hold on a second. Oh, to remain as is currently presented in the matrix. So with the language that we further have about, they would have to come back through an amendment process for high down those other buildings. Line 433. Line 433. This has to do with the, this is the language that we've been talking about is basically when you just, when you make the determination and the architectural acceptability of those east of the ski back buildings, that this would be the appropriate time for them if they wanted to to be able to coincidentally process an amendment related to height on those buildings. If I might before we move on. Line 400 we don't have any comments on. These specific conditions but I would point out that when this gets adopted, this is a timing bust. We need a different, because we couldn't put in the ordinance that prior to its adoption, something will happen. So we're fine with the conditions, but the timing just needs to be fixed for when that actually gets satisfied. timing just needs to be fixed for when that actually gets satisfied. A little confused, Joey. So the title in line 400 needs to change, be more accurate. So it needs to be some time frame after, I don't know if you have a suggestion, Joey, but it's the timing can't be met. Oh, I see what you're saying. The title of the line title needs to change. Yeah, the title needs to change. OK. You guys figure that out. I'm going to change the film after they've all done. No, I'm trying to figure that way. OK. I'm going to be putting it in the title. I would just say conditions. We'll come back to that. conditions. We'll come back to that. On the next page. Online 440 we this has to do with the annual reporting of the housing that's in the project. And this was to specify that it's okay to submit that annual reporting by January 31st. Of 16, I should say. Oh, yeah, 26, sorry, yep. Yep, that's the two places. Just before we get too far away from that line 400, if we just, I think if we just simply removed line 400, it's title. It doesn't, it's not direction anything. I mean, all the conditions still stand. Okay. The number and get screwed up. Yeah. the number and get screwed up. Yeah, it changes the number. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 different. The number of 90 days. Okay. We're ready, Mukhan. 208 line 450. This is where we just spelled out the specific agreements. So it was real clear what we were expecting to finalize within the next 90 days. Down there on that POO access assessment agreement, we all received a letter from Pat Keifer relative to use of building eight pool prior to the completion of 10 AB because we don't know what the completion date is of 10 AB. So within that agreement, I was going to suggest that would be an interim solution that's just a note. On that particular agreement. And if that's the consensus council that we'd access to that then we can certainly. I'm just a little still confused with building eight being the private building that it once was. I'm assuming it still is. Is that a big problem? I'm thinking it's a big problem. Right. I probably figured it would be a big problem. Why? So on the roof of a building as opposed to a 10-8-B, where it was kind of a courtyard pool with access, you know, kind of pedestrian, kind of walking access to it. We could have a gate to it. In this case, you'd have people not owners or guests of a building where they're going into a private building through elevators to the roof, which is a security issue that's a maintenance issue. a maintenance issue. A lot, why couldn't you have a special key code? Like they have the different hotels and something and access as you only to that particular floor. I think that's a bit more. Beyond that it's having a number of people coming through and presumably bathing suits into a real a reassess of buildings, lobby and using their primary elevator and to go to the thing. I think that's a very challenging ask. So what would be the alternative, you think? I totally understand that's why I brought it up, Andrew. I mean, I think we need to come up with an alternative for this. If there is an alternative, I don't know what that could be, but. I will say we have bent over backwards and I know to try and figure out whether there's a place on on. A lot of wanting if it is or by Hayden and Capital and the parking lot areas. There's way we can find a place for a pool. We obviously our first proposal was to put a pool in the words, but it's now the plaza area to solve the problem. And it's a, you know, we're doing our best. I don't know what, I don't know if Jim, you've spent the lion's share of the time looking at this. Is there another solution? I don't know. But I think building heat as a viable alternative, I really think is gonna be challenging. Well, because it's not a big space either. This is a small pool. Well, yeah, in 10AB, I don't even have a date when you plan on substantial completion of that. You do. What is it for 10AB? For 10AB, I'm sorry for for Billy 8. Well that's going to get into my next point. Right. Right. I'm just trying to really those those those owners the owners that over in capital peak and Hayden Modge have seen this strung out strung out strung out and they continue to go without a pool and It's very hard for me to say to them. You know, we're taking care of you. You're going to have access to a pool Is there a way Jim? Excuse me, Margie. Is there a way that you can engineer a process for people to get up that we're not talking because William people It's not that many units. Well, it's it's the the the pool and everybody was for building eight is designed for a I think it's a I think there's 40 units and building 7.8 41 41 units out so it's a it's a it's it's modest inside and then there's A unit capital peak's almost 90 years. 90 years. So that would be adding three times, two and a half times as many people to that facility. And it's not designed for that. And I think a resident or a guest and a Hayden or a capital you did not get out there and see, I think an owner and building eight or building seven would be felt like there was like you know there was there could be a hundred people up and you just know you can't even you couldn't guarantee enough seeding or anything like that up there for that I think it's I think that's a very challenging solution if there's something else well we're almost all years at this point on this thing because we understand the challenge. We have spent a lot of time. We've had pool guys out here. What can you look at this? What can you look at this? And we're trying to come up with a solution. The 10AB was, you know, it is designed with, you know, there's a pedestrian access into it, so it makes sense. You know, it's organized with a big pool deck, so it's not going to feel, so I just, I think it's a tough situation. We're trying to accommodate and we're absolutely willing to continue to work on this. I just, we just need some, if anyone has any ideas, we're open ears. Would council consider limiting access to that pool to owners only? I guess in the interim. In the interim. I think that's interesting. I mean, let me say we can think about it. And I would have to make sure that the heatingated and capital owners are okay with that too right well That could be a point of negotiations with staff on the program. That's an interesting solution. Okay Okay moving on Okay, as we mentioned and line 469 Okay, as we mentioned on line 469 We're suggesting that that milestone matrix be attached to the development agreement instead of the PUT guy At juliano this milestone matrix it only went through 2018 if I remember correctly Well 19 I believe 19 if the substantial completion or But 2018 it's not automatic so. I know that we have the vesting that goes to 2024 is that correct correct. So I would I mean they meet the two interim deadlines. Yeah, other two interim deadlines, but I would love to see and I don't know if we can do it on that development matrix, as a proposed substantial completion date for the other buildings that are being considered. Like 10 AB 1112 13 B. Are you saying an actual milestone or a proposed? Proposed, when you think you're gonna get going on those buildings? But it wouldn't trigger default if it wasn't. No, I just, I think it'd be helpful because when I was going through the milestone chart today, I'm gonna... That's fine. I don't think it's complicated. No, that's just a question. I'll give you a day. Now that you are the developer. Yeah, I mean, you don't have another builder. So yeah, I want to see. Market dictates the future and that's why it was just a concern. But it's an actual milestone to fall. I'll tell you what I'll dictate the future of this place being successful. Somebody to start going vertical. Because the reason why your vice-roy is not selling, because what people don't know what's coming or what's gonna happen, it's not because it's a bad product, it's a great product. So once we start seeing stuff going vertical, there's a lot more confidence amongst purchasers. So we just gotta get going here. Okay, moving on. I just want to make sure I understood that right. So you're suggesting the applicant can modify that milestone matrix to add buildings east of ski back trail in terms of when they anticipate. Yes. Substantial completion, not that it would be a considered a vesting milestone. Right, it's correct. Yeah, thank you. not that it would be considered a vesting milestone. Right, it's correct. Yeah, thank you. All right, then online 472 we added let two plus and building six agreement just to make sure that we've got everything covered in there and to ensure that it continues the service at community purpose. So that was that one. And you can modify on mine 480 as staff works through that agreement. Yeah, that's why that's in yellow because we weren't I mean that's what we understood you wanted but it sounds like there's a little bit more latitude on that. It sounds like that's the direction you're heading in. And then on line 485, we had some time to chat with them today. We know that they had some concerns when you continue on to line 491. We continued to have the same language that we previously had about the 20,000 pounds, et cetera. We agreed that that number could be 10,000 pounds. It wouldn't really have much bearing where we expect to go with this plus agreement. We struck the determining whether or not that employee unit in 13A, because we already addressed that previously. So and then it's in the same in the next section, the conversion of unit 330. And we went on to say show demonstrate adequate storage base in the garage is the way that that should read on paint online 502. Because that's what we had talked about, but it wasn't that clear, and they were questioning that. We still, of course, have to covenant that to the satisfaction of the housing department. Let's see. The next item has to do with just the update of that restricted housing agreement. The applicant was asking for some banked square footage. There was a residual basically. And so we've included that in here that that could be available to them if they did another project. Online 518 and the subdivision improvement agreement. We added and the emergency pull-off area, adjacent to Wood Road. Line 521, this is where we said, including murals and appropriate finish treatment of the stairwells, which would be in building 7, which is what you had approved at preliminary. Line 525. This has to do with the car share program again that they wanted to make sure it was clear that they wouldn't necessarily run it but somebody else they could assign that to. The line 527 has to do with the easement for the connector, the aerial connector and we just said pursuant to the subdivision improvement agreement. Going down to line three, 50, I'm sorry, five, 37. This is where we added some language that said, or this has to do with financial security for the trail that hasn't been built, because we have to get the easement. We don't know when that's going to happen. So we just set an alternative except for the town manager. And you do include we did include a letter from the fire district in your packet that said that they don't need that additional water storage. So we struck that in line 540. So if we continue down this would be prior to the submission of a building permit application and we made the distinction between application and a permit issuance so you'll see that in here. But we just said the recordation together with this ordinance at the applicants expense, which is just standard procedure for us. Item 574, this is prior to issuance of a permit for either buildings, 10A or 10B. This has to do with the pedestrian connection between Lot 6 and the line light hotel. And then item on line 582. This has to do with that additional water storage, which has been struck in because the fire department determined it didn't need that. storage which has been stricken because the fire department's determined it didn't need that. And then we just kind of re-arrange, you'll see some stricken out language what we've picked it up later on. So line 589, we struck that but we moved that down to line 622. Got it. Now you don't see this on your drawing but if you look at line 603, 604, one of the questions that the applicant was raising and that staff has been talking with them about is, first of all, our intention was that we don't really need the market study for building 12 because we're not expecting to see commercial in building 12 so we were going to strike 12 but as it relates to buildings 10 AB and 11, the ski back trail, the timing of that market study we wanted to make sure that the podium was completed, that there had been some time, so that we could evaluate whether or not it's being successful in terms of vitality and what have you. And so we weren't sure exactly when, you know, is it building 10 AB or building 11? So we were suggesting that language, and I believe this is in the PUD guide, the ladder of buildings 10 AB and 11, that's when that market study would come in. So it's a matter of timing we're trying to fix on this thing. Okay, then moving on to the issuance of the building permit or sign permit. The only reason why we put or sign permit is because there is an item further down beginning in line 636. It has to do with the comprehensive sign plan, which would require permit. But it's not like for every permit that we would have to do that every sign permit. Line 618, we added the language pre-year direction about matching the funding for the open for business marketing plan during construction with town marketing dollars. So where is the $50,000 kind of come from? Do we have a bogey of what rose thinks it's going to cost? That's the number. What, 50,000 or 100,000? 50? Okay, would be the share of course. So this is one of those preliminary talked about a cooperative effort and what we're trying to say is they can either propose their own plan Which should be fine. We'll approve it or if they wanted to go dollar for dollar we would be happy to do that So it's not going to cost more than a hundred thousand To our best estimation. Okay Yeah, per year of construction of phase two. Okay. Okay. The next one had to do with that, getting that second way down onto the ski back trail and ultimately to Fannie Hill. Line 626 has to do with clarifying really more than anything else that the employees of the Schien company in the Mountain Club in the hotel would be able to use the black saddle parking lot, which isn't a big deal as long as they co-employees, but our concern was if that changed. But we've got this language basically make sure that the applicant gets ski co-to-apply for that admin mod, is all that it's really saying. Okay. Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and and then can be reviewed, we need the consent of the landowner, which is told brother. So we can make a submission for this, but if we don't have that consent, the town's gonna have to reject the submission as being incomplete. So as it's written, I don't know if that satisfies this or not. Our short answer to them is yes, that satisfies. We would like them to put their best efforts forward the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the would like we have to park down on the inner sub. Yeah. So that would be the provisions. OK. OK. Although that parking provision was used as a means to justify the parking reductions in base villages as well, just to point that out. OK. You ready to move on? OK. Okay. You ready to move on? Okay. This sets to do with the comprehensive sign plan and making sure that we have adequate signage for each of the buildings as they come through a permit process. And then on line 644, this is where we're talking about having that cross parking agreement. Among all the underground parking garage owners and having that incorporated into the kind of medium documents. For the town attorneys satisfaction. satisfaction. Item, line 659, this has to do with the pool that you were just discussing. We wanted to make sure that we have evidence that that would be available to the residential owners in one, two A, 2B, and 2C. And so we're suggesting that there would be a final document that would be reviewed by the town just to make sure that that's completed prior to issuance of that first certificate of occupancy. Just a point that I mean I didn't actually realize this when I suggested before that the pool and building eight just be limited to residents. But we've already basically said that the pool at 10a b is going to be limited to residents. So it's just really following the same pattern. Right. Good catch. Just, I don't think I had a hook on the line on that one. Okay. Okay. Okay. So continuing down to line 385. This is where it talks about that final architectural review for Building 678,10 AB 11 and 12. So we just specify those in there. Sorry, Julian, what line do you see? 685. 685. 685. And then on the next page, the last page, under the introduced red and approved, we've inserted as amended because you made them, you recommended amendments at that first reading on December 14th. And we've inserted the motion in the second on that. And then at the very end, we've got that, we've got that item online, 729, that that milestone matrix would be placed in the new development agreement. And those are, oh, I'm sorry, the next page is another page after this. 766, we added reference to that second amendment that was submitted on December 16th. A quick question for you. Where am I missing the roundabout through this whole process? Did we skip over that or is that in the development agreement? No, okay. And it's referenced with a start and substantial completion date in there. So here's a question since we don't know what's exactly going to happen. What would we see in 2016? Around about? You'd see the construction of the two roundabouts as well as the applications for building seven and eight hopefully for the architectural plans for those final plans for those as well as you would see hopefully building six final plans as well. So final plans from SkiCo as well. So final plans from Mosquiko as well. Okay. Relative to the roundabout. Have you already bid to the project? Yes. And that milestone would be met? Yes. And it's a pretty significant project That that was conditioned upon approval tonight And I can just take one second if you go to line 386. I just want to we kind of skipped over this one kind of quick 386 just give us two seconds to get the three and six. Okay. This is the condition that we're kind of getting a lot of confidence with that when we are trying to finalize those last 10 agreements that we're trying to say we get to dictate what's in their best interest. We think we've framed it up. We think we're 99.5% of the same page and almost all these things. This is the language in the ordinance that we're gonna hang our hat on saying, this is how the direction we're taking and trying to button things up. And if there's a level, a relief valve, or something to make sure you have at a level of comfort in any kind of decision making, This is what I think staff we're putting a lot of weight into. Madam Mayor. Yeah. Could we go through the second amendment? Just take hold on here. Let me get over there. Sure. Absolutely. Let's, uh, find it. Page 36. Yep. find it. Page 36. Yep, got it. Yes, Bob. 36. 36. I mean, just to let me get to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom. I'm going to have to go to the bathroom Okay. So, I'm on page 128 and under commercial service areas definition it struck me that building 4AB was not included and it says any combination of commercial skills services, community facilities. So I was wondering why 4AB was not included. And it has to do with how building areas are defined. There's no commercial services area defined in building for AB. That's why it has been left out. Commercial service area generally is support for a building that's open to the public. There's a residential component to building for AB, but this has more to do with building such as 13A. And also 10AB that are operating more as if they're like a hotel. And that's the same thing. This as commercial service areas means circulation spaces, rentuses, elevators, stairs, hallways. So, and there are condominiums in 4AB or at least one of them. So is there access? Is it all on one? But it's not on ground level. So aren't there stairs? Yeah, but there's not shared space between the commercial and the residential. Okay. All these other buildings, there's the shared space. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And then on page Well, that isn't even a good example, but there are examples in the PUD guide about parking parking issues. One that comes to mind is compact spaces and tandem spaces. And all of these parking situations are being directed to the planning director for administrative modification. So this is really a question for my fellow council. We've had many discussions about parking during a course of this PUD. And we know it's a sensitive subject. I just, I want to ask you all your opinion about whether we are comfortable and I would like to ask Julianne as well whether staff is comfortable handling these things on a administrative modification. As an example Julianne if you're looking for one of them on page 131, on page 131 under development parameters for lots and buildings. As just an example. There's another item eight. Yeah, item eight, yes. There's another one on page 136 item 12 under under building on lot 5. There were a number of these that seemed to come up throughout that PUD rather throughout the amendment. You know, of course, like with any of the administrative modifications, we have some language that, which they've spelled, tried to spell out here in their guide that sets the parameters. But if there's something that is not feeling like I really would want to do that? Then I believe that there's language in here that allows On page 143 It's item C If I say no to something then it gets then they could appeal it to town council. So that's why I don't really have any concerns about this because if it would, is it significant? I'm going to point to count, I'm going to say probably no, and then it would get punted to council if they really felt that they needed that. And then you would have to make the decision on that. Okay. Lateral to counsel. Okay. We all comfortable with that. Okay. Okay. I have a question on page. I'm page 134 in the in the lot three use chart. There is this line item that says hotel lodge room in sweets. And building eight is, that is an approved use. But building seven, it's not. And I'm wondering why one would be different than the other. It's actually a 1-34. I can answer that. Question, this is actually, we didn't make a change from 2004. We didn't think that it was important to make a significant change there and building it was always intended to be more of like a hotel. And the way it operated and building seven was ancillary to it. So the only thing that I guess concerns me a little is that if building eight were to be a hotel with large rooms, then theoretically the parking requirement would only be a half of space instead of three quarters of a space. And so what I really want to prevent and how we do it is, whether you know how we do it is not the thing. But what I really want to prevent is for, at some point later on, a brand hotel or, you know, kind of, or a destination club or who knows what? Come in there and claim that this is a hotel. And they only, and now we only have to supply half a spot. Well, the other designation for a hotel room, it has to be less than 500 square feet. So unless we redesign that building and change all of the condos into hotel-like units, like building five, then that would potentially trigger that change. But if we were to build in accordance with what we presented, generally consistent, none of those rooms would ever qualify as a hotel room. So even if we said it's a hotel room, we wouldn't get the benefit of reduced parking rate because of the size of that unit. Is there a definition for a suite in that, in our definitions of what's what? I mean, a hotel room, I get it, it's 500 square feet, but then it also says or sweets So I don't know if we have a similar kind of a definition for sweets That definition doesn't impact any mitigation or parking requirement it has no meaning Okay as long as staff is comfortable with that, I am. We're okay with that. Okay. Thank you. I think that's what I got. I had a question on the language called successors or assinees. Which page? Around the document. It used to be a ski co-east west or future ownership or does it have to be more specific? Well, I think generally in a document like this, it's not an issue now in that development agreement. That there is some specific language about who they could transfer or convey title to specifically and they do have language in their draft still that mentions East West and their affiliates etc. So it's it's more specific in that particular section but I think this is general language unless John has a different take on that. Well, I want to have the second part of that question. Okay. Successor Assignies. Does a town have authority or approval authority on who that successor might be in our development guide. In the development of the guide or in the PUD guide. PUD guide, because one of the things that I always worry about, let's say that XYZ from that in which there are issues associated with that foreign country, chooses to come in and purchase from the developer. The town, what we're saying right now, it's absent on does the town have any authority over who that successor might be? I need to ladder all over to the town attorney. Some but not much. Should it be strengthened? I always worried about what's going on in world affairs and who might come walking in here. Not to speak. If they were to buy the entire project, there's nothing that talented here. And I think to bootstrap on that, if they bootstrap on that, if someone bought less than the entirety, and it was not one of the identified, you, the town could approve the assignment of those agreements. you that town could approve the assignment of those agreements. Yes. Which is pretty much the way it's been. It might be something that if you went too far, would be considered against public policy as a restraint on alienation. Yeah. In other words, it would restrict the owners right to sell. And I wouldn't encourage you to get into it. If you want to talk about that section in the development agreement, my question would be, do you want to continue to include East West as a designated as an e. So you're giving permission to the owner to assign it to East West where it's a failure. I'm not going to say no on that one. Yeah, I don't think it matters. Yeah, I don't think it matters. They're not probably going to say no on that one. They don't think it matters. Yeah, they don't think it matters. They're not probably going to come back to the walls. Well, understand that they were presented to you as the potential buyer of the remaining available assets, which means under the existing, they don't need that approval. I leave in it in there. They could piecemeal a lot to East West. That's the difference by including them in this agreement. I don't know the nature of why the courtship stopped. So you want them to keep the wing in their pocket? You know, there's so, you know, transparency is always lovely, but when it gets into negotiations, I don't think we can be party to what the divorce was all about. Oops. I'm fine with East West still in here. You guys don't care? We don't have an opinion on this. You gain more leverage by being removed if you ever wanted in the future. That's the benefit for you. What's the leverage we gained? Did you get to talk them through, see what they're doing and have that discussion if you wanted at that point? If you're fine with them, like John said, to take a building over the entire project, then this allows that transaction to happen far easier. It's no different if you were more. If they're right, no, I mean, it doesn't matter if they're named the nervous. I don't really. I don't tell anybody. I can't get excited. Okay. Any other questions? I have the other questions. Did you have Any other questions? I guess my question would be needed. It seems like we beat the parking horse of death but I realize that the intercept lot's been removed from parking contingency. If somebody shows up for a two bedroom condo and there are four people, there are four different cars, what's, how do you manage that? So generally speaking, in accordance with how the documents are written, there's not more than one parking permit issued per unit. There's a property management company that manages on behalf of that specific unit owner, and then there's the association. And to Pat Keifers Point, well, Capital P board wants to have more control over the issuance of such parking permits. We the developer don't really get involved in that process. It's up to the association to determine what is the proper rules of regulations as long as it's in accordance with the PUD itself. And so it really has to do with how capital peak wants to run it and what specific rules and regs they want to put in place and how that is given to the property management company to make sure they abide by such rules. What happened to the single management? Yeah, I thought it was in the parking management plan. Craig's point is that there are, it's the individual rental managers for units, not operation of the garage, who's actually renting out the units. Okay, I got that. Just the conversation you want to have. Well, yeah, we're going to go to the conversation. I'll bring it up, because I guess Bill, that was a good segue to the discussion about whether we want to make a change regarding the ability of base village residents and guests to qualify for parking permits for the numbered lots and some basis or another. So it's out there. What do we think? I mean I can that was there for a reason in 2004 it was continued in this application. It's one of those things that those lots getting maxed out now with the hotel use. It's going to be there for the existing hotels and it's going to make that even more difficult if all of a sudden those are available for permits. I mean, I don't want to go back too far, but when this development came through, it was supposed to have, we said, hey, one of the constraints we have is parking. Just like roads, you need to do road improvements, you need to do sewer improvements, water improvements. Parking was one of them. And they said, this is all we need. And that was the deal that was struck. And then I understand the position, the residents, the folks in own property, and there are sayings, like, hey, we want all the other benefits. The tough part is, the deal was struck 10 years ago, roughly, and we're trying to kind of live with that because no more parking was built and we're still trying to live with those constraints. And it's difficult, but I think all of a sudden you're going to impact everybody else that's using those lots and if you're going to do it, I think we should make sure that all the hotels and everybody else that would be impacted would be aware that that's for discussion. But it seems to me that, at least from what we've heard, the owners are getting permits anyway. So it makes me wonder how the parking department determines whether this is a base village owner or not. When you go get your permit, you have to show your address and all those types of issues. Well, even if for a one week, I mean, Pat was talking about getting one week permits when they're out here. What's the guest permit they can do that? Yeah, I don't know. So, and I, I don't, I think the prohibition against the season long residential permit, but a guest permit, I think you probably sell those right? Your operators I don't know You think the guest permit comes out of the the base village garage. No, I think that guest permit is available Through lodging entities through entities, through the parking transportation department. It's short term, they manage that. Okay, so for Weston guests, they buy a pass. Okay. For the kind of many of us up along West Village that do not have their own parking, they buy their guests by passes and those are a short duration. I'm not sure what they're buying and if they're characterizing it correctly, but I don't think that you can go in and buy a season-long residential permit if your legal description is base village. Okay. I think when Pat brought it forward before, it was like $50 and it was a guest pass for a couple of days for someone that was staying with them. That's what I remember of being. Yeah, but if the guest pass is something that sold not through the parking Not through the parking office But through other hotels and where well the hotels buy them from the transportation department Yeah, and then they may resell the provide them to their guests or or provide them so they resettle the provide them to their guests or will provide them. So is that to say that the capital peak management is going to the department? I don't know that. No, I know that. I mean, but I'm trying to figure out the connection, how it worked that these owners or guests ended up with guest parking passes. And that's what I recall is the one anecdotal story. I don't know that it happens very often, but I had to check into it, but I just don't know the answer. But my impression was, I just don't know the answer, but my impression was it was a mistake. It probably shouldn't have happened. And we moved on. Okay. I'm over it. Okay. Okay. We've been through the detail on ordinance nine series of 2015. I'll see if there is an appetite to get this thing approved tonight. Bill, I'll start with you. Are you interested in going forward? I am. Melissa? Thumbs up, thumbs down. Thumbs down. Tom? thumbs up thumbs down thumbs down Tom I'm interested in moving forward with the with the changes spoke up no okay since I'm not going to get a super majority this evening appears I think we're making a big mistake but And I'm not going to get a super majority this evening as appears. I think we're making a big mistake. But. But excuse me, but I do, I do like what Bob saying in regards to giving a couple weeks we haven't break. As a chance to digest this, everybody does, I don't know, I don't, I don't. I kind of see what Bob's point is, but I am anxious to move forward with the changes spoke of. What is at risk if we go two weeks? Well, I mean, the question is what is the risk by approving tonight or moving forward tonight? What potentially could change over the next two weeks? Not a ton. The next meeting is January 4th. The way things have been going around here, you can't. We need to mobilize and get this thing going. And then we need to set this in a direction and go. And it's, you know, I don't know whether there's taking two weeks off is, I don't know, it's not gonna come from us if it's happened in two weeks, but maybe something comes from who knows what happens in two weeks from now, what after the introspection happens from the council from our perspective, we need, there is not actually a lot of time to do this. We need to set things in motion to get this project moving. And that's, I think it would be after the process we've been through, there is nothing, nothing's gonna change about this plan. Nothing's gonna change about the wording in these documents. I think it would actually be probably two weeks lost, basically, I'm not moving forward with the other agreements. I think it would be a real shame. I think we've done, went through an exhaustive process here. I don't think this you're going to be able to get the information that you're going to have to be able to get the information that you're going to have to be able to get the information that you're going to have to be able to get the information that you're going to have to be able to get the information that you're going to have to be able to get the information that you're going to have to be able to get the information that you're going to have to be able to get the what's going on here so we can get set this thing for. This is where on the, there is, we actually have to have people presenting to us so that we can come back and meet the schedules. This is not a long amount of time. I have a question that's not going to be directed related. It's going to be directed at Asmond Scheeing Company. You may want to. Don, I don't think Mike is here any longer. At the last week's meeting, you stated that the deadline of December 21 or December 31 was very, there was a critical milestone in order to get this deal done. If it's not done by December 31, what impact does that have on SkiCo? We have a contractual obligation, obviously, with related on our purchase and sale agreement. And it would require some modifications to our purchase and sale agreement. If it's not done by the 31st. That's correct. Thanks. Just so you know, Madam Mayor, this is your last regular meeting of the year. The pass and ordinance needs to be at a regular meeting. So I know the 31st came up last week in discussion, but that's not an option. I mean just your last regular meeting at the year to have some kind of action by the council. Oh, what's your rate of sense? I mean, I've gone back and forth a lot this week. And I think today just sort of, I don't know. I feel like we're dealing with a project that's partially done. And if you can call it that. And from the beginning, I feel like I have said to myself and other people say vast is that, you know, it's not like we're starting from scratch. We're dealing with what we have. And we need to make it the best that we can be. And I feel like we have spent an enormous amount of time and energy going through all of these things, but there's still so much that is not clear to me. So, can you help me? Let's get down to the point. What's not clear yet? Well, I still think the issues with community purpose. I think the plaza agreement and those to me are big things. They've also been things that have been repeatedly said by people in this community. I mean last week, Mark, you asked for people to respond and give their thoughts. And I would say of the people that responded, that was a continual theme, was those two things. And I understand what you guys are saying and I understand what ski company is saying. There's just a lot of uncertainty. If everyone else was going one direction, I'm not gonna hold it up, but it seems like, I mean, you don't think you said how you would go, Markey. I mean, that's kind of where I am. I have a question. The community purpose issue is still on the table that we talked about. Yes. So that hasn't been solved. We can come back to that in a second, but it's all another way. Any purpose issue is still in table that we talked about for this. So that hasn't been solved. We couldn't come back to that in a second, but it's all another hand up in the audience. Unless you went direct into the question, Andrew. No, I just directed the question. So I mean, that hasn't been, you know, we talked about it. Yep. And, you know, we didn't come up with the number, but that's part of what Melissa's talking about. And we got to satisfy in the community purpose. Right. And one thing that I was thinking about in terms of community purpose, had to do with the events plaza, that the agreement for the events plaza expires. And would you say, on 2019? Event law event. The event law, I'm sorry, expires in 2019. And maybe that's something that boosts community purpose by increasing that agreement indefinitely. Just a thought. That's a ski coat. Yeah, I know it's a ski coat. Yeah, I know it's a ski coat, but that was just a, you know, we're all trying to work together. Ron and Urshwitch Raspon skiing company, you know, it's something that we would certainly explore, extending it. I don't know that we could say in perpetuity. It's not something that we can say, sit here tonight and say, for sure, we'd have to talk about it internally and how that and the plaza interplay would all need to be part and parcel of the same discussion. So if the two of them can work together there may be room to extend that, but it's not something that we can sit here today and guarantee. So it's still work it would all be in the details of how the two would play out. Mm-hmm. That would be part of the conditions that the staff could work through. Yeah, yeah. Then they bring it back if it can't be. So I'm still sitting here thinking about what do we have to gain, what does the community have to lose, how much more detailed do we want to get into in terms of the agreements? Is it appropriate to leave them at the staff level with coming back here for final direction if it cannot be resolved? That seems to be well vetted within the document. I know that my angst and anger towards ski code not going vertical. Sheldt pretty significantly earlier this evening because our community is so eager to get something moving. We spent a lot of time on the east west, only to see a very short-term relationship go into, bye-bye now. And that creates a lot of community angst as where we sideline for two weeks and spend a lot of things that we've been doing for the past 20 years, and we've been doing a lot of things that we've been doing for the past 20 years, and we've been doing a lot of things that we've been doing for the past 20 years, and we've been doing a lot of things that we've been doing for the past 20 years, and we've been doing a lot of things that we've been doing a lot of things that really trying to get the milestone in terms of getting the architects on board, getting the construction drawings, going, get your final pricing in place. I'm moving more towards approval this evening. So that's where I'm sitting right now because I see the risk if we don't. Mal, come on. I'll look at all President of Enclave. Just a couple of things. I think Tom mentioned it briefly, but one of the key items was to come back to the community purpose for both the height increase and for the changes on the plaza, which should probably be done before this thing is finalized. But at bottom line, December 21st was a drop-down drop-dead date to have vertical construction start on 13b and the limelight. That ain't happening. Waiting until we see more about the plans of what's going to go on, I can't imagine what that's going to hurt, but for the community to wake up and find all they're getting in 2016 after all of this is around about is not something that's going to please many people. Ski co and related can easily change that date of December 31st on their current track. That's just an internal agreement between them, given them another couple of weeks to work out their issues and problems. I just don't see any reason any longer to rush. We are rushing so we can see vertical construction this year. These guys are far away from that. And you haven't even seen what these buildings are going to look like. Andrew? Not interested in responding. I've got a question. I don't know if Andrew or Don, which of you want to answer it. But if we approve this tonight, is your deal going to finalize before the end of the month? Yes. So that there will be a transfer of ownership of that lot. There are a couple of things that have to be done with, you know, recording of the garage condo in order to be able to sell off the law. It's not as if this transaction can occur immediately, but definitely puts us, but moving in that direction. But are you saying that at that point, they'll be no more hurdles to actually get this contract. So make sure we're not just saying things. I mean, we got it look, we got to know something, we got to know something. You understand, we got to know something. I understand what you're saying. A little more here. That the December 31st is a very important date, which as you've heard from Clint, in fact makes tonight a very important date as the last regular meeting. I would also say that the next thing that drives the bus in terms of scheduling with our conduct is they're purchasing a, it's called, fee above a plane. So they're buying basically a kind of minimum above the parking garage and not buying the dirt. So we have the parking garage declaration has to be recorded so that you can create the lot that they're purchasing. What does that mean, recorded? What is, it's already negotiated, has to be recorded? Oh, this is actually a document that has been prepared, it's reviewed, I think it's ready for, it's one of the documents of the 10. Okay, yeah. The parking declaration is what creates that parking condominium that we've talked about. It's a subdivision exemption process that has to be processed. That process. Is that something that's filed with the county? Or is it, you know, it's approved by the town and then recorded in the county. Can I have the key to the key to the county. Can I hear the ski call? What's the response from ski call on that? Is that correct? Attorney or? That's correct. And in order for us to close this condominium declaration, this subterranean condominium needs to be reviewed by the town and signed off by the town and recorded at the county in order for us to have clear title, you know, specifically for that. So as we talked about today, I probably looked at four or five versions of that and the kind of declarations. And I think Jim has reviewed it a few times already as well. But it includes a town process as well as recordings. Is it close? Well, until we made some changes in the parking to identify capital peak concerns and so forth, it's going to have to be revised and produced from that. Correct? Yeah, the revisions are already in place. The first step for us to be able to move forward is actual approval, because we can't move forward with the documents if we don't know what the approval is. Okay. Yes. I just had a question for John. And then we're going to take a break. Can approval be conditioned upon that sale? That would be very, very difficult. I'm just asking. You would then be potentially interfering with the contractual relations of the applicant. And I don't know what to call the husband's key in company the proposed purchaser. Okay, we're going to take ten and come back. Okay. We're back in session. Yeah. John Dresser. Your Honor, came to my attention that grassroots is not broadcasting tonight. Oh. Granicus is, so you may want to make that announcement for people. They're trying to get here via TV that you have to go online, www.tosv.com and view meetings live. We are on the computer, but grassroots is having trouble. Oh, okay. So many people in the community were tuned in this evening. Excited about. Well, Mel's here also would have heard that like at 301. Okay. Let's go back to the community benefit. I'm sure you gentlemen had that opportunity to have that conversation. And what are you suggesting and putting forth? We need to know if this is happening tonight or if it's not happening tonight. That's a very important part of this discussion. I think you need to explain how much money is involved. Maybe it'll happen. Well, I think you put a number on the table, which, hey, look. All right. If we will accept our 200 grand number, if there is a vote tonight and it moves forward Thank you very much I hope I hope you're welcome Is this a Christmas present Well I Well, I'll have each one of the council people speak, but I know there are people within the audience that we should not move forward this evening. And the issue is, somehow suggested we come back in two weeks or three weeks or four weeks. On the other hand, I'm trying to figure out what do we gain if we wait other than some details within the agreements for which we already had a provision. I've also heard that the ski co deal and I don't know the details of the agreement. I don't know the details of the contract and quite frankly this is when it's very hard to say I have to trust you guys both parties since we've been let down within the community time and time and time again. So with that addition on the community purpose, the notion that at least, and some people don't think we need these roundabouts, we do know that's part of the agreements. And to get those done before we go vertical, we'd better damn go vertical in 2017. Yes. And I will move that we approve ordinance number nine with the modifications contained that we spoke of this evening with any with the notion that the agreements come back. At the time we have issues and all those are buttoned up by within 90 days. Yes. Senator would be better. We agree. That is what I will put on the table this evening with your $200,000 for community purpose. You have a second. Can we have a discussion before we have a second? No, you have to have a second. Then you do the discussion. A second. Thank you. Discussion. Just so I can understand the motion, approved with the modifications that when Julian went through, $200,000 additional for community purpose. And then the agreement you said bring back, that's if there is in fact, as outlined in the ordinance. Then to be done within 90 days. As outlined in the ordinance. That's the ordinance. The next thing the ordinance. My discussion would simply be, I think the ski company is the major player for me. It's not like I don't trust related. It's just that the community is involved with the ski company. And ski company is totally involved with the community. And I just wouldn't want to take a chance if there's going to be a contractual agreement that's going to happen before the 31st of the year, there's going to be a contractual agreement that's going to happen before the 31st of the year that's going to make it more of a solid deal that the ski company is involved in this process. I personally wouldn't want to take a chance on losing that. Obviously they have other ways than other legal ways. Joey and John, you know more than I do about the legal ways. They probably have other ways of getting out of the deal. Beyond if this ordinance gets passed anyway. But I think to do our part, to keep this key company as a major player and as a major player for community purpose, I am going to have to go with that also. So I'm not voting yet, but that's how I feel about it. I don't want to take a chance to lose in this key company. Anyone else? Yeah, I'll go make some noise. I I'll make some noise. I'll go make some noise. You're going to make some noise. I just say, first I guess I want to say that if the council tonight approves this, then I believe that they, the council, and I'm not sure I will be part of that approval, so I'm not saying this about myself. But I think that the council would be showing tremendous leadership in this community. The kind of leadership that I really had hoped would come from this key co. Now, I recognize that there are all sorts of issues and loose ends and so forth and so on. But I do also recognize that there's a benefit to the town. If Schiko were to own law two and we move from a contract position to a closing. So I really think that's all, those are my comments. And again, if the council passes this, you all, you all are exemplifying what good town government governance is supposed to be. I'm saying one more thing, Mark, please be patient. I hope everybody in the room and the whole community knows how beat up we are and staff is really beat up over this whole thing. And the whole community is beat up. Everybody is so as Bob said, I think, no, we're making a decision here that we're hoping is, and everybody's eyes the right thing to do. I know this is, you know, I have swayed every other way to go tonight in the last few weeks. But just so everybody knows, we're all pretty beat up. And so is the community of this whole thing. So thank you. I would agree. It's been a bit of a battle. But I think we're there. I mean, I think if we don't pass this tonight, we're sending a message to the staff that we don't trust their judgment. And I think they've spent an enormous amount of time and energy on this project, and I really commend the work that you guys have put in. I think it's been a herculean effort. I really think it's been a great effort as well. And I think that you're going to be able to get through all these things, and if it does come back, then we'll have that opportunity to have that discussion. And because we have been beat up, I think we are now in a position to lead. I think we really need to move this project forward. We have an opportunity to do that tonight. And I think getting these roundabouts started will show real progress with our community. I think that's what we really need to do. We need to move this project forward. And by taking a lead as a town establishing the traffic component is going to be critical. And that will allow us to move forward. We're not going to make the entire mess at one time. We'll get the traffic organized and then we can get into the podium. So I hope that we can persuade our fellow council people to move forward as well and really lead this into the next phase. Will I send a comment? No, I just, I appreciate what my fellow council people have said and this is really, it's difficult decision-making. And that's it. There's always a risk with every decision one makes. And the calculation of your risk is always very difficult But there's always risk with every decision one makes. And the calculation of your risk is always very difficult because you never know exactly where to put the focus. And as my fellow council people have spoken so eloquently, leading into the next phase and hopefully development, there will be development in 2017. Or we should all be fired. Lanched and put on the flagpole. But it's going to take a resolve amongst every party to include our community, ski co, our developers, and council and staff putting their ores in the water to move this project forward. We're tired of waiting. So, at this point, I'm going to ask for a vote. We have a motion. We have a second on the table. It's a roll call vote. A roll call, does this correct? Can I clarify something with you, John? You have to ask the mayor, not me. Can I clarify something? On this vote, up or down, if this is not approved tonight, can this be brought back again in two weeks or three weeks or four weeks? I'm pursuing to Robert's rules of order. There could be a motion to reconsider made by a member that voted with majority or in this case. You know, with a super majority, that isn't really contemplated by Roberts, but a motion to reconsider. It's not really contemplated by Roberts, but a motion to reconsider. Can be put forth and I could have a definite answer for you as your next meeting, but it can only be at the next time the assembly meets, the body meets. So that would be January 4th. If this motion fails, there's nothing to prevent a second motion from being made and being considered. A motion for denial needs to be reconsidered for that, but a motion for approval. If it goes down, this motion was made by the mayor. Somebody can make a second motion and say, with these conditions and see if that were to somehow pass this evening. Okay, follow your logic there. There's nothing to prevent. If the motion on the floor were to fail, but the next vote, there's nothing to prevent another motion to be considered this evening on the topic. If the motion fails, what would be a new motion? 300,000. I mean, I say that flippantly, but I'm just saying, the motion, the conditions of approval could change. Bring it back at a certain time. It would be it, but there's, I just want to say it's not a do or die. If there's something that could change somebody's mind on the motion. But this is a motion for approval. So if it fails, we haven't denied the PUD. Correct. Correct. Okay. Okay, Rokal. Alyssa Shanks. I have to be first. You want to take a pass and come back? I'm passing. Look over. I need a second. Bill Manson? Yes. Markie Butler. Yes. Bob Circus. No. And Tom Good. Yes. Melissa Shank? Oh my gosh, she comes back to me. Yep, it's what it works. I'm going to go yes. Done. Okay, so super majority has passed. So we hope to hear good things very soon. You will. And we want regular updates. You will get the. Thank you everybody. Okay. Now I will ask you before you all leave. Are you all heading back to New York to work with your architects? So what's next? Steve powder. I'm headed back to New York to have a pre-atex. So what's next? Steve Powder. I'm headed back to New York to have a pre-Christmas dinner with my kids tomorrow night. I hope I can get out. I will continue to work on this. I will be working on this. OK. Well, it's been a tough journey for all. Yes. And for those who are here in the audience and those who are listening, I do want everyone to have a happy holiday. And hopefully the Christmas present has happened. Yes. For many people. So that being said, is there any other business to come before the town this evening? Yes, John? You can close the public hearing. Oh, yeah, I got to do that. Don't die. At this point in time, I will close the public hearing. Other business to come before the town? You have committee reports and council comments. Yeah, I'm going to do that. Council reports, any meetings? I have nothing. We had a raft meeting. We could go Thursday. We had a raft meeting. We could go Thursday. Nothing really material to discuss. We did see some stuff on the, if you will, the union contract and the final, what the budget, what the implications will be for a budget for not allowing. Next year, but the following year. And those were the big issues. They'd have a core meeting. Okay. Just that with my first core meeting and I actually have my notes but I'm a little flustered right now. I think I'll save them for the next meeting and talk about it. The core has some other, it's a nice program's working and it was a very good meeting and if anybody has not been to ACES down on Puppy Street, Puppy Smith Street, you really should go with some. I haven't been down there years ago and you know the birds are phenomenal, the lake of course and down at Helm Lake and they have an eagle they bring out every day. That's about 32, 34 years old. She can't fly, and it's just fun just to see them bring her out. She's just majestic, but if you get an opportunity to bring your kids, they have hikes, they've got tours, but I'll talk more about the core issues. In regards to some of their programs, I'd our next meeting. Thank you. And I think we're fortunate to have CUT Tom Cartamone leading our Ice Age Discovery Center. He's done a great job down at home. Like, I don't have anything. I didn't go to any meetings, but I'll reiterate what Clint sent and his memo to us about recruiting for the boards in commissions that there's We need more people like you people sitting in the audience and at home that want to participate in the boards and commissions What's the deadline for the application? ASAP ASAP Okay, clandeting thing No Okay Okay, can't do anything. No? Okay. Well with that, except a motion for a German. Thank you. Motion to a journey. Do I have a second? Second. All in support? Aye. Aye. Oh, same sign. Thank you. Can we now talk to the applicant?