the the BRT will go to the parking right lot and then people would need to transfer there to the circular okay to go to Glenwood Springs and then it will go on to Glenwood Springs okay okay so if I'm riding my understanding if I hop on the bus I live in Glenwood Springs this winter we would stop at intercept change bus no you stop it would it would take anybody that wanted to transfer to a local bus down there and they could hop off We could also pick up anybody that was at brush Creek that wanted to go down valley and that bus would end up in glimps and Then you'd go through carbon down. Well through carbon deal. Okay. Yeah, okay, okay Thank you We did decide because this past winter season we had six of those BRT scheduled in the afternoon that we would eliminate the 545 because demand on it was not that great. We'll need to do a public hearing if they're after board about that. And then we'd add back in a local bus at 445 PM. Right now there is a 4.15 local and we believe that there would be demand for a local at that time. So that bus also would help to take some pressure off the Aspen Smajles. If people have been riding that service down to Rush Creek in order to catch transfer to get to Down Valley. We're also looking at running some extra buses from the snowmass mall to the intercept lot from 315, 1 at 315, 1 at 345, 1 at 415, and then a daily bus at 4.45pm. And then weekends have a 3.15 and a 4.15. But just go from the mall to the intercept lot, and also 4.45pm. And that would, all these things are intended to take some pressure off the aspirin snowmast bus. You have people more options to get down to brush creek. Then what we were looking at when the base villages built out or when limelight is constructed and open for business, what we believe we should do is run seven-minute service from 5.30 until 7.22 p.m. and then it kind of kicks in at 7.30 on. It's 15 minutes. But we want to extend the service past 8 o'clock and run the 15 minutes service from 8.15 to 11.30 p.m. and then have some other buses during the kind of the peak crunch time in the afternoon that would run from base village down to the intercept lot. Possibly going to town, we have to kind of play that by ear. They might cycle back up and just grab people and take them down so they can transfer. We think that the cost of those future services would be in the range of about $200,000 in today's dollars. And we took a look at the analysis that was done and the financial analysis that was done that was provided by Dave Pepper and his review. And it looks like it would generate the limelight and base village and so forth is expected to generate about $200,000 in additional sales tax revenue that we're after we've seen. So that's nice. I mean, that's a good one that works out that way. But a lot of this is just forecast and inspeculation. We really, you know, it's hard when we're looking at numbers and 10 or 12 people during the peak period, you know, and that sort of stuff to really know how it's going to play out when it actually happens. And there's a lot of factors and things that work and will- Not a million points. This ad revenue or will it just take revenue from other places? Maybe the analysis went through that and they have some formulas that they used to figure that out. But if it does play out like it's forecasted, then I think we should be in a good position to be able to add these services without having to come with our handout. Let's ask some questions. Yes, Mr. President. My question was, I noticed that a lot of times, because the bus comes to them all first. And then by the time it gets to base village, there aren't any seats. How do you deal with that? And to say that there's going to be more people than getting on a base village? To understand if you're adding more buses, but it still seems like every time it gets to base village, there's very little seats left. Well, that's a great question. And it's a tremendous challenge that we face. Whenever you have two major portals in a community, it's tough to know how many seats to hold back at the mall. And that's one of the reasons that we talk about adding these buses that are just going to originated base-fullage during the main crunch in the afternoons. They're just going to go there and pick up people and take them either into town or down to brush creek and cycle back and grab more. Before so they won't go to the mall at all? Those would just originate at base village. But we dedicate a supervisor that's typically up at the mall and is working the buses up there and we may not have the best communication with anybody at this pool. Well, I think that I think the problem is because there isn't a raft of person in base village and you rely on the ski co-people, which they're good, but usually a lot of them aren't qualified in the bus management like the raft of person who works at the mall is excellent. But maybe during peak times, having someone down there that would help too. I don't know. My bad, good suggestion. Just during those crazy holiday presidents week, I don't know, maybe it's something to look at. But I could defer here just a second to Kim Blackmer as a direct co-director of operations. I think we would have to staff up in order to do that because we've got about enough people to do what we need to do. But Ken, did you have any comments or thoughts? If you did, you would need to come to microphone. And if you don't, I can never mind. Well, first of all, I'm sorry to hear that the coordination with the ski company has not- No, it's not. It's not bad. I mean, when I'm at Raffta, I think that the supervisor that works in the mall, Jerry, it's usually Jerry. He does an excellent job. And I think that a lot of times he's trying to communicate with the person in the base village and that person isn't responding and you know he is really good about getting the bus is loaded and getting you know seats and saving seats and getting it down to base village I mean maybe just even having someone work down there temporarily to train the people that are that are working at the bus down there I don't know well I think you're right we're just trying to figure out the best solution that is going to involve a heck of a lot more manpower on our part. What some of the issues that Dan has presented, though, what we're hoping, will take some of that pressure off because what happens is people know they can catch a bus every 15 minutes on those hours. So even if we're running buses in between, they don't necessarily flock to those times because they're not sure necessarily where we're going to run a bus or not. They do know that bus is going to be running on the quarter hour. So if we're running BRTs and other buses to the intercept lot at prescribed times, we're hoping that will take some of those pressure off those buses headed into Aspen and that will have more capacity through base village But it's true. We need to have better coordination there But I I thought it was better than that. I thought the ski company was saying okay We have 10 people down at base village that was related to our people and we tried win possible to save the city It honestly depends on who has the walkie and base village. And some of them please are better than others. And it really just depends. So sometimes they're down there without a walkie-tongue? No, no, no. Sometimes they have a walkie and they're really good. And sometimes they have a walkie and they just aren't paying attention. Betterly stay, huh? So, I mean, you know, it's just, it really depends on who it is. So we might just do a better job of coordinating? Yeah, yeah, and also I mean I don't know if you're keeping the D and the L But people there is this myth that the D is like Just gets you there when it still makes stops and people have this feeling that the direct is like this special bus That's gonna get them there really fast and so I don't know this a little misleading to people too Well, so for all in terms of, we've done away with the direct. Okay. Right. BRTS and plan. Right. It's over the two that we have. Yeah, but those are locals. Yes. Chris, has a question. I just wondered and it's probably in the plan and I'm forgetting are there plans for any additional bus stops? So when we talk about the line light, the second spice Roy and the other proposed buildings are the buses at some point being considered that they were going to go up Wood Road and I see Craig shaking no and that's what I thought. It's local. That's not mass. Village. This is Village Shut That's no mass village bus. This is village shuttle. We've got additional shuttle. Oh, village shuttle goes to vice right now. Yeah, the route to bus goes services wood road every 20 minutes. OK. It goes all the way up or past the condo. Press wood and got it, got it. Right, right. So. And then my second comment question and I'll just share a deep and dark personal need of mine. I have shelter envy. I just kills me. It kills me that I see those beautiful shelters that look better than most of the houses that I've lived in, up and down the highway, and I look out there as I go down brush creek, and there's just this, there's no better word. Crap, you worn out looking, you know, that brown thing at the end. I just, how do we do that? And how do we as council? I have no, I still don't understand. I know we just spent a lot of time on it before. And we're now in the process, I know we're not really dealing with the mall, but you know, Aspet is rebuilding their transit center. And we have something that looks like worse than the average high school locker room up there, you know, in terms of the paint and the rust. And you got to walk up 20 stairs. I just don't get it. So I'm just putting it out to our colleagues as we're talking about this as we're discussing with you and you'll excuse my humor. But I really, I know that it was a multiple funding agenda, but I think they're great looking. And I know we have some other nice shelters, so I realize that as well. But I think that they are really nice looking. I think that they synthesize in a way the root and make it a great, you know, modern mountain feel. And it's been a mystery to me while we don't have them. And I think as they evolve and more telecommunications become perhaps installed in them in terms of letting people know in real time like most European countries, the US will catch up at some point, how when your train's going to come and it manages that expectation, you can do a lot, I think some of the things like a list is talking about too, can be somewhat that alleviation can happen technologically. So I'm really interested in that. And then I appreciate everything that you guys are doing to make it work, a ski co. And then for my one comment, if council is in agreement, I think that some of the ideas that have been touched upon, I would love to hear from staff or staff in the applicant just a review of the rules and perhaps Geco Where whose employees park where what are the real plans as opposed to proposed plans and perhaps as we review that we can Send per you know a forward leaning message as some of it is can send forward leaning message. Some of it is intimated in the application in terms of the intercept lot. I think for the planning commission, there's some paragraph about, the applicant will discuss this with Aspen Parking. I know we're in those discussions right now. We're in Cozy Point, we're in the intercept lot. It seems to me a good time to make sure all of us parties are talking together so we can try to dial that in because it has been my opinion in trying to look at traffic, carbon and transportation and snowmass and the brief time that I've been doing it that without some other space and the only space that seems to immediately pop up is the intercept light that's really key to the future as well as some kind of transit center, some advance. Thank you very good points and I do have another question. In terms of the limelight, I'm thinking about where the employees are going to hop off the bus to get to the limelight. Has Appen contemplated and if so, what do you see? Well, we had a little bit of discussion about this, I think, at the last councilman. Because there was a question posed about why Raft doesn't go over to base village before the call. Exactly. That's one of mine. Go ahead. And so the reason why we don't is there's a, I think, a city council ordinance for resolution. It says that all Raft buses are going to go up to the mall before they go to base village. Well, that can be changed. I know. And you said that at the last meeting tonight. And so I'm even more persuaded now than I was then because you're emphasizing it. But we're OK with doing it, although it does need to be changed formally. And if we are going to go into base village from Wood Road, which is how we would serve it. We may need to work with the town to get another bay there because right now the way this works and can't correct me if I'm getting a detail wrong here. The people that are headed down Valley and those BRTs are going into base village off a snow melt road. And we're kind of keeping them on that side. And then we loop down with the skier shuttles and we come in on the wood road side. And we have a space there where we can pick people. And I guess it's close to the elevators and so forth. Now, if we have every bus that's coming up Valley, that's going to be stopping on the inbound leg of the route. And we want to try to do that from the wood roadside. We're going to have people that are loading on buses as well as people want to get off. And so we have some of the same issues that we might have. There's no there's on that side if I as long as I'm thinking about right on my head, there's only Raffta. I mean, there is the three, which goes to the snowmass club, but that's like on the other side of the door where you come out. And there's really nothing there. Some of the local buses stop to let people off or pick people up if they want it. But it seems like there's a lot of space, I don't know. Do you know the answer to this? This is correct. There's the first base on the north side, let's say, of the structure. The first base for route three buses going down to Snowmass Club and the two creeks's Portal and all the employee housing on Alcree Grove. The second bay is mall bound village shuttles that are about 1, 2, 3, 8 are coming up and into the complex and then going on up to the mall. So they're using the Bee Bay. First one's a, Second one's b. C Bay, we assigned to Rathda for a number of reasons. First one's A, Second one's B. C. Bay, we assigned to Ratha for a number of reasons. First of all, to keep the pedestrians that were days gears from crossing across the north side to the south side and walking and creating this pedestrian bus conflict. So and one of the biggest bay staging areas, if you obviously know the lines that conform at the mall, waiting for raft of buses, we wanted to make sure we had enough queuing space so that if a bus in the road or two of raft of passengers wanted to go back to Aspen, we're there. We would have space big enough to accommodate them. The d-bay on the variant poorly designed, there are a number of issues in the structure itself that some bigger buses can't get to because of overhanging projections of the columns in there. So they have some issues that we would like to address there. So not all the bays are necessarily accessible to the CNG buses and the hybrid buses because they have traditionally tall. So they're kind of restricted in where they can go and we've tried to lay it out so that the pedestrian conflicts are kept to a minimum and that the queuing potential queuing area is going to be big enough for the anticipated demand. I think our issue is that now we're going to have buses going in the inbound as well as the outbound lake into the facility and it could get kind of crowded in there. The reason why I bring that up is at 8 o'clock in the morning the bus that stops over here in front of town hall. There's probably two people that head up here and about 30 people that scramble. My concern would be, and I use limelight for example, you bring that program online or even sunrise online now you're gonna have people more people getting off there and going up the hill because they're not people are people and they're gonna get there the easiest way versus going up to the mall then back down to catch the town shuttle to then turn around and go back to the limelight. Unless they go through the garage? We understand and sometimes the bus when it gets up to the mall has people that want to go down but if it's close to the departure time within a few minutes they may sit there and just add to the delay to get them down to base forage. And if the delay is over, I don't know, maybe three to five minutes, then we will make a loop down and then back up to the mall for the scattered departure time. So when you talk about carbon missions and that sort of stuff, the current setup doesn't work the best. But it is an issue that we would have to address with your town shuttle staff in terms of how we would be able to make sure that we could get all the buses that would now be going into base village two times as opposed to just one time in and out of there without creating major conflicts and delays for people. And I might suggest, I mean, this is, I've looked into this about this deep, so I know a little less than that probably. I mean, there's a lot of facts. I mean, 70% of the people get off on top. That's for the majority of the demand. There's a lot of reasons why it happened the way it was. If this is an issue you want to investigate going forward, I don't know if there's anything wrong with it, but I don't know that it needs to be tied to this land use review. I mean, it's an operational managerial type thing that we could certainly look into, but I don't know that we need to tie that evaluation to this design. Right. Right. You know, I was just about ready to go. That's internal between guys to do a main analysis. Dan, thank you. Thank you. And all of your staff at Raff, you do a great job. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you and all of your staff at Raffa. You do a great job. Yeah. Thank you so much. Yes. Yeah, thank you. It does a great job, too. Okay. You want to get a break? Okay. Let's use. Let's go 10 because I know we can't do it in five. Next topic. Now we're moving. Thank you for the quick break and we're going to move on in to pedestrian circulation. Great. Thank you. I'm going to introduce Mary Masheren with Oz Ar with Oz architecture and she's going to walk through the pedestrian circulation. Hi there, welcome. Thank you. So we're slowing down here to the pedestrian speed and less technology and numbers for you guys. So with that mic a little closer to you, sure, I can just scoot chop. Okay. Let's go. Thank you. I'm pretty sure I can just scoot chop. Okay. Let's go. Thank you. So what you have here on the screen is the plan that was in the PUD application. So what you've seen, this is the garage level entrance floor plan. So it's the site plan because I think it helps your orientation, but here's your entrance off the drive. And then, yeah. orientation, but here's your entrance off the drive. And then, yeah. I just want to say we're going to start with exploring the second escalator in building. Oh, come here. And the associated impacts with the addition of that specific escalator. Thanks, Craig. That helps with some context. So this is, we were to, as was tasked with looking at the feasibility of adding that additional escalator. And we looked at it in a lot of different ways, but we're presenting one option here and the challenges that we faced in looking at accommodating that escalator. So here's the plan where you can see the escalators are in here and the garage below, you have access in here to gain access up to your escalator. You have your elevator here and this is the residential elevator that's in the PUD application with your stair. So your base P3 level floor plate. So the proposed plan that was in the application maintains the public lockers, the rest room, the public and residential elevators, and the basic sequence that was originally envisioned in the PUD. So the feasibility of adding a second escalator is the exercise that we looked at. And what we looked at was maintaining this escalator and adding an additional escalator. And adding that additional escalator, we felt yes, it's the hand because of the- Because it's on TV. Okay. I see. So looking at it adjacent to the the escalator here. So I can show that. So we looked at several escalator orientations, but locating those escalators side by side with adjacent access made the most logical sense for the pedestrian traffic movement. So they would both be accessing from this side. So in looking at what it would take to move that escalator down, and now you can see the second escalator with the original structure still in place, and then the dashed lines shows the proposed relocation of the stair. So in doing that, there's some structural implications. So we'll walk through those. Removal of the residential elevator, the foundation shaft, and relocating the elevator machine room that's right right in there here. So that would need to happen in order to accommodate that second escalator. So we'd also have to remove and relocate the egress stair. Thank you. So that would include the foundation shear walls and structural tie-in because those shear walls that are in place also tie into the slab that would need to be cut out. So we would be cutting and they would be cutting and removal of the existing slab. Also we would need to do add some additional reinforcing and that's from discussions with our structural engineer and all the calculations haven't been done. But on the initial look, it looks like we'd have to reinforce the foundation as it sits to accommodate the weight of that second escalator. So in addition to that, we would be by shifting the, this is the proposed P2 level. So the next level up. So unfortunately, this orientation is in P2 level. So the next level up. So unfortunately this orientation is in the opposite direction but suffice to say if you put the escalator, okay. Craig's hand is showing the new escalator position and then also he'll show the movement of where the new elevator and stair would need to be located. You can see how that really affects the employee housing layout and the layout of the P2, P3, and then going up to the village level. So those are those the impacts. So what size would the employee units be there? Based on this, we didn't do the exact calculations, but it would make some of the spaces with this configuration and usable to be quite honest, because you'd have your circulation getting pretty close to that window wall up here. We didn't do a layout of the employee housing, but we could. Also, once you start shifting that circulation and moving it off center, you do lose some efficiencies and you increase the amount of circulation that you're using on that floor plate to connect those because we do need two stairs to egress this building. So we skipped the P1 level and that's residential. Just going to the village level to talk about that. Again, here's the plan that's on the in the PUD package with the two egress stairs, the two elevators, and here's the change that you would be seeing. So for the residential portion of the project to work the course, the core locations need to be centrally located, just to be for efficiency sake. And ideally, the stairs would be aligned to maintain a symmetry and some efficiency in design, because you can see you get some dead spaces here. And we could work to move the stair back here. You then have this big space in between. So there's a lot of different ways to work it through. We took one that we thought was the most elegant for the escalator solution, which caused some other things. But in doing this, and adding the escalator and this fairly efficient location of these stairs, we're looking at the floor plate for circulation now being one-third of the floor plate being circulation only. So that includes the stairs, the corridors, the escalator, and the elevators. So it seemed pretty significant. And then when we talk about moving an elevator, I'm not sure everybody understands what that means. But right now, this is an example. I've just taken this, this is the elevator core. And this is the foundation. and these are the piles. And this is a section of this, of the foundation with the piles. So to execute the design, the elevator foundation and walls that extend about 50 feet would need to be removed in a new elevator added. So we're talking about a 21 foot by 18 foot by 36 inch deep concrete with 16 pile supporting it. Obviously you can cut some of that out depending on where that additional escalator or elevator would go, but you can see it's a significant impact to relocate the elevator this configuration. So we went on to take a look at it also just from, you can go to the next slide, from the original design. We're having a one-way elevator escalator pardon me. And I was thinking about this, and it's quite an elegant solution in terms of being environmental. And I know, Depecler was talking about that a little bit earlier, and I think that was sort of one of the tenants of this project originally. And if you do have a lot of people going in one direction, you have an escalator, you know, runs continuously, uses energy to run continuously. So you're taking people up at the peak time and bringing them back and reversing on the peak time coming back to the garage. And that makes a lot of sense, and I think that's why it was done. Adding a second escalator can alleviate your shaking. I'm going back to when we passed this temporary building there was obligations within that approval the PUD. John, do you, the resolution way back when we did the temporary building and? Well, was it a two way? I know why we got to the single escalator with stairs and what have you, but wasn't there an obligation there was supposed to be testing done and? Yes. And consideration towards the second escalator. And I'm not, I'm not to, no to no I'm just I'm just asking a question here Bring my memory back. Yes Before they were to get any further building permits except for a certain number of buildings They were supposed to demonstrate the sufficiency of the single escalator before proceeding. Okay of the single escalator before proceeding. Okay. And yeah, and I'm just looking, I was just looking at it from a standpoint of energy consumption. And that could be true. So in this, I was just looking at adding an additional escalator and what that meant. So adding additional escalators to a similar to the one that's there now. So it's 36 inches wide. It goes about 36 feet high. It uses a certain amount of energy to run continuously. And we did, we choked some quick numbers, but it looked like it was about what you would use to run a household, five households in a year. And that would be to increase your capacity by 9,000 people per hour. And that's what an escalator would provide. So I don't know what that could happen. We need to talk about the guest experience. I think that's an overarching theme for our aspiration statement to be fulfilled. And if it's satisfied with what John is referencing, then that's a whole different issue. I don't know if there's been a yellow gem. I have here. You're lucky. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. I have here. BVO agrees not to build building seven in accordance with the currently issued building permit for building seven and agrees not to seek any subsequent building permit for building seven unless and until the town and BVO Review and assess the adequacy of the public circulation within interim building seven the public circulation within interim building seven based on the results of the actual usage of the public circulation in the interim building seven during at least one winter and one summer season taken into account whether the currently planned single one-way escalator movement within interim building seven is sufficient between the transit center and the village level. And as we all know, that's now been open, I think, five years. Yeah, do we have the study? And I believe, I know, I'm not sure since I've been away, I don't believe we do, and I don't think the town and related has done the review and assessment. And I think similar to other studies we're going to do, the town and related has done the review and assessment. And I think similar to other studies we're going to do, I think that starts now. And we've been looking at it during this summer as this has been brought up during concert night and other nights to start evaluating it. But that's the exact one. OK, appreciate that. So that brings us back to that time and history of many years ago. Okay. 2009 the original approval always intended a one-way escalator. It is Operating in accordance with the original approval. Right February Not agreement. Well, the original. It's designed in accordance with the original. And the 2009 put in this clause that it needs to be tested. I don't know of complaints that we have from guests in terms of their experience here with Base Village. Aspen skiing company does guest surveys as well. I'm not sure if this has ever come up as an issue or as a, and Don can speak to this point. Well, the question is, is it on the survey? No. I mean, you can't survey something. Oh, sorry. Oh yeah. I, I, I, I, I, I, I go ahead. Chris, I, the survey would be good. I think the point is, with all due respect, and I just work in Guarplui, whether the contract language or not expresses some sort of liability or some sort of responsibility, I think what we're doing is we're in review process in whichever step we are, the second one, preview, or whatever it's called. Pril under here. And the Planning Commission is bringing this up, and it seems to be an issue with them. And so that's where I think it warrants the discussion, perhaps, in addition to any of the other issues. And so we can get more, I think, it's a clarifies circulation. You're sort of talking about the floor area that allows people to move in addition to the escalator when you're referring to circulation. So I think that the issue is and it's good to hear about the problems with it. I think the council to keep ourselves moving has to decide whether it's important or not. And while we appreciate your difficulties, you know, not knowing all the details, but knowing a little bit about construction. If we want to get it done, I'm sure there's a way. And so I think your points about employee housing are sufficiently Interesting to be investigated. And I think that we need to figure out a way here in terms of moving forward to come Up with some sort of verification or approach to how we want to decide whether this is important or not. And you know, I can look out in the audience and see a couple guys who built tunnels underneath the road. So I know there's a way to put in an escalator if we need to. Yeah. And in this study, I'm not trying to say that we can't be done. I was just pointing out some challenges. And one of the biggest things that I looked at was just thinking about this additional escalator can carry 9,000 people per hour. So you're running an escalator constantly that does that. And I don't know what the capacity is, and I don't know about the guest services. I'm speaking to feasibility only. Or what's the gehack green cell? No, I was just going to say that in all the time that I'm working down there, I never hear people complain about it. I mean, how about the summer? Have you been down there in the summer? No, I haven't. That's where I grew it. But yeah, I mean in the winter time, I don't think it doesn't seem to be an issue. I will say that people that have little kids probably prefer to go on an elevator rather than escalator anyways when there's things like gloves hanging off that could get caught. The biggest complaint is really the elevator of people slipping and falling in there. So that is for truth, but what I heard more about. So we've been working with staff to come up with some other solutions. If before we look at putting another elevator in. So one was look into and we have with our elevator company, seeing if we could increase the speed of the elevator. So right now it runs at 100 feet per minute, and the maximum we could speed that up to is 150 feet per minute. So right now, from hitting the call button to waiting the longest time you would wait before the elevator shows up and then going from transit level to village level is a total of 55 seconds. That's the maximum. Sometimes it's less. By speeding that elevator up to 150 foot per minute, we would reduce the overall travel time, the call time and travel time by 17 seconds, so that is a 30% increase of the speed. So that right there just doing the math in your head speeds up the process. Alyssa, the elevator cab right now is an interroom temporary cab that is not the permanent cab and we would have the proper floor walls etc. It looks good now, but if it's slippery, you know, we would put in the proper flooring for that so we could definitely improve the cab. As a overall last alternative, but we need to really look at this with sunrise because of security issues etc. we also may be able to use the guest elevator in just what a card key the guest in building seven would be the only ones who could travel past the transit level. So we're looking at all different alternatives to be able to increase the flow. The escalator itself takes 55 seconds to go from bottom to top. If you just stand on the escalator and let us do its job, most of us, when there's not many people on, just walk up the escalator as it moves. That's a third, I just tested it before I came here tonight. That's a 30 second run. So there's a, and we could also look at the different speeds there. We now have some decent signage, not the finished or optimum signage that clearly states what the hours are, when it's going up, when it's not going up. And so I think that helps the overall experience knowing, okay, this is the time I take the elevator, this is the time I take the escalator, it changes on Thursday night, we have signage that addresses that. So between communication, making some improvements with the current elevator, we think we could help improve the experience. Jim and fellow council people, we're a few minutes ago we were talking with Dan Blankenship about changing the bus route and having the bus stop in base village instead of going up to the mall first. And I wonder how that will impact the traffic on either the escalator or the elevator, but the traffic coming through that transit center, you know, in addition to whatever other traffic there is because of the additional development in the base. And I just, if we are going to start making surveys and do things such as that, we should keep that in mind. Absolutely. And I think you heard from Mary how much this escalator is capable of handling. We're not even close to the ceiling. Oh, no, no. I'm not concerned about that. people of handling we're not even close to the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the But they have to be continuous, they can't be like sensor. I was doing some additional research before the meeting and what I've learned is there's a new code that's allowing some new escalators to slow down. So they can slow down and speed up. They've been doing this in Europe for a while, but the code hasn't allowed it beforehand because of they were thinking it was a hazard for people having different speeds and not being used to a continuous speed. So that is an option that can improve the energy consumption. It's the photo, so. Did you want to continue with your presentation? Sure. No, I don't mind being interrupted in everything valuable. I guess there was just a couple of other points. So what I've heard thus far on the escalator is to do this study. Well, OK, go ahead. You can resume. No, I'll let you finish. I didn't want to interrupt you. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. You can resume. No, I'll let you finish. I didn't want to interrupt you, I'm sorry. No, the study. It'd be interesting to see the impact on employee housing if the word to put in an escalator might have you. And I really appreciate the analysis on speeding up the elevator. The question becomes, what a capacity. The third point is Bob's point, if you change the circulation through the garage and how many employees and what have you and that's capacity question. So I just a couple of the points in Mary's presentation and not to take over as the But when we do a tour, I'll do it anyway. I'll do it anyway. And when you are actually onsite, we did this planning commission. It is useful to kind of see what the overall impacts are. And you start to end up with spaces that are not really usable or functional. If you were to stay within this existing footprint, and Don can speak to this, and the reasons why we ended up with a single escalator or an escalator moving in one direction because the footprint really needed to be expanded out. And when you start expanding this footprint out, you start impacting the overdrive lanes in front, which you eliminate one. So you're going to have to go down to a single driveway. It's quite significant in terms of the overall impact. You lose a third of the overall floor area. And so the functionality of this building really kind of goes away in terms of its existing footprint. The impact to employee housing, as Mary said, I mean, the minimum size you can have for an employee housing unit is 448 square feet. I believe that's correct. These will definitely not be 448 square feet. They just function properly. So you'll lose all of this employee housing. Mary likes to always sit on the, you know, with little caution. But I will definitely point out, because we've looked at this, and there is no way you can do 448s worth of feed and have a proper unit for employees. So studying is always a good option in terms of trying to figure out does it change to be made here? Our guess satisfied. I think though considering where we are today and the timeline we're working with not so much for this review, but for development there is definitely some concern. So, let's say we were going to have a study period of this winner. Okay, so that would be okay, you know, we can figure that out. But you can't move forward with the, you know, design documentation and construction documentation for that building until the completion of that study period. And that's going to delay at least one or two years. And if you have to include an escalator, you wipe out pretty much a lot of the programming. In that building, you have to start over in terms of, you know, is this building financially feasible anymore? And I know some people question, you know, what does that mean? But it's something that definitely needs to be considered. So studying this further, trying to figure this out, trying to see if we can actually include it, would be a significant challenge for moving this forward. And considering that this is the arrival center, we would lose the functionality of this arrival center for a much longer period of time. If we were to implement these changes, then we would under the current plan in terms of the proposed development. Did you look at an option of putting the Nescalator System on the outside of the building where the stairwell is? where the stairwell is? Where the stairwell is? Well the stairs are is there an option there to do the outside Eleve at escalators like they have over and beaver Creek Are you talking about it the tree house? Yep We don't have a whole lot of traffic there. So the tree house obviously is a big issue in terms of too many vehicles. So you're not seeing significant traffic flows at this specific intersection. You don't have hotel shuttles dropping off. You don't have transit dropping off. That's not true. At the tree house? You're not supposed to have hotel shuttles. Oh, but they do. They do. if they have one child I agree they tend to do them, but they're not supposed to no they're not and they've gotten better But they still do it and the biggest complaint you get is I have to walk up all those stairs I Mean it's true. I end up carrying people's keys up because I'm in shoes and they're in ski boots You know in that you know the current condition can definitely be explored. There's no way that you can probably do a two way escalator. I think it's too tight. And the overall rise would need to be looked at. The parking garage does sit below those stairs. And so in terms of, you know, how, what is the longest length and then what is the required space between unloading and loading, that can all be explored, but I think it would be one way up in having to walk down or something like that. Well, you know, when we do the walk through over a base village, I think this is all these issues or areas we need to be focused on. OK, absolutely. OK, I guess if I could say I would I'd like to have either from staff and it can come from the applicant as well But we don't have anyone from the planning commissioner. I believe Why is item eight in there and how important is it and who's gonna explain it? So it's it reads the applicant should submit plans that include a second Escalator for the transit center to the village plaza with a final PUD application unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the town council that a second escalator is not needed pursuant to the provisions in the building seven essential public facility development agreement as reference and ordinance et cetera et cetera. So, you know, I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the escalator. It's not one of my passionate issues. I agree. It's amazing. It can move 9,000 people. You probably burn a ton of gas. But, to how do we connect the dots here between? I mean, I think Julian, I'm going to use her vernacular. I mean, this was a punt to you guys from the planning commission. It was a difficult decision. There wasn't a whole lot of cohesion around the issue. I think it's fair to say, and they recognized, and I'll give a related credit. On the tour, they showed how difficult it would be to construct the elevator. And I think that carried some weight. I think there was some weight carried by the point made that circulation is critical. And so it was a tough point back and forth. And Jim's point 20 minutes ago, what we've been trying to find out, OK, if it is, I'll use very difficult to construct the second set of a second escalator. What's that middle ground that needs some improvement? And we asked the middle look at the improvements to the elevators. And is that, you know, so as the elevator would be that kind of interim solution, not interim, but middle ground solution. There are valuations show that it would speed up the elevators by 35% or whatever you just said. And so that's what we were trying to develop for you guys, at least a couple of options. One would be the second escalator. Two would be the single escalator with the two elevators improvement. And three would, I guess, would be the status quo as you've got today. And it's really, I mean, the points that are making our construction difficult, those types of issues, it's expensive and it's really, is it with all the other of that. But it's really an evaluation for you guys is to your point a little bit of go, Councilman Jacobson, is it a critical issue that needs to be addressed? And that's- Well, so I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around to get a sense of in working in cooperation with the Planning Commission is that out of all these different items, this for whatever reason, seems like it was a kind of trenchant issue. It seems like it's an issue that came up in 2009. I can only imagine who wrote the language, but I got a feeling it wasn't trustworthy. So it's there. We have to deal with it. And what I'm trying to say, what I'm saying is that we don't have a lack of service. We don't have it built out. We barely use building seven. I mean, in my understanding of its real operation, I mean, it's only the last couple of years we took off all that, you know, happy plastic. And made it look like a building. So, I mean, I think we're just, so know, happy plastic and made it look like a building. So, I mean, I think we're just, so when I sit here and I read that, my impression is somebody on planning commission has got to be in their bond at about this or enough people do because certainly when they're outliers like Mr. Ropsky who seems to have a thinking cap on in those commission meetings a lot, he does not get entered into these. So somehow this was a discussion I'm assuming that was. It was originally a recommendation from staff that this be addressed in the second escalator we put in because we have heard comments that the circulation does not work as well as a world class. Resort should work. That was put in there as a recommendation to which the applicant responded to which the planning commission said we're going to kick this one of the council and let you all weigh in on the importance of the issue. But you mean there's score an extra point or just give the ball the other team? Well, if you break down the recommendation they said should submit plans to include a second. Right. There's then unless you're satisfied. Right. And you need to be satisfied. Try to accepting the proposed termination because in the documents and the agreements that are submitted in this preliminary plan, there's a termination of this interim building seven, building seven essential public facility. And there's really only one operative term in that whole agreement. And that is Section 1.06 of the original IB 7 agreement, which Jim quoted from, is terminated. And that means that there would not be a review and assessment of the sufficiency of the circulation. And you've heard from them about the great lengths they would have to go to do the second one. You really haven't reviewed and assessed the sufficiency of the circulation. What can I say back in that? That was considered by the applicant prior to submitting because they submitted a draft which terminated without that review and assessment. And so when you read every word in that planning commission recommendation they're saying understand that. So they're recommending that have a second escalator unless they can demonstrate your satisfaction in light of this termination and the original agreement and the terms required in there that you don't feel there should be a second. So so I just I mean Clint you said that you've received feedback from people I want to understand what it is that upsets people about the situation. I don't know that I have I think the town overall. Okay, so the town like what is it that is that upsets people about the situation. I don't know that I have, I think the town overall. Okay, so the town. Like what is it that is the issue for people? I mean, I can speak for myself first. I mean, when you go, if you go today lunch at two o'clock in the afternoon, you gotta take the elevator because the escalators go in down. It's, if you go at happy hour, if you go at five o'clock in the afternoon, then you're coming in on a bus or you're coming from wherever you're coming from. And you go to the arrival center. You take the elevator. You have to take the elevator. It's that it's those different times. And I would say their point is we're hitting the vast majority of the people during peak periods. So it's working. The efficiency is there. But if the effectiveness argument of if someone wants to go to a base camp at 5 o'clock and enjoy Happy Hour and they're coming from outside the base village, the approach is, you know, through the arrival center, you're taking the elevator instead of the escalator. But what's the difference? I think it's the signage, it's the convenience, it's all those types of issues that Jim talked to earlier. Have you ever been on the base camp elevator? No. Have you ever been on the base camp elevator? No. You can give you an example. No. There's a difference in experience. Yeah, there's a difference. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. There's a difference in experience. That's the exact amount of time, actually less with the elevator than the escalator. I mean, once we speed it up, right now they're equal equal. I'll prove it to you out there. I mean, I guess because no one has done a study and no one's really, you know, formally interviewed people whether it be in a ski co-survey or you guys or the town or whatever. I mean, and, you know, to Craig's point, if you take the time to do that, it's going to really delay things, which I don't know that everybody really wants to do. Maybe they do, but maybe they don't. But I just, I don't, I don't know, I'm not really sure that there is a huge issue. I mean, from my perspective, and I work on the mountain in one of the most crowded days, you know, Sunday's a big day. I never hear people complain about it. Well, I guess the question, a question for me, Jim, is how easy or not is it to speed up the elevator. Yeah. Not an issue. I mean, something you can have in your show up here at a time. And I could get a written proposal from Tissin Crupp, who I spoke with earlier today, or Jim Corpola spoke with him. And no, it's all done with their electronics. So again, I'm just trying to help move this along in some fashion to kind of address both sides of this issue. Let's speed up the elevator. And as best you can, you know, do a study. And we'll already have tested out the speed it up elevator and maybe the whole problem goes away. Yeah, we have a top level maintenance program with them when they provide service immediately. We have a five year program with them for all the elevators and escalators here. I think that I could look into that. I think the if I understood what was read before I think the issue is we have to make a decision whether we are going to release our rights and Developed obligation relative to this issue because they can't Per that one agreement move forward with certain permitting Relative to that or other buildings, but I'm but if I that, we don't have to make that release until approval of final, the UD amendment. You guys wanted to do stuff. Well, I mean, you're both correct. I mean, you're correct in terms of we need this agreement to be terminated for us to move forward. You need to accept that the single escalator plus the elevators are efficient or are adequate and appropriate. That's one point. And then to Bob's point, if you can do that by final, I mean, that is what we're all working towards is getting to final. But the problem that we have is from today till the end of the year, the proposed timeline for the review, no matter how that review turns out, is a very short period of time. So how do we test it? I mean, there is a potential for us to engage with, you know, like Chris Foshing with FHU, tells us what, you know, intersections are great. I mean, what is, you know, what is a great of this specific intersection based on the traffic flows? And it's an estimate. We can engage with another consultant, and I don't want to commit to them next week, but our intent or goal is to try and work with them and come up with some estimate in terms of the traffic flow of inflow outflow. And they will then grade it. They will say it's an A. It's a B or C. OK. I'm going to, we've several points together. And that is, is it possible that you can speed up the elevator soon? Yes. Okay. So if we speed up the elevator, we have the balance of the summer and the first part all the way through September to get a measurement of satisfaction. Correct? Correct. So, that's before we go into final drawings and prior to the final PUD. One challenge I see, the one dilemma we have is it they measure it, they get feedback. We measure it, and I try to blow up Jerome along, because he's lived with it for five years. Ski co-measures it. So I don't know what the criteria is for measurement, because we've never heard of an issue. And I grilled Jerome on this. We have not had problems. You've heard from Alissa, I've talked to Don. And I do believe that maybe they've got a lot of work. Well, I can tell you the same thing that we dealt with that last week. But the three people say it's not one that's not enough. Is that the criteria or is it 50 people? So I think we have to establish a criteria. Well, I think if I think town staff, I think here comes some direction that staff would work with the developer to establish how we would do the study and with the understanding that we speed up the elevator, see what that does, and then if that's like tomorrow morning. I'll get you an answer by tomorrow. And I think that should include the numbers of people, you know, using either, you know, using both modes of transport. And are those the only options? There's no internal staircase. Oh, no, there's internal staircase. And if you do that, people want to take their stairs. OK. So there's four different ways up. Right. Four ways up. So I think we have to look at all the alternatives there. Yes, I clearly understand putting another escalator and there is very difficult, but I'm not, I sitting here, I'm not willing to release the obligation until we clearly understand that we've satisfied that obligation. Well, and understand what that obligation is. Those are required a bunch of studies. It requires the applicant and the town to review and assess what you, I mean, Jim's right about the criteria, but there wasn't any criteria in this agreement when the agreement was entered into. It's very correct. And then so the outcome of that would be if there's consensus from the council, that evaluation occurs. There's some kind of logical methodology put towards it. That will be pretty clear. People coming through, whatever it is, and if the appropriate amount of people can be moved with the existing facilities, with the sped up elevators, then one escalator is fine. If we show a gigantic gap in level of service, whatever that might be, then the second elevator could be required. Or a escalator, could be required. But we're trying to base it on some kind of methodology. Come in back. If we're talking about levels of satisfaction, then when are people reasonably dissatisfied, potentially dissatisfied? To me, the answer is when they want to go in a direction that the escalator is not going. Correct? So why don't we focus on that? Doesn't that equal 50 percent? Well, but you don't we start the whole thing is you don't know how many people are trying to go up when it's going down in vice versa Because in theory those are not the made not the times of the most traffic I don't want to beat this much Just for a second like what was the genesis of? I assume most of the infrastructure we're talking about with there, what was the historical, two cents on why the second potential escalator was required in 2009? Do you want to go for it, John? Sure. Building eight, which was originally conceived to be a little no-no to all here, but with very large units that would be wholly owned, was designed and was offered for sale. And after some contracts were entered into, was discovered that the floor plans that were offered at the sale had contained more square footage than there was an entitlement for. And so this agreement came out of an approval granted to building eight to actually enlarge building eight to comply with the contracts that were left. And it was on the eve of the global economic reordering and it was, I don't want to say, it was an attempt to save building eight so that it could get to market. The bank, for my understanding, pulled the plug despite several contracts with earnest money being deposited. The bank pulled the plug out. those contracts were terminated. The money was returned. We have building eight and it's state that it is now, but as an inducement to the situation with Building 7 next door was, the transit center was completed for the buses to go through, but there was no vertical circulation because buildings seven had stopped as well. And there was no vertical circulation. And in kind of a quid pro quo, the town said, we'll give you the square footies that you need in building eight. One of the conditions are that you're going to put in a temporary pedestrian vertical circulation so that the transit center could be awful. And that is what became building seven essential public facility development agreement. That came as result of ordinance two of 2009, which was the increase in FAA or Florida in building A. You want a little more? The developer actually did not complete the development agreement. The town required there be a surety on that performance bond and it took a couple of years for the surety to come on site and actually perform the construction of the vertical circulation. At the time of that discussion there were people on council that felt that there should be two. They were familiar with the experience at Highlands where there was elevators only going one direction. And they did not feel that that was in keeping with the aspiration of world class. That there should always be mechanical transportation going both ways. So that was one of the very much the sticking points of this development agreement at that time and place. And the way that it was resolved to get the approvals was to have this language in there that there would be, they would not get further building permits. No, there was an assessment and a review of the adequacy of that vertical circulation. And so that language was included in the agreement. They're asking in this application to terminate that language. And I think what you heard from the Planning Commission after their site visit is that they want to see it unless they can prove it to you. They didn't really, they made a recommendation, but they gave away, they recommended a way that perhaps that recommendation could be not accepted or overruled whatever you want to say by the council. Right. And I'm thinking, John, way back to when in those conversations there was a very lengthy debate on bidirectional escalator and it was it was a pretty interesting debate amongst councils and he was a debate with the applicant at the time and the council I can't really say that they came out united, but a majority said we want to. And, yeah, spirit of moving forward, this compromise of let's look at that before we go forward with other stuff in base village, we will review that. And that's where we are now, to review it. My thinking might be that once we do the site visit and we see more of this with the diagram that you've proposed, that might be very, very helpful. But we'll talk about that. That's exactly pretty much the way it went down at the planning commission. They spent a lot of time talking like you are. Once they did the site visit, there wasn't a whole lot more talk. They came up with their resume. Okay. It's their recommendation. Okay. Let's, can we move on to the next point? Yeah, Mary's just gonna run through a couple of other questions. That's just a simple question. I'm just gonna ask you. Okay, so this is basically the pedestrian access plan that was submitted in the PUD with a few exceptions, we've made some modifications based on some feedback and input that we've received. On the diagram, we've removed some of the graphics that covered up some of the access, in particular the access from the crestwood to the crestwood actually to to the village. I think that stair, that small stair wasn't seen so we changed the graphics so that you could read it a little bit better. So you want to go to the next, what is this talking about? Do you want me, I can go into this. Okay, we had heard some feedback about that stair coming back into building seven and the original designer the design that's in the PUD is Similar to what we're showing here in that we have on Access with the turn around we have the signage for snowmess based village we felt that that was the most elegant way to Approach the village rather than a big grand stair. So here we have technical. Gesture control or just articulating too dramatically. So on the next, so as you can see to the, we do have the stair and we are proposing to widen it from 7 feet to 10 feet, which is in excess, I think of what we have at the entry right now. But right now you can see the turnaround from the access point you would see the signage and then the stairs just to the right of that. And here's an enlarged plan just showing how you gain access and you feel like we, I think from this rendering that you see right here, we removed a tree just to the right of that. And here's an enlarged plan to showing how you gain access. And we feel like we, I think from this rendering that you see right here, we removed a tree just to make it more obvious where the stair is. And then here is the access through 10AB. So here we're moving through. Oops. I think it's not so close. Okay. So we're moving from the village way through the Lot 6 site to the enclave and this distance is 218 feet and it's pretty direct access actually. You can't get too much straighter than that. I think that- How wide is that? This path? Yeah. I don't know that number off the top of my head. It looks like it would be in the shade. So is that a heated sidewalk? That could be a heated sidewalk. Okay. Thank you. So I think there was some question about what this stair is here because this also accesses and has access to the enclave. But this is the fire department access. So there's an elevator core and 10 B here that the fire department would need to access. So it would be a private for the building. So coming back to my question, what's the width of the walkway between the two buildings, A and B? I believe it's five feet. I can get that confirmed. But I think that's pretty standard. And I think there was the sidewalk is five feet this sidewalk this one here. I believe this is an issue that she mullet had an issue with as well in terms of access. So they may be proposing five feet but I think we were thinking it was going to be a little wider than that. And I thought the distance between the two buildings was at 25 feet per year. The one drawing that talked about. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you could be right. I apologize. I don't know the width of the sidewalk off the top of my head. So I can get back to you and confirm that it's curved at a wider than the fire feet and it meets the real quick. Yeah. Okay. So this is just a picture of the building five access and I think there was some question about whether we could gain access and get a stare in here to get to move people from the ski back trail up to the village. And then looking at the feasibility, it would be more gracious and probably an easier access to go in front of building 10 A B to get up to the village. But we did take a look and took a picture of that today. So today. So this is just showing the access from the ski valet for building 10AB and getting up to the ski back trailrow to pick up the building. Yeah, that's going to end up going up to the townhomes. Yes. Any hill townhomes. But I have a question though. The crossing of Woodrow in order to access that walkway between the buildings. Where does that come out to the enclave on the other side? I think this is the parking. Is that the driveway? It's pretty straight shot. I guess don't replace there. That's the right hand side. Okay. Sound good? And this is a new configuration because we've heard staff comments that what was originally proposed and I agree was not the best. And so working with land works, the landscape architect, they came up with this new design. And we specifically called out these three graphics just because, you know, working with staff, it was unclear. These specific access points and we just wanted to you know zoom in because when you're looking at the overall pedestrian circulation map it doesn't it's not all making a whole lot of sense you really need to zoom into different parts and so we just wanted to make sure you know this connectivity from the crestwood there's connectivity from the enclave and there's connectivity from that trailer as well. In terms of walking out of Tim B and you're getting to the gondola, what's that elevation gain? So that access point you would most likely either speed down and then go to the midpoint or you would probably walk along the village street. You would go at the front door through the lobby of that building rather than walking up the ski vat trail because it's snowing obviously in the winter and it's difficult to get up. But the option is there. In summer obviously. I mean these routes along the ski vat trail are definitely more the elevation gain. Is that something? That's about right. Is that something? Yeah, that sounds about right. Okay. Because it's a little uphill. Definitely is uphill. So that pretty much summarizes pedestrian circulation. Do we have the question mark? No? At the point of this one, I'll go for it. I think before it was just hidden in the graphics. I'm just doing this. So we just finished this equation. And that's maybe having a 60 feet, which is just a little bit longer I'm sorry. It's just a little bit longer than a football field as a point of reference. Any question on this part of the circulation? No. Okay. Sorry. Parking. Okay. I want to my fellow council people are starting to. I'll try to get through this. I don't know if it's in this section, but it wasn't you. Sorry. Oh my eye. I was interested to know why the Planning Commission was concerned that we address the utilities for the Fannie Hill townhomes and the potential to have that delay the final finish of Wood Road. It's been almost half of my life discussing the finishing of the Wood Road and its appropriate timing. It's half, it's open, still,. It's it went on for a long time. We're going to scratch it we're not going to scratch it we're going to have to bring in tanks. I don't know. So I it's just the terms of going through here. Staff recommendation that I think the applicant agreed with but I'll let Anne speak to the detail. So Craig probably will correct me a little bit. The deep utilities are in wood road, majority of them. However, there's connections that would need to connect into wood road that are related to Fannie Hill. So I don't know specifically what that condition said, but our concern is that we have that detail so that when wood road is constructed, everything is stubbed out and there's not going to get re torn up again. Thank you, Anne. That's the question. See, am I right and assuming that relatively speaking, that somewhat of a bit of a complex negotiation in which someone has to decide, is that going to be public utilities handling that in preparation? So the majority of the public utilities are in there. It's a tie-in for the water services and sewer. Has that a water and sand cost or is that a developing cost? Developer costs. So it gets complicated because that's a, and I'm not sure if that's right, but that's equal property for Fannie Hill. So we want to make sure that these things are connected because it is associated with this application as well. I agree. It should be connected. So I'm only bringing it up because we have two different developers. We got related who is responsible for resurfacing wood road. Am I right? And we got this key code responsible for tying in the utilities and they're not in the same PUD. Right. And the Fannie Hill is not on the table at all at this time as I understand it, it's been extended. And one of the troubles, but I don't know how, it's just, you know, it's a human problem we're dealing with, and trying to look at these things concurrently in different pieces, as if there are a lot of these things like the escalator look at these things concurrently in different pieces, as if there are a lot of these things like the escalator contract, or these things that are actually a little complicated and take some time. And so when we get these recommendations from plan commission, I think it is important to figure out how we're going to also kind of drill down on them, maybe not in council when we're all discussing it, so that we go through, look, here's the ABC. This is developer A, this is developer B, this is the problem statement and this is what we need to figure out. And here, you know, which I know we're getting there and that's a problem we're moving fast. So I just was pointing it out that that we spent a lot of time and heard a lot from the public when we talked out of Cerro de Moran, the roundabout in terms of finishing wood road, why hasn't it happened, why do I live in my $5 million house and I come down this circumstance like this, why does it look like this, all these kinds of things. And there was a whole bunch of hemmin and horn about how incredibly expensive it was to finish this road and all this stuff. And I'm just bringing it up now, as we move forward to the next stage, I'm trying to highlight the things like, because we're just going to end up dealing, we're going to be doing the horse trading potentially at the end. So let's see if we can trade some of those horses now or on the staff side so that we they're out of the way. And as you said, I mean, I think that ski coast is going to have to decide what they want to do and the risk they're going to take. We've already stalled this project a number of times about hearing about risk on money and oh, we're going to sell and build a hotel immediately. We're not and I know I'm looking at you Don but we've done that so all times and Fanny has been delayed a number of times so I'm not criticizing anyone I'm bringing it up as an issue that it would seem to make sense to take care of because one of the superficial aspects will be finishing that road away. So just to address your points Chris in the base village development agreement that was approved back in, I want to say October, there is a specific milestone to complete that work, that infrastructure, and we've also bonded for that specific improvement. So we are required to start that in May of 2018 if we were to miss that milestone. Obviously we're in jeopardy of losing investing. So it's not really a question of when that work will be done. That work will be done. Yes, thank you very much. Okay. So it's not really a question of when that work will be done. That work will be done. Yes, thank you very much. Okay. Is there a question about when that utility tie-in gets done? Or are you guys working that out? So it's happening on the milestone? Well, the connection really won't delay the completion of that work. I mean, obviously it's best to try and get it done prior. And we'll work with SkiCo and staff to make sure that That's what skiing company and our goal is just to make sure you don't cut brand new asphalt. That's the fundamental thing. Everybody hates it. That's right. And that's our job is to make sure when the design comes through that they show the utility connections there. Okay, let's move on to parking. Okay. So with the parking presentation, I thought maybe we would start with just the parking maps, just to kind of understand how parking is stacked and works within the garage. We are on the P3, which is the arrival level of the parking garage. This is the main entrance right here. This red over here is considered commercial, although this is reserved for the clinic. This is directly under building eight. In this area, you've got the limelight hotel parking as well as the valet parking. Valet parking is a separate owner than the other associations within the base village garage ownership structure. This is the P2 level. Majority of this level is for residential parking, as well as the mountain club parking. This residential area is currently operational for the most part. We've got some temporary walls for storage over in this area, so this is an open, but it pretty much goes back to here and then is fenced off for the rest of this. And most of this circulation is open over here as well. What's important to note is that the parking arrangement in the garage is all shared. Within the residential zone, there's no designated parking for any specific building. So maybe this sits under Capitol Peak, and this is the most direct access to Capitol Peak. But by no means is this considered a Capitol Peak parking zone. It's residential. Anyone from Building 7 or 8 or even Building 1, Hayden, can park anywhere in the residential parking zones? What was the understanding of our base village owners when they purchased was a .75 shared or I'll get to that. Okay, okay, because we've got we've got a lot of emails from our. Yes, and it's a basic misunderstanding and I'm going to try to clear it up as best as I can. And I just thought these maps can be helpful to a certain extent. So I'll just run through them a little quicker. P one. P1 is mostly commercial. Now this parking area, some label it as the Hayden Mod parking zone or area, gated parking. That is not correct. It is closest to building one, Hayden Modge, but it's not only reserved for Hayden Mod donors. It's a residential zone. So technically someone from another building could park there, but most likely you wouldn't, just because of the access point to other buildings. And you're generally going to park closest to where you can get to the elevator to your building. This is the top level. This is the top level of the parking garage. Just above this sits the podium that we see today. And so now just getting into some of the specifics of the numbers. We continue to provide .7 parking per residential unit within the proposed application. We are not proposing any reductions to the residential generation rate. We have 150 residential units for the buildings that sit on top of the podium and that are required to park in the base village garage We are providing 117 residential parking spaces in the residential zones I just showed on the P2 and P1 zones of the parking garage This is actually a generation of 0.78 or we're providing in access to the 0.75 or we're providing in excess of the .75. So there's 117 residential parking spaces. And this does not include any of the employee housing parking that's designated in the garage. We are required to reserve parking for the employee housing units. There's no reserve parking for residential units. As I mentioned, it's shared within the residential zone. There's no designation by building within the residential parking. The applicant cannot change the designated parking zones. We cannot decide to take the residential area and turn it into commercial. There are restrictions. We have to live by that PUD. The PUD is the guiding document in terms of how the condo for or the garage condo declaration and rules and regs are established. They must abide by the PUD itself. And these parking plans are all a part of the PUD and the PMP. We cannot just change them whenever we please. Now to your point, Madam Mayor. This is the standard language in everyone's purchase agreement when you're purchasing a unit within base village. And if I can read this if you would like me to. Parking for all owners of residential units in the project will be available in either an underground parking structure within the village, an underground parking structure is located on adjacent parcels, or an underground parking structure beneath the village, an underground parking structure is located on adjacent parcels, or an underground parking structure beneath the project. Such parking for residential units shall be operated and controlled by the village company, and an owner for residential units shall have the right to park in such areas by virtue of its membership in the village company. Parking spaces will not be assigned to a particular unit, but will be available on a first-come basis. An owner or its guests may only use one unassigned parking space and only during the period in which the owner or one or more of its guests are occupying the unit. Parking at the project is available to owners and their guests only when in residence at the project. So, moving on to the next points. Craig can I ask you a question though on this residential parking? Of course. What means is there that prevents non-residents from parking in residential spots? It's a great question. The residential zones are all gated. And to gain access to that residential zone, you will need a tag to access that specific zone. And so it is gated off from the rest of the commercial parking. The second bullet will bring up a point that has been raised by a couple of the comments we have received. But just to point out, the handicap parking spaces, it's very important that obviously we provide enough handicap spaces. There's some question that are we providing too many parking spaces? We will work with our code consultants and we'll work with Anne Martins in the building department to scrub the parking garage and making sure that we are providing adequate handicap spaces. The locations of such handicap spaces we don't have control over by code they have to be closest to the access points. But we will definitely have this scrubs prior to the submission of final to make sure that we are providing in accordance with the code. And Bob, to your point about the gated areas, well, the residential zone on P2 is shared with the mountain club parking. So everyone can access, if you're a resident in-house, or a mountain club member can access that specific parking zone. There are designations within that parking zone. The mountain club parking area is owned separate from the village company which owns the residential. You really you cannot mix between those parking spaces and the residential parking. But anyone? How are you going to know that? We will work with Aspen's scheme company to make sure that this is properly pleased. It's in our best interest to make sure that our owners and guests have adequate parking. We're trying to sell units, we're trying to rent units, and if our guests can't find parking because they've got a member parked in their space, that's an issue for us. And so that's why it's very important that we work with them. We properly police that. Everyone's got tags, so you can have different types of tags. And so you can have a residential guest tag, and then you can have a mountain club tag. And so you can easily see. And everyone needs to have this tag hanging from their visor. And so you'll be able to delineate between mountain club parking, guests, and a resident's or guests. Who is the, who is policing it? It's a private garage, so it has to be self-policed, and so we'll have to work with Ask for Skin Company on that in terms of how that works. And you know, the question has come up. Can we gate this? Is there a way of, you know, segregating the parking zones? And it's really difficult. One of the things that we all know is, we can't change the size of the garage. We can't increase the number of parking spaces. It is what it is. And we're trying to live with this built environment, but we also have specific obligations. And we feel as if we're meeting those obligations in terms of the generation rates. The access point for the mountain club sits in this area. Okay. This is the most likely area for the guests to the mountain club to park. There isn't access to any of the other buildings within this zone, so that's why it was suggested to put it here. And then the next question was, can we gate this? Is there a way of separating this from the other zones? Well, that gets very difficult because then how do you access back here and how do you circulate through these parking areas because there's an access point here and an access point over here and so ideally you want to be able to free flow between and putting gates between this really hinder the ability to properly flow between the zones and also adding gates takes away parking spaces and so this is why we ended up with this specific plan. And we do believe working with Ashton's scheme company, we can come up with a proper way to make sure that we aren't taking residential spaces for the mountain club. And Don Schuster can talk to their studies in terms of parking generation associated with mountain clubs. The Ashton mountain club does not provide parking to any of its members. I think they can purchase parking, but they're not provided any access to parking. And I believe the parking experience for the clubs in Vale has been about 25%. And so we're pretty comfortable with what we have here in the number of spaces for residential and for mountain club. And we know that our guests arriving in the winter, more likely than not, don't have a car. And part of the reduction in the parking rates originally, with the original base village PUD agreement, was that all operators need to provide shuttle service to and from the airport to, I guess, to try and convince people that you do not need a vehicle within snowmass. We will provide complimentary service to and from the airport and complimentary service within snowmass. We can't provide complimentary service to Aspen because we also want to try and reduce the amount of leakage. And then we have an amazing bus system. And so all of these different measures are really why we're trying to or prove why we're not seeing this increase in people coming with cars. Parking experience for the units that we manage in Capitol Peac in Hayden is about 60 percent and that's over the entire year and that's just not winter. And I have also got the parking experience at the Viceroy which is actually much lower. Okay. Can I ask a question about the mental club? Of course. I mean, what if it's not working? Like, what if there's someone patrolling and they see the person with the mountain club sticker is not parked where they should be parked or whatever it is? I mean, how is that going to work? Like, how do you enforce it? I mean, they're not police. They can't give a ticket, I guess, but I guess, you know, when I'm thinking about the people that live in base village, you know, if it's becoming a problem, how do you deal with it? I think that what you're gonna have to do is ask when skiing companies gonna have to staff the garage and monitor the number of bases and we're talking about peak periods when you have, you know, a significant inflow of people, Christmas New years, Martha Luther King, and you can gauge, you know how many parking spaces you have in that zone. You have someone here walking around, they can count spaces, and then you can have someone at the access point. And there are ways to work through this. And what happens when there's no spaces left? They can valet if they would like. They're commercial guests just like anyone else. So they can go to the commercial valet or they can park in the commercial zone. But it is in the original approval. It was anticipated that this parking would alleviate the need for day skier parking because we have those guests already arriving so you're freeing up spaces within this zone so it's kind of it's a shared parking scheme and so there are assumptions based on how this all works but you know it's kind of balancing everything. I just want to try to recap for a second or of course because there has been a lot of communication a lot of concern and I just wanted to check if I'm understanding stuff. So I think what I heard is that what we have we have a private development with a private parking lot that the only reason that it talks to the town has to do with our zoning and our approval of the PUD. And we're trying to listen to our community relative to that. But really at the end of the day, if people want to like, you know, car jack, each other's cars and like double park and all that stuff, that's really kind of the businesses issues unless the town decides to get involved. Am I like going to, like I'm trying to follow a little bit, I'm trying to tie a couple things together here. We have this zoning issue. We've already made one PUD or a committee. You're asking those for new party meetings. But I just want to make sure I understand. So, you know, if the people in Capitol Peak, when you explain it, and I'm not saying you're right or wrong, you explain that none of those lots are really designated. The quantification is similar or exactly the same in your opinion as it was, that the people have no designated spaces. You know, that's really a problem when I look at it to a degree that we want to be helpful for. And I've been fairly vociferous about that. And I think that they should not have to pay for the police officer. But at the end of the day, really, this is this private parking lot that all of the people, the businesses, the residents, all of these investors have to make work. And really, the town just has to decide how involved we want to be in that discussion at the end of the day. If you guys really screw it up, sorry, for lack of better. People don't like the, what it says, the curly cue that you drive up now. If you guys mess it up, that's like bad for us as a town, but ultimately really at the end of the day we're not involved in that, let's say as much as we are, maybe as the round of batter something, which is more directly related to our infrastructure, our maintenance, it's said. I'm just trying to move the discussion for a little bit and some broad strokes. Yeah, you're missing just one little point. Yeah, go ahead. And that is if we let if we being the town a lot of the project of this size to be grossly underpart. That impact bleeds over to town property because those are the only so that that's why it's very important to get it right. Exactly. So and then that leads into these interface moments where in here, you know, the Aswin Keys, coming, I don't know if they want to comment or not, is being asked to use Black Saddle Parking Lot for any hotel, whoever the owner is. I don't know if we're going to pursue that or not. And these other overflow issues we're going to pursue that or not. And these other overflow issues, all employees are being asked to not park at the rodeo lot completely unless it doesn't sound from the earlier comments that SkiCo feels like they've been able to be totally effective in that. They've taken some actions. That's when we start to get into public policy in terms of the municipality. Do we need an extra office officer, etc. So I just want to like, I'm just trying to lay it out a lot of details. So we've got a lot. So at the end of the day, you know, that's it. That's where the impact is. If you guys really want to mess up the design or make it perfect and work out those deals amongst yourselves, sunrise, ski company, whoever it is, the billion timeshairs or whatever we're going to end up with. That really only affects us when it comes out the door. And you know, when it becomes a public policy. And with respect to the capital, peak people who I have been supportive of and I'm listening to and will continue to and advocate for them not being any Metro district costs until there's some additional revenue. They really need to sue the developer or do what it is with the exception of us looking at the PUD approval. That's another reason why we are standing firm in our recommendation related to additional parking in the areas east of the ski back trail. But the expectation that if it didn't work out here that we'd have some additional. Exactly. I mean, I'm sure that we're going to hear about that with Craig. Yes, there's more. There is more. Hang on guys, we're not done. This this last point is directed to some public comment that we have received in, you know, with regards to I think it's page three of the PMP that kind of it was a little open and I would agree that it wasn't so clear in terms of You know if there was excess residential parking can it be used for commercial purposes and it was too loose And so we will amend it and you know It's that I think it was as we see fit and I think I changed to based on one or more parking usage studies to based on one or more parking usage studies obtained by BVCO. And so there has to be a study to show that there's excess residential parking for that to then be used for commercial. I'm going to ask you a question, Craig, relative to the owners over at Capitol Peacon Hayden. Has there been meetings with the owners relative to this parking? No, because we're not changing their parking. There's no impact to them. But, you know, communication is always a key to success. Well, absolutely, but at the end of the day, we have had community outreach sessions. That's where I'm going with this. What I meant to say, not specific, we haven't had a presentation on parking. We've had general presentations on the overall development plan. We've met with many of the different homeowners associations within Snowmass in terms of presenting this new plan. We haven't really spent a lot of time on parking specifically. I mean, we've met with Pat Keifer a couple of times to definitely walk through a couple of her concerns. But at the end of the day, we weren't changing the parking generation or the number of spaces available to them for their specific use. So we didn't think it was an issue of any great significance to highlight or to break out or to have a specific data. We'll have a first thing to have a meeting with your owners down there to hear their concerns and address them. And you know, we have that. We probably decreased the number of emails. Absolutely. And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to present the facts. Okay. And that's what we're laying out here today. Let's move on. Okay. And so that was just kind of the last point to address one specific public comment. Now, this gives you kind of a sense of what we have been experiencing. And this is at the vice right. And this, you know, directly supports the point five Generation rate for hotel rooms, but as I mentioned for capital P for at point six six I believe for the entire year and You can see we never peak over 50% at the vice-roy The lower level of that garage is never full. It's always empty for the last part I'm for two buildings wasn't Even still okay even. Even still. Because we are, this is actual parking experience for the last couple years at the vice-story. Okay. Getting to buildings east of the metro. We are in agreement with staff to change the generation rate for buildings 11 and 12 from .75 to a ratio of 1 to 1. The makeup of the buildings in 11 and 12 are definitely larger units. We still believe that a 0.75 rate is appropriate for 10AB, planning commission did support this recommendation to move that forward. That unit mix is definitely more in line with what we see in the first phase of base village, mostly one and two budget units 72 percent. In residential parking really can't be shared so even if you were to over-provide residential parking for other uses such as commercial if the base village garage for some reason was you know to be inadequate commercial really could not park in residential because of assessments and how that all works. We are providing a contingency of 44 parking spaces and that is spread across buildings 10 AB 11 and 12 or specifically lots 5 6 and 7. Majority of those parking spaces are in buildings 10 AB lots 6, which is a total of 20. I looked at the utilization rate of the base village garage for the last winner. We're at utilization rate of 65%. I know base village is not built out, but also the garage is 54% functional. We don't have all the commercial spaces open today. And this is important to note, because we're talking about, is there a parking problem in base village? And this is commercial, this is not residential, this is important to note because we're talking about is there a parking problem in base village? And this is commercial. This is not residential. This is specific to the commercial utilization rate, day-sphere, and things like that. The goal of the town for the comp plan is 85%. And I do want to point out what the comp plan states. It says the town of St. M. S. Village shall maintain a maximum of 1,375 spaces for public parking in the town core. A thousand in the numbered lots in 375. We are providing 375, but these 44 are in excess of the 375, so that's in addition, so that it's exceeding the maximum per the town's comp plan. And also this is a statement from the comp plan. Additional parking conflicts with the objective of reducing vehicular traffic through town and this is you know goes directly to Dave Peckler's point in terms of trying to reduce the number of cars traveling past the wood ski back trail and trying to limit the number of spaces and the overall impacts at the specific intersection so we are providing excess parking. We're seeing our utilization rate is 65%. We just have a concern with providing excess parking in addition above and beyond because that's directly conflicting with the town's goals. Come make one, Common. Okay. Not to put more work, I know you guys are working like crazy. It's that done. But take even from our bus tour and work together. Again, I'm just going to kind of reiterate my point from before. I think that key components, especially to that comp-plan idea of how do we really achieve that? Which ultimately, I think really improves your development, the development, the base village. It seems like a good time, and you guys have staff working on it too. And you've got a really interesting group of people in terms of architects and the team that you put together. A lot of locals, I really think it is the time to start the discussion, not only with potential, you know, financial partners, but with the parking guys for Aspen, with the ski co, you know, so that we can, you know, because if we could lay out a number of these things rather than, and that's where we're going, maybe the next step, rather than the planning commission thinks we should do this and this and this, if we could actually say, okay, here's where we stand. Ski company says that, I'm just giving examples. Ski company says, no hotel parking, no employee parking, got it, Aspen has agreed, there's always gonna be, you know, X number of spaces available for the intercept lot, all the hotels have agreed that we're gonna do shuttles. You know, then we're done talking about it. You know, and it's not even like a battle anymore. It's or it's not a dialogue. And so I'm just putting it out there. Like it seems like a good time in the process now as we go forward to try to elicit some of those cooperative commitments from I know teams that you guys aren't always totally in agreement with you know because you're in your own Negotiations with them. I'm just throwing it out We have these boring objectives We want a rural you know, we want a rural environment. We don't want it But we don't want to sidewalk to what we have to have pedestrian connections. I get it you guys are like up against this Complan issue that it's often very contradictory from the past and the best and interest. I just think if we started to put some of these things together as these little packages, as you guys have been doing, that it might solve some of those issues. And it might help our position as a town, your position as a developer, and even the other parties, let's say, ask and who's trying to figure out how the and the cozy point development process, that extra, you know, push and with a pointed perspective may help them redefine their position also so that we can come to solutions. Sorry. position also so that we can come to solutions. Good point, Chris. But I have a question for you. One of the observations that I have going up and down 82 each and every day, or doing the RAPDA, is there's a lot of these little cars you that you rent up an Aspen for a couple hours in return. I think that in of itself is a great solution to help people know that when they come here and they want to have a car they have one that they could rent for three or four hours. Is that any consideration for what you're thinking about right now? I'll put a few of those cars down in the parking garage in the commercial. It's something that can be looked into. I think the town of Aspen, the city of Aspen, sorry, is providing that. They are. They are, definitely. And so, I think there is probably some partners in it. And it's been very successful in talking with some of the members of council. I think, you know, the partnership, you know, with the town, you know, others within the community in terms of trying to see if that is an option, definitely. And, you know, just to Chris' point with regards to parking at the intercept lot, you know, we've had conversations with, definitely the other partners and Don Schuster can talk specifically to the intercept lot. That is designed for the employees in base village to park there. We did some work back in the day, or asked when scheme company did work with the 82 improvements to allow for employee parking there. What's the contingency plan? So you just totally missed the mark and you've got the base village garage is packed and you're looking for other places to park cars. Well, the intercept lot. You know, and we don't feel there's a residential parking issue based on our experience and based on trends in the market themselves in terms of commercial or day skier parking. You know, I think that there are number of lots that are meant to handle the inflow of vehicles and with Aswin's scheme company projecting or has a permit for up to a million skiers which is above where we are today. There could be other impacts. And so I know Dave Peckler has been trying to figure out, you know, for the town, how do you deal with the rodeo lot? And you know, how do you deal with the rodeo lot? And, you know, how do you deal with the overflow situations there? And so I think it's definitely more of a global issue, as Chris pointed out, in terms of everyone working together. And it's not directly related to Bay Sillage, although obviously Bay Sillage has some associated impacts. Maybe there are some creative ideas for, say, public parking where there are designated spots ideas for, say, public parking where there are designated spots only for carpools. And you need to have three or more people to park in certain areas. And you could, you know, I think we could come up with some additional creative ideas if that does become an issue. We probably need to get some comments from the public. I would be Pat. Thanks. I would be short. I see Pat in the garage. Six thirty seven a.m. Almost every morning. We become friends. She's doing some counts. It's a very apparent. Okay, Pat. Pat, can you introduce yourself some of the people in the back? I'd be happy to have you to. My name is Patricia Jane Keifer of Base Village, Capital Peak. And I go by path. My bachelor's is in physics with an MBA in management in a 30-year career with IBM, while I also ran a 501C3 company for 12 years at the same time. We've been visiting here for 39 years and finally bought a place in 2013. And I also just want to take a second off of this public forum and say thank you to all the people who are working so hard to make base village to come to fruition. I listened to Mayor Butler at the P-Trab and she said we need to get base village right because it is our future and it's my front door. I've a split personality tonight. We're your neighbors and we're asking for your help. The Capitol Peak HOA Board has asked me to take point on the parking issues on behalf of all of our 87 owners. We're all so donors and I know you know, but I don't want to be rude to the people behind me. As Capitol Peek owners, we pay for the heated plaza, the walkways to the transit center, the heated parking, the skittles, et cetera. In aggregate, we donate about a million dollars a year for these public amenities. These are, that's over and above the roughly $3,500 that we pay in Pitt and County taxes. It's over and above the capital peak assessment that we pay for our own buildings. So when you look at us, I'd like you to see your neighbors who are asking for help. And also people who are pretty generous to provide public amenities with private funding through the Metro District. We also subsidized the commercial bill's commercial operations and base village because we pay four times the commercial rate for base village H.O.A. assessments per square foot. And we pay four times the commercial rate for a parking space. We do pay $496 annually per allocated parking space or about $55,000 for all of capital peak. We ask that before transportation and parking elements of base village 2 are approved that the parking management plan PMP be edited to solve four problems. I'm also volunteering my time to work these issues so that the approval process can move forward rapidly. We need help in protecting our RUP 0.75 space per unit. We thought we had when we purchased it. I call the phrasology and CREB very kindly said it's not really self-zoning, but when I see a statement that says as it sees fits, sees fit to change whether the residential parking can be commercialized or used for day skiers. We think of that and the board of Capitol Peak thinks of that as self-zoning. We're looking for help with unit definition because right now because lockout units are not considered in parking generation. Let me describe that I see a puzzled expression. There are separately numbered units. There are five of them at Capitol Peak. They have unit numbers, doors that go to the hallway, but they're sold as a single entity. But the fact of the matter is, is just because they have a joining door, doesn't mean that they aren't managed separately, rented separately, and when people show up to check in, they are separately given parking passes to the parking garage. The fly in that ointment is when it comes to generating the 0.75 parking space for unit that wasn't included in the parking generation. So right now as an aggregate, Capitol Peak is short at 6.5% of the allocated parking spaces. In terms of equitable and and Craig did a very nice job of saying we will comply with the American Disabilities Act. Having taken care of my father-in-law who was wheelchair bound for a decade, I'm very sensitive to having enough handicap parking. But right now, the plan in the parking that is contiguous, not dedicated, but simply contiguous to the capital peak elevators, contains 500% of the ADA requirement for handicap spaces. And it appears to be almost all of the minima-really required handicap spaces for the entire garage. So we're looking for help in having equitable parking. In terms of Mountain Club, Mountain Club is, as I understand it, that's designed to have 228 members for 57 spaces. When you mix that with the 87 units that we have to 70 parking spaces. I'd like to quote Robert Frost. He said, good fences make good neighbors. Having become intimate with our parking lot in the last week that I've been in residence, I believe that fences can be added and gates can be added without loss of parking spaces. Now I've provided council and a number of people a lot of information prior to this time. In lieu of the hour I would like to avoid going through that detail. I would enjoy giving you all a parking tour. I will say that right now, and I'll go back to Mayor Butler's question of Mr. Monzeo, was this reviewed with Capitol Peak in advance? I started down this road when Tough Mudder was in town last year and we were here. I went grocery shopping big mistake. When I came back to our gated area only because a person left the parking area was I able to find a space in that particular residential area. So I raised it to our board and our board said well we have a gentleman who's working on that. In our capital peak board meetings there are somewhere between six and eight people from related. At that time no one said anything to us about that parking that's shown right there. Today we go all the way around the corner. Today my favorite parking space is shown in there. Today we go all the way around the corner. Today my favorite parking space is shown in this diagram and it's a little bit small. We'll no longer be a full space, it'll be cut in half, it'll be made into two compact spaces. So I call those pretty significant changes. No one came to us. It wasn't until I tried working with our HOA board and started asking questions that I finally gave up and went to the press and wrote parking, painter, profit. And then I was able to get some meetings. And to be fair, Jim volunteered to work with us. However, they will send information one way. They have declined so far for invitations to sit down and work on solutions. So the only reason I knew to look at this was because the town of Snowmass Village does a great job of putting things on the website. We're in Texas, I look at that picture and I go, huh, those are some big changes. So I read the 24-page PNP document and came up with the four areas that we're asking for your help. So because I've already provided so much information, I would just like to make a couple of comments. When I asked Krigman's own a conference call, if our pass for what is sort of the capital peaked contiguous area would work on P1 for the 12 spaces that are closest to Hayden. The answer was no it would not. When you asked if commercial space, commercial could be in residential parking. We have commercial vehicles in our little residential area right now. It's these past problems where we've had commercial people in our parking area, in the residential parking area I shouldn't call it ours. And our residential parking area. And oh by the way, a couple of Christmas's ago, day skiers were in our residential area. We don't think that this is an equitable way to manage what I would call town of snowmass village zoning of .75 parking spaces per unit. So let me just say that while we're asking for specific help, it's equally important to recognize that we're not asking for a reserve parking space per unit. We didn't buy that. We're asking for the .75 and insurance to keep it there. We know town of Snowmass Village original code calls for more parking than we have, but that wasn't the way this parking garage was built. I don't know if it's possible, but there is a little bit of a storage area in the lower left-hand corner there. Those two stories. Is that possible to open up a little bit more parking on P1 and P2? I don't know. I know the space is fine, but is it possible to take the ceiling over the top of the loading dock and make more parking for skiers on P1? Is it possible to change the elevation of the ceiling over the bus area and get more parking for P2, more day-skier parking in particular. Don't know. We're not asking for reduced parking spaces so we can have easier turns at the dead ends. You see those dead ends down there? When I give people tours of the parking lot, I challenge them, assume these spaces are full, now turn around. Let me tell you, it's not a three-point turn. Maybe it's six, sometimes it's nine. We're not asking for that. We're not asking for tax release from the base village company H.O.A. Assessment because we bought under these conditions. What we are asking for is help so that we have the .75 spaces per unit that we think that we bought. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Any other public comments? Come on up. Name. Hi, I'm Heather record. My name is Tony Cronberg. And I too would like to give my thanks as a citizen, a member of the public, for all the hard work that's going into coming up with a solution that is similar to Assments entrance problems. Soon, Snowmass will have your own entrance problems. And tonight, the question that I have, and I'd like to get that to it right away, is on page 89 of the resolution before you for approval. Under the section 14, public improvements, traffic volume, mitigation, pedestrian connections, in 14E, it says the easements needed for the aerial connection, andro alternative connectors to the snowmass center area, and to the adjoining streets, shall be subjectly granted. So, the, I have one question and the question is, does that include the landing site? Well, you may have the easements to go over, you know, the different landmarks. Does this language protect a landing zone or a landing site? And if not, that that should probably be included into this section here because they may not have to be held the next developer over the snowmath center to provide a landing zone. The second thing is that the last couple of meetings is to become my understanding that the aerial connection coming off of base village is actually set in stone. There can be no deviations, so the alignment is set. So it's also my understanding that once these easements are granted, that it will then become the ownership of the snowmass village to potentially construct this aerial. And again, when the development for snow mass town center comes forward, that may be one of the negotiating points that the town would hold with a developer to get people back and forth. What I would like to propose moving forward is that we take a big leap forward, and that is part of this transportation mitigation management plan that the aerial transportation system between base village and town center be explored, analyzed, reviewed, looked at, whatever to see if it's a viable opportunity. And then secondly, Dan Blankenship has said that they can redirect the buses. All of the issues, all of the issues that you have talked tonight about is having a world-class experience about getting skiers, guests, and employees to base village. Base village to connect to the Skittles, base village to connect to the Gondola to all the different areas. So moving forward, I see that this is the solution. At least to the town center, you have your buses come up wherever that landing zone is, and that's where they drop the connection off. And I base that on the fact that Aspen is getting pretty close, no more cars are going to be in downtown Aspen with this new design, no more cars are going to be in downtown Aspen with this new design, the street project that they have coming forward. Ruby Park is at a max with buses. Dan's talking about adding more buses, but can the buses actually fit into the new transit center? They're already taking up the street between Mountain Shale and Wagner Park. There's no more street space to park some of these extra buses. Then I attended your financial advisory board meeting the last one. And in your budget that's coming before you, that there's going to be a request maybe five, six, seven. I'm not sure how many years out for $200 million to redo the bus terminal here, where the currently the bus is pulling and to realign the street going over. And anticipation of all of those costs, the fact that you're really not getting your guests seamlessly to where they need to go, the escalator issue can disappear, the roundabout issue and roundabouts really are seamless connection. And then dropping people off of the tree house. I mean you can redirect that traffic into your town center. What was originally thought of? It's not a new idea, it's not my idea, it's something that's already been set in stone. But I just was a little surprised that the serial connection wasn't explored further in this resolution. So just thinking forward, if you could please take the time, I don't know tonight, it's a very late hour. But please make sure that the landing site is protected in the town center, in the mall, or not the mall, the town center going back and forth. And then the very last comment is that, when we went on the Beaver Creek tour, which I very graciously was very thankful for, there was that partnership they talked about, the public, the private developers government. As a member of the public, I would be willing to start a campaign, and I actually talked to Picking County about putting an advisory question on the ballot, to raise the funds to do the feasibility study or the engineering study for that little bit of peace. It would be my understanding that you could actually start that piece before the center was developed. Do you want to have a viable transportation connector and then build the center around it or you want to build the center and then try to squeeze this in. But the bottom line is your alignment is already set and it's done. So they're going to have to develop it. So I just wanted to share that and I have done an excellent job. Oh and the very last thing is that you know we're talking about people coming in from Aspen. Well what I see happening in basalt, you have people from snowmast going to basalt for dinner down there. They ride their bikes along the trail and then they take the bus back up Valley. The salt is going to add a new hotel. You've got their guests, their employees. You might have a senior center down there. All of that additional. Then you have Willett, the new hotel not open open yet. Aeslane, 400 homes, another commercial district, Carbondale, that it's going to be an explosion with the next five years. And we tonight, the focus was just on base village coming online, connecting with Asvin. But I would like to ask the council to explore this aerial connection, this first little piece, and then the rest of the piece is hopefully we'll start to follow the place between Fresh Creek, at least together, the recreation center, and then so far is that rodeo ground the last thing. The rodeo ground could move down a master plan and cozy point. It opens up, gives your whole true entrance to Stone Mask Village, the most, I think, is one of the most beautiful views in the whole world. When you come up for jazz assesmen, and you see those sunsets and the mountains, and I think I've shared with you, I drew a lot of security work, a lot of events. I was on the raft of buses at 9. OK. Watch those people patterns, but you do have a beautiful entrance. Would that be to say thank you so much. Thank you, Tony. Very good points, Craig. I can respond to her concern with regards to the landing site. And I'm just going to read from the Sub-Sovision Improvement Agreement unless you don't want me to, but it is definitely in there with regards to that landing site that we are obligated to convey that in some form to the town today. Okay, and everybody's getting pretty tired. I'm going to suggest that we do go do the tour of the parking garage. We had noticed requirements as 48 hours, but I think we need time for Craig and the base village people to get together. I'm not going to tell you what to do but it seems to me that that would be wise but I would suggest we do it next Monday perhaps start the meeting at three but I need to my fellow council people. Oh, you next. Listen. Sounds great. Okay. You want to have Craig respond to past four points? I can quickly. Okay. Yeah. The lock off units. They're not considered a unit. They cannot be sold as a separate legal unit But people bring cars in park We yes, they can be rented individually, but per the purchase agreement that they you know Everyone knows that they willingly sign Conversation about that of course. I mean, that's that's fine Unit definition we talked about that Protecting the point seven five. It's in everyone's best interest to protect the .75, and we are providing at .78. As I mentioned, handicap spaces, the reason why there's so many, probably within the capital peak zone, will check it again, but because of all the access points, they need to be closest to those specific access points, such as elevators, and there's quite a few specifically. Thank you. But if we're able to move over here, of course, access points, such as elevators, and there's quite a few specifically. But if we're able to move over here, of course, we know it. Yeah, we're not setting this. We'll go by the code, but that's just reasoning behind that. Yeah, Mountain Club. As I said, we'll work with Aspen Scheme Company to make sure that the residences are not impacted by those parking demands, additional gate fences, we'll explore this again with the odds. I just leaned over to Mary and asked her because we have explored this in the past and the type of fencing that we have in there today is very cumbersome in terms of the space that it needs to open and close. But that can definitely be something we can look at further and you know seeing if we can increase the number of spaces by eliminating unneeded handicap spaces as well as unneeded storage spaces. And you know we'll meet with Pat again. I've personally met with her one time here on site and I had a very long conversation with her as well and I can sit down with the other homeowners if they would like and we can definitely walk through this. Okay. We have a question though. Can she brought up a few times about commercial vehicles being parked in the residential and day skiers? How are they getting in there if they have to have a pass? So per the beauty, that is not allowed. To say that enforcement hasn't been at its best is probably true. I mean, we're in a temporary condition today, but moving forward, there definitely needs to be more control in terms of who gets passes and who has access to that zone, but that is not allowed. So what is the plan if somebody shows up with two vehicles? So Her the purchase agreement they only can have one The PMP is fairly silent on this in terms of the number of parking passes that can be issued You know it depends on really kind of what's happening. It's on a first come first of basis Sorry to interrupt on really kind of what's happening. It's on a first come first of basis. I just want to clarify one thing. Sorry to interrupt. We'll cut right to the chase. We've probably been way too lenient over the past couple years because it has not been used that much. And we've acquiesced and said you have two drivers, two vehicles, here's two. We need to button that up and Jerome is right back here with me and we'll be involved in that and we need to be more diligent as Craig was saying and we will be. But moving to commercial areas. Is that the responsibility of the base village company? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So to be more diligent means where you send that second car. Public public. Public area. Yeah. So they had one behind the gate and the other will be in the public area. So they pay the public rate every day. It is hard to accommodate everybody and by accommodating people then we then on a crowded day somebody then misses a spot So but it's something we need to talk with Pat as the design for capital peak and others and see where the balance is there's It's a complex issue Jim I guess I understand how you can have in your sales agreements that you're dealing with, you know, one vehicle per unit. Well, what? Craig always corrects me on that. It is one pass per unit. One pass per unit. Correct. How do you deal with that in your rental agreements. Coming back to the concept of a lock-off, which is I think what Pat was you were describing, right? But how do you deal with that in a rental agreement where you've got two rooms that are essentially one considered one unit? So, it's really up to the property management company in terms of their terms and conditions. We can't control what happens once a third party or once an owner owns that unit and they put it into a rental pool. There are specific obligations that they must adhere to and that is the PMP. So is that snowmass hospitality that? MP, which so is that snowmass hospitality that Rome is back there. It's it's it's Alpine property management. Jerome talked to this. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, rental management agreements with the homeowners are subservient to any association rules and regulations, all the association documents. So there's subservient to those that include the PMP. One of the most important things probably to remember is that the design of the base village includes, as Greg mentioned earlier, transportation throughout the village as well as tune from the airport to discourage the need for a vehicle. And that's something that we provide to our tenants and our guests. And I think that something the association will need to tighten down on the third party vendors that other vendors that are renting at base village. And to Jim's point, candidly, we've been lax in the enforcement of the current rules and regs whether people leave vehicles there when they're not in residence some commercial access we've tightened all that up and we're continue to tighten up we have action plans in place to cure some of those items and work with our homeowners and our boards to move forward and make sure everyone gets the access and service they expect. Jerome, have you had situations in the past where you have told a renter or a potential renter that they would not have access to a vehicle pass? I have asked because it was the local unit. I not do it specifically if that was a lock off unit. I have had issues in the past. We've not allowed them to park all the vehicles they brought with them in the parking. I'll tell you right now it's fuel and fur between. But we have done that in the past. I'd be stumped to give you dates and names. I just know this is a kind of a specific situation. It's a little different than renting a unit and bringing more than one vehicle with you. It's a little bit different. You're trying to size. To me, you know, to me, that would have to be explained in the rental process up front in order to be, you know, to me, that would have to be explained in the rental process up front in order to be, you know, appropriate. But to be clear, they have to, if they don't want to pay to park in the garage, their option based on the agreement is we have to send them to the intercept plot, which has 72 hour parking limits. They're right. I can't sort of the parking limits in the intercept lot, but yes. But that's the kind of contingency plan. Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Jerome. Okay. If there are, I don't hear any other comments from the public hearing until next Monday at 3 p.m. You'll just say just a note how we're going to coordinate or we're just going to meet there a meet here and walk over. You should meet here open the public hearing and have a recording. I said we did with the planning commission on work 12. Okay. That's perfect. So everyone will convene the meeting here and then go to the parking garage and also look at the escalator, the transit center, etc. Okay. We're starting at three. Three o'clock. Three o'clock. Okay. So we'll continue the public meeting until the 17th of August at 3 p.m. Moving on, policy and legislative public hearings, nothing. Administrative reports, Clanty. You did meet with a water district, water and sand today. We did, we're inching forward. I mean, the really the big question on your guys as part is what we're inching forward towards is trying to figure out a public education kind of issue. You want to make sure it's effective and not putting anybody in a corner. And if you all have any direction or comments on ideas that you want to have addressed, we're all years. But our goal is to kind of have something and have you to counsel with respect to boards by off on them. Okay, thank you. Any reports? We have a boards by off on them. Okay, thank you. Any reports? We have a raft of meeting on Thursday. Melissa. I got nothing. Bill. We have a raft of meeting. I have a raft of meeting here. Anything else? No, I don't have anything. Chris? I just wanted to congratulate the community and congratulate our tourism department for having hosted our day, which was on today. And I heard a lot of the sessions on the radio in between doing everything. That was a program that got sort of to a certain degree cardplunge. But anyway, I had a lot of good assets in Aspen. and I think a lot of people worked hard to bring that here and I think it's the beginning of a new chapter for snowmass or at least I hope so. So I welcome them and I hope that's going well. Yeah, I spoke yesterday on a panel. It was very very interesting. Pretty good crowd and my understanding is we have a three-year commitment right now But had a wonderful time at our day and met some amazing people so he had a chance go up and listen Okay with that do I have a motion for a German? Second on support. Hi. Hi. Good night. you you 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 Thank you. you