We're welcome. Commissioner fire. Here commissioner Gustafison here. Miss. Excuse me chair Marshax. Here. Commissioner Clauson has recused himself from this meeting. Commissioner Dubay. Commissioner Seglon. David online. Can you hear us David? David Seglon. I'm going to start with the first item that's a little red schoolhouse on our agenda but we're going to defer to our next meeting correct. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to start with the last meeting. We will review them in our next and our first item is a little red schoolhouse on our agenda, but we're gonna defer to our next meeting, correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have to last meeting with the snowmass centers, minor PUD application, and the need we felt for this meeting to spend time on that. We did talk with the town as the applicant for the little red schoolhouse application, and they've agreed that the continuation tonight to the December 4th planning commission meeting would be okay with them. So that's our recommendation to you. So if we could have a motion to continue. Second and then I vote to continue it to December 4th. I move we continue the Little Red School House till our next available meeting. Hey, check and go. Like the dog, follow the favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. Thank you. I think David is. Oh, I think he's frozen. So we'll just. Hopefully he'll ever gain. But we still have a quorum with three of us here. Yes. So our next item tonight is snowmass center. So I'm going to turn over to staff to start and then to the applicant. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian McNeil us, senior planner for the record. As you may remember, and as the planning director said, planning commission met last week on November 13th, talked about the Snowmass Center, that was your initial meeting regarding the minor PUD that we're continuing to review tonight. At that meeting, staff was directed by the planning commission to draft up a resolution. You got that rather late today, we apologize, given the streamlining of this application. Staff didn't have a lot of time in order to prepare it. And in fact, the applicant only just received it as well. So I know you're reviewing a lot of this information in real time. It's resolution number 8 of 2024 for your reference. So of course, we want to spend most of the meeting tonight going over that resolution and before doing so, I do want to turn it over to the applicant. They have some documents here that I believe you also received online in response to some of the conversation that we had the last meeting, as well as a traffic report as requested by the Planning Commission. So with that, when we do get to the resolution, the recommendation from staff is that we go through each of the crafted conditions of approval. There's 25 of them, or at least concentrate on the ones that are highlighted. I'm sure the applicant will also have conditions that they want to address as well. But like I said before doing so, I would like to give the opportunity to the applicant to go over their responses as submitted. Dave, I'm not sure if there's anything you want to add. No, I just wanted to know what I just handed out and I think some of you already have this is the response from the applicant on the snowmass center intersection analysis and their additional information on this this item that we handed out to you I know most I think some of you already had that printed out. I do want to say that we have moved this item along, I think as quickly as possible, it came in at the first of October. We did a, I think, a quick completeness analysis. We could not put it on, like the next day for planning commission. When it came in, I think there was some all illusion that we haven't been moving this fast enough. Within one month we put that to the, we came to the planning commission as for a special meeting in November because of the election. We could not hold a meeting on the sixth. We held a meeting on the 13th, which was last week, and then the second meeting today. So I think that the staff, the planning commission, all of the town staff have done a good job of getting on this. This is not what we would normally bring to you in terms of a resolution. I think there are a number of conditions in this resolution, which you will find that are to the benefit of the town, so that it does allow us to continue to review technical and civil plans for technical items and subject to approval of the town. So when we get to the conditions, you'll see that's how we've written this. I'm sure the applicant may have questions or moving on with this, but this is an attempt to get it on to the plan. Excuse me, the town council meeting of December 16th. That does not mean that you have to approve it tonight. I don't want to put any pressure on the commission to that you have to do to do something. I want you to make sure you're taking the time. I also want staff to have the time and the various departments to have the time to conduct their reviews. As you'll see, everything is not settled on all of the items, but we have put conditions in there that I think protect the town and allow this to move forward. We will also have time between November 20th and December 16th with council. Should you choose to go forward to maybe work some of these items out and not have such a wording that's in the resolution, you'll see that when you get to it. If you have any questions, we're here for that. Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Dave. No, I've had an extra meeting, I believe, to turn over to the applicant and thank you for all the memos yesterday and today. It's been coming faster for you. But very clear. And I'm going to let you discuss everything that you've added and We'll have questions afterwards with usual way. Thank you very much For the record my name is Richard Shaw. I'm a principal with design workshop representing the applicant I also have here with me is Jessica Garrow also a principal of the Design Workshop representing the applicant. Well, we have appreciated very much the input that we received from you all at the last meeting on November 13th. I thought the questions that you were asking about, where well articulated, and we've attempted in this brief presentation to go through these four items, which consolidate what we heard relative to the Planning Commission. So, first is actually the category of traffic and access considerations, utility and fire protection. Partly, this was in response to John Mellie's comments in his attendance at the last meeting. The conditions as they relate to parking and architectural considerations. So with that, I'd like to start by really talking about the specific questions you were asking about the nature, configuration, and capacity of these intersections. And I think orange you again, this is the corner of the center as it would result in the final configuration. This is the direction of auto flow into the center. This is the transit center that's proposed relative to the lay by for buses and the actual passenger loading is on this side. So this is the roadway that would provide access to the residential parcels above. And we have had in this last week a chance to have LSC. They are the transportation consultants that have been part of the project from the very beginning. Look at this particular intersection with configuration and what it would look like from a capacity standpoint. Important thing here would be that the four corners of the intersection would be a four-way stop intersection. And that capacity is what was tested assuming 130 units would be above it entering into the circulation system as well as the commercial trips. And they have generated the estimates for the peak hour in the AM and the PM, which is what we care about, of course. And as they run those various trips through their analysis, their conclusion in the memo we provided to you is that this intersection would operate at a level of service A. That's almost unheard of because the town standard would be level C each of those categories represents more waiting time to the point where the lowest level is level F in which the intersection is basically failing. So I think we have a lot of confidence that the questions about capacity and configuration are pretty satisfied by a level of service that would allow future land development above as well as the center's expansion. So the capacity of the transit center itself originally in the PUD that's approved, this is the shelter. These were the areas of loading that took place. This was the pedestrian area that would accommodate that loading. This was approximately 12 by 20 as a shelter. And we have changed that in the amendment to do a couple things. The first was, as we spoke about last meeting, is to locate the actual loading area in a position that allows pedestrian flow down from the future residential and allows from town hall to connect that to the either end of the center. This is now a hundred feet of sheltered pedestrian area. So it's now weather protected where before this was more typical of the shelters that you might find at any intersection like far away road is an example that comes to mind. So that capacity then is also on a very flat grade. And here if you look at the loading, this is almost flat and at the maximum location of this corner, it's about 4.5%. So great advantage in the actual loading and capacity area where people are being loaded and waiting for the bus itself. Along with this was the conversation about how access might be provided about conversation range from is it safe to have the single access point to, would the intersection be able to accomplish the capacity of the future development if that was the only route to wouldn't it be possible to take the service area here and extend it to the east and make a roadway that would loop up? So this diagram really wants to highlight a couple of things. The first is that there are 26 feet of grade change that occur here in about 20 feet. So this is extraordinarily steep. It's created because we're matching down in here, the floor elevations of the existing building. And in a service dock, one of the most critical things is to have it nearly flat. So that the unloading process is easy and the trucks do not have difficulty making maneuverable backing into the loading dock and shifting of the load within the unloading process. And so this tends then to be very flat clear to the edge. As a comparison to what it would take to move a road to the upper level, this is a mountain bike trail. And across this really steep terrain, you can see the kinds of changes that are required, the turns, switchbacks in order to traverse the terrain. So just a quick calculation, this would be a road to go from here to here that would be about 350 feet long. And it would go across some of the steepest terrain of this region of snowmast. We would like to conclude that this really infeasible. And some of the ramifications of that, if there was a force condition to put a road in this location, is it's limited by the switchback. And so not all vehicles you would expect could utilize it. There would be a loss of parking in the area of parcel two that the town was interested in retaining. And most importantly, the amount of grading and retaining walls to accomplish that would really make this infeasible for a number of conditions, including financially. I think the other part just to conclude that was the single access was approved in the PUD. It was for a set of residential units above. We would expect that future development would be considered in light of the fire protection, the construction type and the kinds of fire protection that all development in snowmass would be including more non combustible construction. The two-way vehicle travel, and this was a question about how would various users come into the center. If you were coming down from brush creek road, you would use lower currents road, and you would have the capability on this two-way roadway system to load the parking here, to load the parking along the top. These are two-way parking bays. One of the reasons this remains two ways, which is different than it is today, is the width of the fire aisle. This roadway in the front becomes a public street for fire protection. And that dictates that a two-way dimension would be required in order to satisfy that condition. The second is that the snowmass center is really loaded by two entrance points, one from the wood road roundabout. That would allow both directions coming in to serve the center, having maximum flexibility to choose the location of the parking, minimizing the number of circular trips that would occur. And the third reason for this two-way system is that the parking efficiency is dramatically improved when you go to a two-way system. So in order to provide the parking program that supports the commercial, we want to utilize the land in an efficient way and accommodate the parking that would be convenient and appropriate for a local serving neighborhood. The transit is now highly improved from any other solution that's been discussed, historically is what that reference includes. And it's superior because it eliminates the interaction with transit from any of the other circulation that's parking. And it is dedicated and the bus lay by, which for example today is way over on these areas of the center, is immediate, it loads and there's capacity for the village shuttle that we would see in the future. The service is really also very dedicated to this section. And we had a discussion about service requirements of the center at the last meeting. The way this is proposed to work is to utilize lower-curne's road with direct access into the service bay. The service bay has three large loading docs. This takes care of the big users that are in the center. And it would provide the capability of having these service loading areas here, completely separated from pedestrian and the hikiter travel beyond this level right here. In addition to that, there are compactors, which are located in this area, so that is a service vehicle for garbage collection. Then there's an additional lay by area here that would be possible to maintain for smaller trucks that would be using the center. So on whole, we like this solution. It's not very different than the existing approval PUD and it allows trucks to either leave If they come down to make the right hand turn on brush creek, they continue up Valley on the service routes. This would be a two-way system, sorry, this is the last point, a two-way system that would lead to the future residential above, again connecting to a four-way intersection that is geometrically workable and provides the capacity for all of the various users in the center. This is some of the most recent study that we have been working with the staff on relative to the town hall intersection. This would be an intersection that has a cross-slope of about 2%. And the addition here is to incorporate a landing zone for cars to wait before it transitions into the snow-melted area here of the roadway. And this is something that has gone through numerous conversations, but it represents now the possibly the best compromise between grading, retaining wall, access for the future tying into the existing roadway and the least disturbance to features that are part of town hall at this point in time. So this is something that has been responded to in the memo on public works that we've provided to you, but that's the graphic representation of the last part of the town hall intersection we've been working with. These are the fire protection considerations. We've had a meeting with the fire marshal about the location and other aspects of fire protection. These are the interim condition of fire hydrant locations. And we would work with the addition of water lines that go into those locations and the addition of new fire fighting water capability down in this area of the project. The final condition has the opportunity to meet the international fire code and provide very suitable fire protection for the snowmass center. area appropriate comments about what the visibility of the parking lot and service area is themed from the planning commission. This is the view and a set of illustrations we there is at the lower section here a large piece of open space that is under easement for landscape purposes that was obtained from Alpine Bank. And we think that does a very good job with the proposed planting of working through any of the visual face that is towards brush creek. I would point out that the comment about the service entry is also illustrated well here because the service entry is actually fully enclosed on the back side of the architecture. So from the main views that you would see this, the service area is not visible. This also is showing that we actually have a benefit in fewer and smaller amounts of retaining that are necessary along the face. And previously in the approved PUD, this was the location on top of the wall that was used as a residential and commercial building. Parking proposal originally looked at 200 parking stalls of which are portion or compact spaces. Those compact spaces were located on this area. The conversation was would it be better to have full-size parking spaces or would there be another way of thinking about this? We've looked at the possibility of changing out this row of compact parking spaces, which are on the surface and making those full dimension parking spaces, that results in a loss of about two stalls is all. This would still be retained as compact parking space here and a loss of about two stalls is all. This would still be retained as compact parking space here if the Planning Commission felt this was a good direction. So 198 parking stalls of which those would be full size. There are a few compact parking stalls that are in the parking garage as well, making up the total spaces. The service area accessibility was asked to be looked at. What we have done is show a wheelbase 50 and feel wheelbase 40 truck. These are full on some I trucks. This is the snowmass garbage truck or trash truck and each one of the path of the vehicle movement as they would go into the service entrance. This is actually no different than the previous PUD in terms of accessibility, the turning movements that are required, and the dimensions that trucks of these large sizes would need in the service bay. So we are confident that that will be accessible by the largest truck imaginable for the Stomach Center. The service center, this is a very formal service entry, a loading dock space for storage. There is back of house space in here that relates to trash and then three full service service base. One of these service bays is highly used by the postal service. Currently Clark's market has one service bay that's operable and one that is permanently parked there. That is for storage. So these three service bays take care of the service needs of the post office, the grocery store, a liquor store. And the service core connected to the loading dock is the service core we spoke about. The inset here shows how that all of the retail that's on the west end and in the center utilizes that core as a way of keeping goods and services out of the public and commercial view of the front. The service bay is very fortunate in its location and this was removing it from this general area of the center today and bringing it around to the western side. And related to the earlier comment, you can see that architecturally the service base enclosed on three sides. It is, I think, particularly if you compare it to grocery stores in the vicinity, this is a very enclosed service area rather than something that's open and exposed to view. In all transparency, it appears that you could easily plant more landscape at this location to screen it further. But the truth is that that area is the way in which the snow dump is created. And it just isn't going to be a place where landscape can survive the amount of snow that is stored. We have made adjustments a bit to the planting plant to ensure that to the green possible. This is screened even further. The other advantage of this is that it's just not of you that affects the major public corridors. And it's tucked very deeply into the hillside and behind the building on the other. So we had shown the views of the center from the main public side. This would be the view of the center from the residential in the future. There are connections that lead from the residential. And this is where the residential would be located and the parcel number one. There are sidewalks that lead above and they would be able to allow people to enter onto the roof deck, continue on to this area that's a public amenity and from there lead back down to the lower level and participate in all of these land uses that are taking place here that actually face out onto the roof deck and also along the corridors that are on opposite sides of this public amenity. The public atrium is 775 square feet. Conversation that was emerging from the Plane Commission was what is the nature of the space? How would it be used? It would be an appropriate way of enclosing it or does this opportunity just formally offer something that is absolutely unique in snowmass, which is this idea of a public atrium, facing on the public amenity and potentially food service to create the most unique view in snowmass with great sun. We have looked at other options. We feel this is a good one. It doesn't seem to make sense to enclose it. That would become heated space that would really defeat the possibility of the community gathering. It would eliminate the connection to the outdoors. And the other questions that we would answer probably will come in the further discussion. But the public atrium is a stunning idea that has so much potential at a community serving location. So we hope those will advance the conversation. We also, as you mentioned, had men or memorandums that were delivered, trying to answer more specifically in memo form, the questions that we had talked about last. But we would like to say about the previous meeting. If there's any other questions, it's a great time. Well, thank you. Covered a lot of ground on that. Presentation. I thank you Richard. I appreciate the presentation as always and staff. He did a great job in a short amount of time addressing your question. So I'm going to turn it over to Q&A time, our commissioners, David, say goodnight. Are you online? I am Brian. Can you hear me? Yeah. I'm going to let you start today. Great. appreciate that. Thanks for the, thank you for the thorough presentation. I think we're all interested in moving this forward. It's certainly I am. I just have a couple of comments. I'm going to be pretty brief here. One thing that came to mind when you showed the view of the roof deck from the residential portion where it appears as if one can walk right onto the roof deck from the sidewalk, which is a very nice amenity. Do you think that once the locals get a hold of that thing, they're going to drive up the side road and drop people off at that location. And if that's the case, do we need to have some means in which a car can pull over and let some kids out or let some people out? Or is there some way that we think we can prohibit that from happening? And I have one more comment to make, and these can be addressed at the same time. And that is relative to the lower parking area. I really don't like the idea necessarily of using landscape to mask the parking landscape can come and go and you can see headlights through trees and things like that. And I would just ask the design team to consider whether or not it's viable to raise the retaining wall at the lower parking level facing brush Creek road three or four feet to To mask that parking and mask the vehicles there and those are the two items that I I would I would like the team to consider Thank you for those the It really is not appropriate at the upper deck to have a drop-off zone Although we think that the main way in which people will use that is from the main parking lot up the grander stairway to the upper deck. And there's plenty of land uses that will attract people there naturally as well as the public amenity. The problem with a drop off in that location is that it would be in conflict with the main access that goes into parcel number two. So visualizing a future land development program there that was housing oriented, you would be conflicting that intersection and the movement of people in and out of that parcel. The screening by other methods really has some merit. One thing that is in the code is that any of these retaining walls that are over 30 inches are going to have handrails on top of them, guardrails, which would be an additional 42 inches. We had felt that rather than make that a solid wall, thereby making the retaining walls seem higher that it might be better to keep that somewhat transparent, or at least 25% transparent, so that it doesn't become more like a building. And what's fascinating about the positioning of the use parking lots is they're very, very similar to where they are today. And you do not see very many cars because the viewing angle is from a low point looking up towards the parking and the natural horizon created by the retaining walls that exist virtually screen the cars themselves. I really think the best solution for the way the parking looks is to do architectural materials on the retaining wall and utilize this area along lower and that would be a kind of feeling. And that would be because of its position close to brush creek road. It has a major effect. And that doesn't exist today. So that's our hope relative to the way the parking lot can be as attractive as it can be. Thank you. You guys want to go? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I understand. I think I understand the reason for locating the transit center where it is. That seems to be the natural preferred site versus trying to create a different location with the town shuttles through the shopping center to remain the same roughly the number at the same number of shuttle buses through there on that hourly basis even when the affordable housing is created behind the shopping center. I'm not sure I can answer that that that's really the transportation. Let me if I can if I can we do have our transportation director and public works director here. I could write them up if they would like to come up. We've got chairs for them and a microphone. Make your maybe answer some of these questions that go between the applicant questions and town questions. Thanks Dave. Same where you know transportation director for town of snow less village. To answer your question. We would not anticipate increasing the number of shuttles that would go through the transit center. That's all of our routes go through the center. So we end up providing about five minute service and sometimes less. So that should be adequate service to serve the housing complexes as well as the center. Okay. Yeah, currently where the shuttle bus is going through that can cause the biggest backup in front, but it is a two way street. I understand that. And it's a two way street. I understand that and the way it's designed. The other question again, always stop sign at that intersection and during anticipated level of service still being a grade of a at that at that intersection, during the peak hours, will traffic exiting from Main Street, leaving the shopping center, so to speak. It's then again, the anticipation is with that level service A, that you are not gonna have cars, again, four stop signs, you wait your turn, that whether traffic might back up conceivably on that main street to at some point. Well, that was one of the main focuses of the transportation study. And if there was a backup at the intersection because of conflicting movements, that starts to appear as a degraded level of service. And we've all been in places where the wait time might be 60 seconds in order to go through an intersection. And that would be represented at a level service D. So when you back that end of what is level service service a based on this analysis, it's basically a free flowing traffic movement without wait times. And that's possible because there is a stop and then the flow continues the other direction and then the stopped car can move forward. And the analysis of this program plus the residential and more than was there before really indicates that the backup of traffic at that intersection is not a problem. Oh, maybe just jump in really quickly and add again, Jessica Garrow for the record. When we worked with LSC on this, I had a similar question. Our original traffic study showed that intersection at a level of service B. And so I said, you know, why is it a level of service A now? And it really is changing from a two-way stop to a four-way control stop. And that's what's really allowed that to come up and they're modeling as a level of service A. I know that Brian had brought up the sub-dickering parking space to the number of parking spaces. I'll let him address that with his comment. Overall, I like this project more than the original proposed project. I think it's a it is an improvement You Well, I agree I like this project better than the original as well However, I do still have a number of issues that I want to go through and Richard if you don't mind putting back up the intersection slide that you had for the West intersection there. Yes, or that one or one of the others is fine, but this is this is fine. So the Couple questions that I have in the The LSC study first of all I was when I looked at that in and am I reading this correctly that it went from 66 free market units to 130, your calculation to 130 possible affordable units up there. Yes, that's correct. 130 affordable or restricted units that's required in the purchase agreement. Right. And then I thought that was what it said, but there's a lot of numbers in there. And then the second part of that is the study indicated that there was only 26 additional AM peak time traffic flow through that intersection, which just sounds to me. I'm skeptical that going to from 66 residential units where the timing of people moving out of their units is more spread out, I would assume, than the affordable units. However, I would put the caveat in there that, and this is for the town, is if we can get some auto-dissincentive programs, then perhaps that is somewhat more believable, but to think that we only increase 26 vehicle movements going from 66 free market to 130 of, I'm just skeptical about that. And then the second thing is does the study also then reflect what are the likely turning movements coming out of the town hall site anticipating that perhaps there's another 80 units coming out of the draw site and of those people will, some of them want to be coming up here through this intersection as well. And anyway, I'm still concerned, there's a couple of related questions that spin off of that. Number one is, will that road that goes up behind the snowmass center? Will that be improved? I think I know the answer, but just to clarify that, will that be improved as part of the PUD amendment. The roadway you're speaking about is already in a public right away. That was dedicated as part of the final plat of the original PUD. Partial one in the area that's highlighted in there in the darker colors are the areas of this PUD amendment. And it would not incorporate the roadway any beyond that. That's what I assumed, Richard. But yeah, so if I heard John Mellie last week correctly, that part of the rationale for making the fire protection safer for the affordable unit, potential future, affordable units up there was that that road was going to be widened and sidewalk and so forth. And so my follow-up question to that, sorry that this is a complicated little piece of discussion, but for John is if that road is not improved as part of the PUD amendment and we lose the East Side access way, which you thank you for your thorough explanation of why that wasn't not possible and you had me at 26-foot grade separation. So you did you overkill that for sure, but If we don't have the east side and we don't get the road improvements as part of the PUD amendment Do we still have adequate fire protection for the backside from the backside of the center? Well, I guess that's a question for you. That's for John. Yeah. The existing road, which is there today stays in place. Right. The turn around requirements at the top, at the point in which the eastern road is no longer used because the center is being redeveloped. Right. That roadway begins to serve only as a fire lane. So there is no residential development above it that's strictly about the snowman center and the existing construction type that's here. So the way that plays out is the roadway allows access to the backside. There's a T-style turnaround that is large enough for all the vehicles that are used to be able to make that turnaround. We have added to that the additional fire protection and water supply that goes with the construction type. So there is no parking in that area. There are no cars going up there because that's been replaced now by the parking structure in phase one. So it's empty land with the fire lane on the backside. Well, yeah, when we had this discussion last week about how fire protection would work without that east side with the affordable units, the things that I heard John say was that the road would be widened and improved, there'd be pedestrian access and that, and maybe I didn't get this 100% clear, but that we might be going to type two construction for the affordable housing, which leads to the question. Then do we have that adequate construction type with the one way access for the snowmass center? I mean, it's a question that really is for John. If he says, yeah, no problem, then I'm good. Well, I think that maybe a point of confusion is there is no residential development being accessed by that road. Understood. When the town decides it will build the residential project, that road when the town decides it will build the residential project that road would then be improved to the town standard. That would allow for the pedestrian. I understand. Oh, my question is just is it adequate if we don't make the road improvements now, is it adequate with the one way for the upper side of the snowmass center? If John says fine, for the interim, okay, that's pending the if you come up. Sure. So I'd like to, John Mellie, Fire Marshall, Snowmass, our Ruin Fort Fire Authority. I'd like to thank the applicant for working really hard on answering and addressing some of the concerns just to start. So last week I had mentioned that that road, the single access, was taken into consideration at the current width because of the construction type of the original PUD that was going to be some type 2 development there. And so I was also trying to say that if the town then decides to build affordable housing up there, I think some access turnaround concerns would need to be addressed up there. And of course, when you do type 2, you're building in that fire protection type of things and so I think that would be a consideration of the town when they do decide or if they decide to do development up there I think they have to think of protecting that structure and building to a higher standard than just type 5 A or B. And so the type of construction that is anticipated for the snowmass center now, coupled with the hammerhead turn around at the top is adequate for the, you called it the interim period. After the period, this is a dedicated fire access lane. So matter of fact, we've discussed that we're gonna gate this off. Of course, this would be accessible to town and everybody that matters. But no, it's not the common public is not going to have traffic access to there. But yes, I think it does provide enough for that. Okay. Thank you. So I just want to be clear though. I just want to make sure I'm understanding all this because So when we let's just say we build this phase this is because it's built tomorrow or you know in the next year or so. Mm-hmm. You guys that applicant's going to build a they're going to build a temporary or just a road up to the back side of the center. there. It's already there. Yeah, it's gonna stay. In that parking lot, there's gonna stay. We're gonna keep that. Yep, but it's just gonna be emergency access right now. When you get to the back of the center, the way it is currently, that's my understanding is that stays status. That there's room back there for us to maneuver around to protect the center. That's what I understand. I just want to be, that's what I'm, that's my understanding. I just want to be clear. So, right. And we'll also have the front street now that is wider as well. Right. The front street now is a wider access point. So we think that we'll have a two, a two point access and even a third side where tasters is now basically with hydrant supply that they've considered. So I think it's a reasonable, I have other type 5 construction in this town. I don't have this good access. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Tony. I appreciate your concerns. Yep. So if you can go back to that earlier slide, then about the intersection, yeah, that one. As I look at this now, and now I'm thinking, okay, I think, John has satisfied my possible concern about the backside protection in the interim period, but now thinking about when and if the hundred and some units of affordable are installed there, I'm still skeptical that that's not going to increase by only 26 tire movements. But be that as it may, it just seems like this intersection is going to get complicated. People are going to want to come down and make the left turn into this two-way street here. People are going to be coming out of the draw side, assuming that that housing happens and wanting to go through this way and then there's also going to be other turning movements that are associated with people going up, coming up this way and wanting to make the left turn movement going up to the affordable housing. And all of that leads me to something that nobody wants to hear, which is I still think it would be in my mind better to have one way traffic on that upper parking loop. And that would eliminate a bunch of the left turn movements in here. And I think facilitate the flow through there. I think that probably the transit piece works really well and Sam can talk to that no doubt, but I'm just concerned about all the car movements wanting to go through there and this what I perceive as a congested area. So So, I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think it slows the traffic down, it stops everything, it gives people the ability to make those turns without a stop sign there, four-way three-way, whatever you want to do, but I'm more comfortable with that. The two way person, that's my opinion. Four way stop. And I think that goes a long way. For me, for my concern, I had the same concern. So that's just how I feel about that. Go ahead, Doug. So that lower portion of the transit center is that just for shuttle buses, that's not going to be right. So again, that full-way stop sign is the only entrance rights into the Alpine bank area as well. That'll be yeah, just one more consideration. Well, anyway, just intuitively intuitively and the wider road would still be fine, the wider road through the upper parking would still be fine for the fire protection. And I know we would lose a few spaces if you go to angled parking through there, but I think that just traditionally, that's worked well for the, there's so many quick stop-offs there. And forgive me if we're possessive about this commercial building, but we all, the community members all use this building many times a week if not every day. So we're in and out of there all the time. And it's kind of our thing that we know how it operates and those the backing out movements in my experience in a perpendicular two-way parking lot is more complicated than the diagonal backing out movement when the traffic is one way just in terms of looking and and since we have so many short five-minute in and out to the post office or 20 minutes in and out to the grocery store movements there I would just like to give that further thought for the one way possibility. And then I'll just throw up my other couple of concerns here that those things are related to traffic. I think that the if you go to your slide that shows the perspective view of the atrium from the outside. But yeah, for the outside view. Yeah, that's an that that's an appropriate view there. So the atrium now becomes more or less the entry to the grocery store. Is there a way or did you give consideration to a covered or even a enclosed connection to the post office entry? Like operates now. That's where all the flow is motion is now. And now this is a grocery store entrance here. And then there's a post office entrance over here, but they're not as interconnected. So is that even a possibility in your minds, if it may be needed in some way, but either a covered space that would still serve some of that connection space gathering out or a enclosed space. I mean, maybe that's not a question. Maybe that's just an issue that I have. We have obviously studied a good deal of the entry to the architecture. What you have just suggested, we have not studied a significant way. Partly, we think it's really important that the stairway leading to the second level is really unobskirred. I mean, how does the second level work if you walk that out? You really want the visual connection between upper and lower, particularly if there are services like restaurants that are occupying those kinds of upper spaces? Well, I agree that that's valuable, but I think that the connection between post office and grocery store, in my mind, would take precedence over the prominence of that stair access to up above. But that's just because I'm used to for many years doing it the way we do it. And maybe there's other ways that would be fine. But that connection to me seems really important. I think when the idea of the atrium concept first came up. And by the way, I just reiterate that I do like the architecture statement there. But I think that functionally it would be good to have that post office grocery store connection space, even if it's an outside covered space. Historically, that's been a lobby meeting area when you go in for to pick up your mail or go to the post office. That's where you tend to bump into your neighbor and stop and have a conversation. So that space is really now located outside of the grocery store. Rich Car with CCY Architects. I think part of it is the location of the different uses. It's made much more sense to have the post office where we've located in terms of footprint and other studies we did quite a while ago. So given the separation and the staircase and the evolution of the upper space that's now kind of community space on top of Clarks, which is much different and much stronger than we had before I think. And I would agree with Richard I think the open stair is very important to help that animate that space and connect that upper space to the main street level space. We thought that all those things were more important and makes everything work more than trying to have a hallway that let's say that connects the two together. That makes sense. I also think in some ways you're expanding, you know, Jim, to your understanding how it works today. It's almost like taking that interaction and that crossroads and expanding it to the whole sidewalk connection from the atrium and entrance to clerks over to the post office. So that interaction would happen in that whole space, in terms of bumping in neighbors that are interacting. Yeah, I understand. But it might be beautiful. It might be nice if it was in England. It's not that far either. You know, so I mean, it kind of expands that whole experience to me and actually makes it better than small and more internalized space. So I think it does more things than it does today and energizes more people and there's more connectivity and I call it the crossroads because you kind of have the sidewalk piece and you have the staircase piece and they come together near the entrance to clerks but also near the entrance of the post office. Go ahead, I'm sorry. Well, I was just gonna expand on that thought is that right now that that connection happens internally between the two parts. Now I imagine under this scenario, people are gonna come and go out of the post office and not ever go to the atrium unless they're going to the grocery store. That's why I think when the atrium concept originally came up with the previous generation, that in my mind at least was envisioned to be the connection link between the post office and the grocery store. Whereas now it's two separate things. The grocery store pieces over here, the post office is over there. You come and go out of the post office, but you don't have that same community interconnection that currently exists. I'll answer this question is in this remodel, Clark's stays where it is. It's not being moved. Conversations that ownership has had with the post office, they require an access immediately next to the loading dock. And so that's why they are kind of in the location that they're at. And so we can't really move them into that middle portion and we can't move clerks into that middle portion. And so that's maybe just kind of functional reason why they're in the footprint. And for a better loading dock and all those connections, you put all those things together, they physically can't get closer really. I'm just a connection. Well, I've heard of some of that. And I share Gus's feelings about the loss of that wonderful spontaneous meeting area that we've endured. It just makes it a true community center. And if you lose that ability to have that spontaneous interaction and something is lost. So I guess I'm just saying I think you'll have it in a little different way and they get a little expanded and it'll help engage those other tenants that are between the two as well. I mean, we're's snowing outside. It's dark. You know, yeah, I mean, you just inside now it works well as a community space. I mean, it is really in many ways. Some of the glue that holds the whole community together having that that is, as, you know, is un-esthetically developed as it is now, it still is the space that makes that community connection be able to happen. So I would just suggest that we have a condition not that you do it, but that it gets further studied with the council. Put that down, I guess. Anything else? I did have one other thing, but I've, you know, my many notes here in there, sure I can find it easily. So yeah, once you go ahead, Ryan, and I'll see if I can come back to it. Got that. Or talk about, okay, so I guess I got to talk about parking. So we'll start with parking. I was like kind of surprised at the only last two spaces with your little parking adjustment there with the compact to full size. And my thought is, you know, if, at least on the garage is separate, but if you guys wanna, what would look like if you just did all standard size? How many more spaces would you lose? You actually can't. Can't. So the other parking that's on the surface that stays in that blue color, the depth is not large enough for us to convert that. So it's not a width that's a depth issue. And then in the garage, it's related to where the posts are. Sure. So this is what we're able to accomplish. I'm fine with that. You know, I think I would be happy to make that as a recommendation. I don't know if my other commissioners feel the same, but in this town, I don't know what a compact car looks like anymore, at least in this valley. We were a little different than the rest of the world, but the other note is Sam, you got some comments about, I think we cycle parking or some sort of bicycle parking, can you? What would you like? What can we address to that maybe come up with something? It's really was just about making sure that there is enough space to accommodate future we cycle station. I think that the bus stop is the logical spot for it and that there should be some, it does look like there should be adequate space to have it there. Okay. Yeah. I mean, just outside of the recycle, I've addressed parking, bicycle parking storage and stuff or people can park their bikes or a dedicated area. I didn't really see anything. What are your thoughts? Well, our thoughts are their bicycle storage areas that are possible on the post office side. We actually incorporated them onto the site plan. That's a good location for bicycles to be organized. They're a little bit out of the way and not in the front of everybody's circulation and it's convenient. Okay. Could there be charging stations there as well? Well, we are just showing those for regular bicycles. Are you talking about like a knee bike charging? Right. I think there's a been conversation about having EV charging stations, potentially in the garage and that's what I think is an acceptable condition. David, you have something you want to say? All right. I think I have. Brian, you're asking me, no, I'm good. I want to share if you have the question. So yeah, I would make the recommendation to go with the full size parking or the I would say that on the east side. Yeah, and if you guys are given, I mean, I know you guys You know what your parking requirements are better based on the retail anticipation for the next X year. So I'm gonna I'm okay with the way you have it, the revised plan. Can you go back to the slide of the Brush Creek Intrant slide? I had this a thought. I just wanted to discuss with the number of retaining walls that this project has. However, after, you know, going to look at the site, you know, recently from different views from across the wind stuff, I don't feel it's as big an issue like we've reviewed with other projects with the scale and math with the landscaping there. But one thought is as you enter the center, can you do something more of a iconic light like some sort of a sort of a landscape feature that would be like maybe you would let it for Christmas trees, you know, Christmas lighting and the winter or something, a landscape feature that would be like maybe we'll let it for Christmas trees, you know Christmas lighting and the in the winter or something, you know that would just Kind of create more of a destination type landscaping When you when you come in there not just a few trees I know you guys are really talented at landscaping, but something a little more That would define this as a resort town. Like I go back to the chapel and how they light the trees up in the winter time and maybe we could do something here. I mean we have to be sensitive to princesses resort town. We have a lot of visitors here and to me that would be something that I think would be Going a little bit above and beyond I'm not gonna mandate that but or you know make it as a condition, but Well, yeah, and I see you doing something already, but yeah the element that Make it seasonably different would be to have ways in which power, electric power could be out in this vicinity. Right. And, you know, I think that's something that could be done with the lighting system and make it possible to do some kind of holiday lighting. Okay. Yeah. It just seems like it's a big space. It doesn't. Right now, it just always seems like a weird, um, it's a blank space that maybe we could do something with maybe you do without buying bank in the city, maybe it's a combined effort, but, other than that I think if the landscape and the way you have it here, with the angles I think it, I'm okay with walls the way they are. I think normally I would like to see more of us set back on the walls, but if you guys can do it, that would be great, but I'm going to be okay with that. And then the communal space on the second floor, going back to that. My concern is, I think it's a great space. I think it creates, I think the decks find out this is a great angle. I think I'll get used over time more and more with housing in the back, but that the other space over the atrium, I guess, with the chairs, overlooking is, you know, overlooking. Is, you mentioned that you're going to maybe do a coffee or a restaurant on the second floor that would connect to that? Is that your intentions? Well, there's no commitment that would be intended, but it's just an obvious thing that we would like to have who'd be part of the amenity that's there and pretty easy to visualize a tenant that would find it like to have who'd be part of the amenity that's there and pretty easy to visualize a tenant that would find it exciting to have a coffee shop located here in a delicate desert that relates to a tremendous outside patio. Right. My only concern is I just would hate to see an office space. I'm not, I'm like a condition, but just to the greatest extent that you would least in a journey space to some sort of a restaurant cafe or something like that. Can we make that a condition? I'm not going to mandate it, you know, because I think marking conditions changed and stuff, but I was sure I hate to see them off of space and just use that as an outdoor break room or something, you know, I think it's an opportunity last, but I think your intense is well received by this commission anyway. Yeah, go ahead, Doug. I'm gonna get back to the parking. If you're in, yeah, go ahead, I'm giving my condoms. Off the top of your head, Richard, again, talking about the type of parking you have designed where you're pulled straight in as opposed to angle. How much, you know off the top of your head, how many parking spaces are lost if we go back to it's significant if you go back to an angle parking. Angle parking is inherently less efficient by between 25 and 30% over 90 degree parking. And while it is true that backing out is easier, it isn't necessarily true that you have anywhere close to the amount of parking space in the same linear distance. That's what I wondered, how many spaces you'd wind up losing. My thought is which is the type of parking you have designed where it's straight in on a two-way street. There'll be times when I'm going one direction to parking spots across and so I pull across the traffic to pull in and a lot of traffic, a lot of the vehicles are larger vehicles, pick up truck service vehicles or whatnot and the ability to pull straight in. You can see how difficult that is when you just go up there and watch people park, in angled parking. So I just, I didn't, when you say it, less efficient by 33, 35%, and I just thought it would eliminate people crossing traffic to take a parker's spot as well. Well the other part of this is the width required to do angle parking is brighter and the aisle with it's that means we have to find space somewhere. We have to take it from the sidewalk. We have to remove it from the very lowest tier against the roadway. And I don't think those are good choices to make. There are a couple of things that happen in this situation versus street parking where you have 90 degrees on moving streets. The speeds are way higher. And here, you know, we're going to be looking at, and at 15 mile an hour travel time in the parking lots. That's what you find. The four-way stop sign that we have incorporated here makes that even more so. You've got vehicles stopping before they're entering the parking zones. So that's a huge benefit. But it still is a street. That's flow. Traffic is flowing through. It's not just a parking lot. And how wide is the needed fire access with of the of the driveway between the parking spaces. It would be a minimum of 22 feet. Is that what you're mandating John, 22 feet or so? It's a bit like it's, it's, I should it. Without splitting hairs, if in your redesign, the parking is the driveway portion of the parking is wider, then what Doug is saying is, if you angle those parking spaces, I personally just the utilitarian flow, the pragmatic flow of people going in and out of that space, you know, many movements all day long. It works pretty well now to be able to do the diagonal parking because as you back out, you're looking from traffic coming in one direction. And it operates maybe a little bit more like a parking lot rather than a roadway through. So I would just like to really suggest that further thought maybe it's at the council level be given to the idea of diagonal parking or even diagonal parking with one way. Just make it in my mind it'll be safer and it'll be easier to have all these many traffic movements. I will say we studied this in a lot of detail in the summer and looked at different angles, what could be accomplished. And we got to a parking number about 110 to 145. So it's a significant decrease from the 198 spaces that are shown on the screen here. And getting closer to the kind of a tool. Was that both tiers or just the upper tier? That was both. Well, tier. So it's like now it's two way on the lower tier. And that still makes sense to me in terms of the other access points. So it would be theoretically just quickly, it would probably be around half of that kind of loss if it was only the upper tier that was diagonal and one and or one way, whereas the lower tier would still be two way. And to me that makes total sense. It's mostly the quick in and out of the post office, drop off function happens at that upper level. So it wouldn't necessarily need to be the lower level. I'm assuming when you say you've studied it, you've actually done a field study, you've been out there, watched a traffic flow, or is this on paper that you've studied it? A both Doug. We did multiple schemes and I was going to make this suggestion if you feel additional study is required. The other component is that is the continued reduction of the amount of parking to support the commercial. Yeah, you know, that the lower lot currently, you have that design parking space. And it seems to work fine to pull in and back out whereas the upper level is the the angled again day-to-day experience that angle seems to work well. And I'm imagining it would work better than to pull in. I hate pulling into a parking spot and having to back out. I always pull forward back into my parking spot because in my mind, pulling out of a parking spot is always easy to drive out in the back of me. I and I are both backer inners. My backer out. My shoulder backer inners, yes. It just makes more sense. partner, I sold her backer inners. Yes. It just makes more sense. Yes. I totally agree. People have drive it away. But anyway, it's an issue I'd like to just have the council give it further consideration as part of our position. And the one my one other question that I found while you were talking there, Brian, is when in page two of the memorandum under the second bullet point paragraph there and the second paragraph within that, it's talking about the town hall connection portion of this area. And I didn't quite understand that the 2% cross slope and the 5% for 20 feet and the 4th up to a maximum of 14%, which is that's heavy duty 14%. And then it refers to sheet C2.4. And I couldn't find C2.4 in my package. Now maybe I'm sure it's in your set somewhere. And does that show us or tell us something more that we should understand about that intersection? Colby Christoff with so disengineering. Yeah, so 2.4 does show a plan and profile of that road. When we were coordinating with the town, public works and town engineer, their criteria was no more than 14%. And 14% is steep, but we are on snow melt there. And then the other criteria was trying to get at least a max of 5% for the first 20 feet. So when a car stops at that stop sign, they're sitting level. Which portion of the road are you talking down? Down, hall? Coming downtown hall. Okay, and that road's that segment is around 12%. Now the 12, 1213 11 to 13 somewhere in there. And then would the snow melt? Would that how much of that would be in your minds be rebuilt or any of it with this PUD amendment? And is there additional snow melt then or is it is that road reconfigured in some fashion that I didn't quite understand? Yes, excuse me. So the road, as we've proposed, it would stay in the same horizontal alignment. We would basically go up to essentially the police parking area there and rebuild that road down to steep in it, you know from that 11 to 13 up to 14% in order to get a flatter section at the bottom. I believe right now this snow melt comes to within, I don't know, 15 feet from the intersection. All right, you know, we need to do some more coordination with public works to understand if the boiler has capacity to go right to the intersection with the snow melt. So and my belief is that snow melt road or carriageway is around 14% and probably knows the different segments of that road but 14% is pretty steep and just seems like we're going backwards if we're making that that steeper, especially in the event that we also are then thinking about draw site housing coming along fairly quickly. That's why we put a maximum on that 14 is the max that we have. And so we were working through this and still continue our working through the design elements of it, but those were the criteria that we held to that they couldn't exceed that 14 percent. we held to that they couldn't exceed that 14%. And we want that landing of the 20 feet at five and then typical section is 2% cross-hole. So that's what the discussion was in the memo and they were responding to that. Now what about the, I didn't ask this before, but the road coming down from behind. What's that percentage of that grade there? 10%. That's 10%. Yeah. Again, I just expressed concern. I don't know what the current current condition is eight. The existing what's out there today, I don't have that off the top of my head. Why? But the proposed final plan is a 10%, which is the max. And if the housing is built back up there. Well, that's some of the things we're still working through on what that tie in, no matter what there is the requirement by the fire district to have that access back there to be limited fire, but we're also working through of the phasing of the transit center being constructed in that tie in spot. And the center seems to work pretty well, but the, it's all the other. It's a coordination of the timing. And some of those steeper slopes are due to trying to really flatten it out at the intersection. So we can get stuck cars started or stopped and flatten that transit center out to the extent we could. I'd have a few more points. Can you pull up the. So overview plan. I'd say, you know, somebody, somebody's slides. And by the way, thank you for all the new renderings. I know that was, we asked a lot last week and you guys came through. I know it's a lot of work to do that. So, I want to thank you all for doing that. CC wide design workshop. They're very well done and this is the renderings. I'll answer a lot of questions and who are three dimensional models and stuff. So the area I guess right in front of Clark's market the new atrium. To your eye out. Okay, this area here. Have you guys talked about maybe another I'm going to go to the right. So this area here. Have you guys talked about maybe another stop sign there to slow traffic down? The opinion is that that's really not needed. You are moving very slowly. It has. It would be interruptive because it's not really at an intersection. There's a very clear understanding of where pedestrians would cross. It's planted at those corners. It's curb bulbs come out narrowing the roadway down. It's identified quite strongly as the core that goes from the lowest tier, eventually connecting to the pathway, the lowest tier of parking all the way back up to the main stair and to the entrance to Clarks. Okay. And then my last question is, I guess over here in the transit center, have you guys addressed like things like we cycle or things like that, but like shopping cart people are going to take the shopping carts and leave them there. Have you guys addressed that or just make provisions for that when that's built lot of detail about that. Okay. To be honest, Brian, it has at the ground level going into the structure itself. There's an area there that would be for someone who would use an elevator and take groceries down. In that particular case, the majority of people doing transit are going to have curable grocery bags. I mean, I personally have not visualized that the grocery carts go clear across. They would stay in the vicinity of clerks. Okay. It's an unknown I just worry about a cart sitting there and then if we're running down to getting on the street and rolling down the road, you know, but I guess that's something that could be addressed by staff, I staff at some point. I just want to know if you guys have that conversation. You have a shopping cart retain tunes theme on another town staff. Well, we could. That was my only question. Overall, I love the plan. I think it's a great plan. I think it's a very good amenity to the town. So with a few comments and recommendations, I think we could. You guys want to move in? We can look into the resolution. One question to get popped in my mind is snow removals through the parking lot, through the two-way main street. Is that will that be the responsibility of the owner of the shopping center. Yeah, there was a very clear distinction in the development agreements and the original PUD about where the responsibility of the town of Stomas Village was versus the owner of the center. The parking lots remain with the center. There was a cutoff point for lower curns road that is just at the intersection of a little spur parking in that location. And then on upper curns, it was right in this vicinity where the responsibility ends. So yes, the parking lot is the center. Bill, it's a private contractor. Well, it's up to the center to do it. However they would choose. And I'm assuming that's fine, respire department as well. So how it's maintained during during the winter season. Yep. Right. And I think we discussed even the back area that they would maintain that as well. Okay. So whoever maintains it, I think it should be decided. So I had one more that I thought about while you were talking about the service area and If I understood you that you Richard but when you describe the three bays there that one is a sort of full-time Tractor or trailer is in there and then the two, one is more for the post office. And then the other one is the grocery store coming and going. If I heard you right. So then my question is, what about the other retailers on this far end here? I assume that now the plan is that all the loading takes place here. You've got that corridor that goes back behind to service these. The heaviest use was the liquor store that's now located elsewhere. So that's less of a concern. But I still have this vision of those 35 foot delivery trucks that want to park right here because it's just so much more convenient and do they have an actual place in those three bays to service that and then you know the main sticking point with your previous application was that there just wasn't adequate West retail service, which is that when the liquor stores out of the equation, that's far less of a concern, but they still have deliveries and is so how does that work? How are there three bays enough? Yeah, I probably confused you what I was talking about in the existing service bay. There is a permanent truck located there and it's just the trailer. It is the back of the house supply that Clarks doesn't have. So in this situation, these are active bays. We don't have that need anymore because you've got interior space. Okay. That makes sense. That's good. Yeah. You know, the liquor store location has so many advantages for their deliveries. They're the ones that have a number of trucks coming. Right. They have to unload. So they are now here on the ground level and they have a service dock located here. So all that storage is actually taking place inside the NDRL did. Just don't want the... I know that from previous experience that most of the trucks that were on that west end were the liquor trucks and just wanted to be sure I understood that we're not going to have that problems In the future some of that consideration was it any retail and building 6a and big and of course those ownership gone away I've seen this done some other projects similar not to the exact level, but I've seen it work Where the loading docs like that. And then comes down to management issue as well. So that I'm okay with that was kind of always okay with it, but yeah, we're moving those two other buildings really simplifies it level. If we know any more comments or questions, I'd like to go into this. Maybe we we've talked about resolution, but before that, I'd like to open this up for public comment or comment from staff. Go ahead, Dave. First of all, thank you to the applicant for working with us this past week and getting a lot of responses. It's just been, I know, and then also thank you to our staff for coming tonight. And so I think that helps you get the answers to the questions on this sort of what I would call an expedited review. One question I would have if I may through you, Mr. Chairman, is, and I think the explanation of a loading dock and everything was very good, but I, in one of the things that came to my mind when I was looking at that was, and I'm not sure, maybe the applicant can answer this, is those trucks back in, there's lights coming out, was and I'm not sure maybe the applicant can answer this is those trucks back in there's lights coming out. There's no screening wall going to the woodbridge toward the woodbridge condos and I don't know exactly where they are on these drawings and I didn't know if they had anything to that to answer that question. Well, the woodbridge is actually separated by grade by quite a significant amount between the service stock and down below where the buildings of the Woodbridge are located. The trucks would actually just shine into the landscape, opening space that's adjacent to the center. So not into the third story of the on the menu. I don't believe so Dave. I mean, I don't know the floor elevations of all of those buildings. I know there's a great difference, but those on the many of them are also built up. Yeah, they step up as they move around the sequence of it. I would just ask that you look at that look into that. Yeah, we could establish those nominations and compare them to the service stuff. We don't really expect a lot of service to be taking place at night, though. I mean, that's just not the way every takes place. Just thinking of the resident of that upper level condominium. Staying with anybody else? Have any more comments? Sam? Just when you're about to ask for public comments, I acknowledge that we've just gotten in the last day or so some additional information, which maybe it was a couple days ago, but as usual, J. Schumacher makes a pretty extensive study and there's always some food for thought and some decent ideas in there that I just have not had time to digest all of that yet. And I saw that Jay was here, no doubt. That document maybe is gone now. But there's just more things to think about here. Yeah, I mean, I haven't really had time to review. First of all, I mean, I mean, I'm going to time even look at this resolution. So it's, I don't know if we get this done tonight, but we could definitely talk about additional conditions at this point. But at this point, is anybody in the public would like to come up in comments. I don't know if we have anybody in the public. Yep. So we have a few options here. We can keep discussing this with the applicant or we can look at formulating some of our recommendations or conditions into a resolution at this point. I'd like to begin to review of the regular issue. Yeah, that's good. No, I think that's good. And one of the steps in that, I mean, the findings are always relatively straightforward, although I think we can have staff kind of present the findings. And then look at the conditions. Mostly these are things that you guys have developed, but taking into account maybe some comments from the planning commission last week. And we may at least from my thought, we may want to add a few conditions, but just starting to walk through those conditions. I have to say I'm skeptical that we're going to get through this tonight, but it's every time it is 540 and there's a lot of stuff here. I would say this is mainly put together by community development staff. I think that we sent it to public works and transportation and brought maybe one o'clock or two o'clock or something like that. And you got it shortly thereafter. So yes, it's been next but I didn't. Yeah, and not a lot of review. Yeah, but we do have them here tonight. Maybe they can answer some questions. Yeah, we don't get through it. We can make changes. I mean, not really. We like to. I like to read it at times. I've had time to look at this. So I don't know if we wanted this, I think we should start with additional conditions that we laid out. Night. Go ahead, Dave. Dave? I was going to say, Brian, yeah, I agree. I just would want to ask Dave, we understand that the clock is ticking here and time is of the essence. If we get to a point where we really can't vote on this resolution, what does that do time wise? resolution. What does that do time wise and when do we have to get together again to make sure that we meet whatever deadlines are required so that the deal can move forward and be closed? I would suggest December 4th is our next regular meeting and if we can anything that's unresolved today that we plan to have this on the agenda even though it maybe is trying to push other things off the agenda then which is an issue as well. Let me try to respond to. I mean it's a good question and we've had some time in the past week more time than I had last week to respond to all of that and work with the manager's office because getting through planning commission is one thing and then meeting timing and getting onto a town council meeting is another. We've responded to the applicant's request for trying to at least get this on the council's agenda before the end of the year. That anticipated timeline would be December 16th with exactly what Mr. Gussis suggested which was a December 4th planning commission hearing. We would have the applicant advertise the public notice prior to December 4th in order to meet the 15-day requirement. Again, if for some reason you did not adopt the resolution on the fourth, we would just simply go to the town council and have to continue that item if that did not happen. So we made arrangements for that. The manager's office is okay with that moving forward. The two other items that we've got going are we've got some big items. And I think I mentioned that coming up, Little Red School House, a special review. You've got that documentation. We are also looking at the shop or the ski co-housing operations project. That's scheduled for the fourth. But again, we can work with those items and move them to later dates, but we need to, you know, our main objective here is to get this through and we've worked with the applicant. They've said yes, they can work with that. It would be first, there's be two readings at council. First reading would be December 16th. I'm answering to the questions. I'm just looking at this resolution. And I'll see you in a way we can get this done 15 to 20 minutes, you know, or normally, even as another hour. But what I would like to do is, is, is, discuss additional conditions, maybe that we discussed tonight that we could add to this. And then that would give us time to review it. And then come back with thoroughly reviewed amendment with conditions that I think you'd be more comfortable. And I think that would give the applicants had a whole lot of time to review this as well. Yeah, I'm just that's my opinion. I know how you guys feel about that. They also just received it prior to the meeting. Yeah. I think from our perspective, just kind of working through as many conditions today as possible and you know, then that's needed. Yeah. Yeah, well, we. it was a whirlwind. I can tell you that. It really depends on how you guys want to tackle this. You know, the body to your point commissioner is, you know, pre-standard eyes. We're pointing out the response criteria for a minor amendment, which obviously is a lot less than a national PUD. So we can go through that stuff if you want. I think it'd probably be better expedited if you know, possibly we went through the conditions we could even go as far as going over the conditions that the commissioners have highlighted. The ones that you have concerns about are legacy modifications too. And as I said at the beginning of my presentation, I'm sure there's a number of them that the applicants would want to speak to as well. Brian, I think so. I agree with that. I think at least it's better prepared for the next meeting. Yeah, and this is a minor PD amendment by your technical definition, but it's a pretty major change to what we've been looking at here. And then the conditions, of course, are all new to us. But what you've gleaned and drafted and have the town concerns. Right now we have 25 conditions and not including what we discussed tonight. So do you want to go through one by one? We can go one by one or I just would like to discuss what we want to add tonight perhaps. The new conditions that I know first, you know, the parking reduction. Or revised parking plan. You can say that 298 spaces. Yeah, and I already have that included. It's an easy change to a condition that we already have in there. I'm excited on what's in here. So I'm just saying. Yeah, so that that specifically be number 14 condition number 14. We'd specify the number of compact spaces that would remain or the conversion of those compact spaces to traditional conventional size spaces on the east side. And we can do the word Smithy for that for sure for the next meeting or something. Then what other conditions I mean, I know Doug and Gus and David had some items in there. I just had a very simple item to add Brian and Brian. If we want to look at number 17 on the conditions. And in the third line line 152, I was only going to propose adding a comma after the word development and add parking lots, comma, vehicles, hand retaining walls as it currently exists. It would read screening the development, comma, parking lots, comma, vehicles, and retaining walls has seen. If that's acceptable to the other commissioners. Sure, it's a fine recipe. Yep. And guess what other items? Well, we touched on something to Gus brought up. The ability what we're losing was that ability to not have a common, a commute, that lobby area that I talk about, the connection that we've had in the past, between the post office and the grocery store where we have those spontaneous meetings with neighbors and friends that we haven't seen in a while. And to lose that, again, if you have an experience that if you don't if you're not a a community member it's a nice it's a nice amenity for that for the shopping center so we could explore somehow that separation will take away from the from the spontaneous nature of that. I'd like to suggest that a condition could be that the planning commission asked the town council to consider that concern and evaluate the, you know, discussed with the applicant and evaluate the possibilities or the need for that. I think it's really a very critical part of the community. And I dug, I just did a quick calculation. I've probably done that 15,000 times in my time here. That's actually a conservative estimate going through that. And I hardly go through there a single time without running into somebody that I haven't seen recently. And it's a wonderful part of the community. One of the reasons that I love not having post-the delivery to all the homes. And very few times are you wishing that, oh, I wish I could have avoided that person. Well, there are those times, of course. I'm sure that when it comes to me, there are people that go, I wish I could have. I don't know about that. You wanted to see a condition to ask the council to work with the applicant to give that further consideration. If I might, I wrote that to ask the town council to explore the possibility for an enclosed space in the parks. In closed and or covered space that connects the two. I mean, even having it be a covered space would be some level of compromise, but I just think right now I was thinking of the analogy of Aspen, you got the Post Office and you got Clark's market. They're further apart for sure, but they are two very distinct things and you come and go to either one of them without thinking about both. And I think that that would damage this community fabric. store and post office. You express that much better now, dear, but that's right. It's a very coveted experience. Is the liquor store going next to Clarks? Is that been determined? I mean, that's not Clarks on the post office. It's right between those two items. Maybe the communal space? Did I misread the plans? I thought the post office was, and the plans that I looked at, there were not labels in the boxes. I mean, there were small scale plans. I'm sure there were far more detailed plans, but I assume the post office was the piece that was closest to the grocery store atrium, not, okay, well you're, I'm sorry, I misunderstood that. So it makes what I'm thinking much, much more difficult now. Those are the, the Sundance. Close, yeah, yes. Might be the new. Well, yeah, but people go to the post office every day. That's the that's the glue. I agree. Yeah, it's on the. Yes, I'm my apologies. I totally misunderstood that. This is Clark's. Yeah, yeah. Post office potential for where Sundance would be located is here. So. And then this is the community atrium. Nice. Yeah, I. The drawings that I was looking at didn't have labels in the, there were small scale drawings, didn't have label in the boxes. And I assume that this piece was, where am I supposed to be now, but that piece there was the post office. That was the liquor store. But again, it's really related to that adjacency to that particular loading dock. Yeah, I just don't think there's a need for that big connection between the liquor store and the post office, like there is between the grocery store and the post office, but Doug, I think you share that thought as well. I'm going to go to the one-way and angle parking. Yeah, I would like to make that just a condition that the council again give that further consideration, not as opposed to us making it a condition that it should be one way and or should be angle parking. I think I agreed with David's thought of possibly extending the solid portion of that retaining wall up higher, just high enough to pick up the headlights and screening or we're screening but I can't really visualize it. Richard was saying that the angle is such that you really don't get that but certainly you get headlights pointing across the valley if we do that in parking lots all the time that to extend that wall up to screen the headlight, just the headlights, it's only like 30 inches or so. You live any other missions, guys? David, any other conditions you'd like to add or you get still? No, thank you, Sprint. I'm good. Well, the other conditions I would see is the same thing about that traffic area. I just think that I didn't get I'm not sure I heard the answer if I even asked the question correctly, which is, has there been a study that takes into account the fully developed draw site, the fully developed center, affordable housing, and all the traffic that flows through that intersection, and whether that still maintains an A level of I just am very skeptical that that's not gonna be a traffic mess. You're looking at actually two different intersections. The intersection that we have studied is the one on the center site. The town has done a transportation impact study on the potential of the draw area. There is not to my knowledge a linking that goes back and forth between the effects of one and the other into one overall view of that. So we have a lot of confidence given that we're level A and there's a lot of other assumptions that could be made, but at LOS A we have really flow free flowing traffic and So I can't speak for the draw Traffic study that was completed and at least part of the public record on the draw site shows that the town hall intersection would operate at a level of service B with the new housing. So standard for the town is level of service C. And so again, I think the conclusion from our team from LSC was even adding the draw site, you're still better than... And the only thought there is that the draw site with that might, many more housing units is going to add to traffic flowing through that question, the questionable or they could be intersection in question because a lot of people will be coming down from the draw site in and out through that intersection to get back and forth to the grocery store. So it seems like they all ought to be thought about together as one contributing, all the contributing traffic factors and I would just ask again that council give that more consideration. Those are the three things. I know that you know if we be. And stand had skewed. So, Commissioner Clauston has recused himself from this item. He was available tonight. Should we have gone to the Little Red Schoolhouse? Right. I believe he would, I have not heard from him for December 4th, but we would ask on that Commissioner DuBait did respond that he could not make it tonight for personal reasons but could make it on the 4th. person by the fourth or Commissioner Dennis's. Because I think Matt's a good contributor to the discussion as well. So I just seems like this is the work that we have. It's many I agree is as possible. How much ketchup woman? Having missed these two presentations. Is that fair to us? Is that fair to the applicant to start again? Well, I don't think we would. I don't mean it, but I'm sorry about the if it sounds weird, but correct. Good questions. I think Matt can get himself up to speed as best as possible. Matt reads the minutes and I know he even if he does, and he stays up to everything. I've been following this, but some of my question to staff is I think we like to spend a little more time on this. And I think you said that applicant would like to review it to you. I think all parties need to review this a little more detail. We could turn that around the next meeting. I think we could get this revolved fairly quickly. Again, I just not comfortable going through this line by line, you know, an applying document. We've never really done that before. Just think traffic in Turkey. All right. Anyhow, other thing I want to ask is my fellow commission. We never really talked about construction management or anything. Did anybody have any issues on that or the phasing? We never really got into that. I've kind of reviewed it. I didn't really have too many questions, but I know it's very complicated, but I think your intent was to leave the market and certain services open during construction, if I've read things correctly. Definitely true. But I'll have to suffer a little, just like in all our other projects, but we all have to suffer a little just like in all our other projects, but Well, Brian, I think you're right the Construction management plan is is complicated and I think if we were gonna have that conversation We should have a representative from the contractor At the table so that we can we can hear from them and bounce questions back and forth to fully understand what the Impact is gonna be because you're right It's a what I gathered. It's like a five year five year plan. Is that correct? Start to finish That did I read that correctly There there is an opportunity to have some phases have been simultaneously which right Right opportunity to have some phases have been simultaneously, which is not a great deal of overlap. And that's understandable just based on the complexity of keeping some of the businesses open during the time. But I think it would be great to have a representative from the contractor available that we can have that conversation with them if we want to. We heard Hazelton's name mentioned last week. Have you gotten to the point where you have a contractor on your team yet? Well, we have them involved in pre-construction services, including the construction management plan. So, not a commitment, but maybe if phasing is a significant concern, Brian, that we might ask to have their representative here to talk about that. Again, it's up to you guys if you guys want to go through. I was just kind of briefly scanning on this realization. We never usually do talk about construction management and we decover a lot tonight. So if you guys want to discuss that at our next meeting, we could do that as we work through this resolution. Let me just have a question, Brian. Is your right? The conversation with the construction management plan is important. is a critical though to our reviewing the proposal and approving it and moving it on towards some town council and can that conversation with the contractor happen at a later date, slightly later date without impacting the resolution that we have in front of us. There was a good deal of discussion with the original play plan several years ago and obviously this is scaled back. So I do think some clarification would be good. This is a one step process. Last time we'll see this. So yeah, so if we. If that's a significant concern, which I guess it is for the community, for how this is all going to unfold over the next years. Yeah, I guess I have a better idea. The scale back project, how that impact the original construction, the phasing that we were here. So at this point, I think, I mean, we could definitely get this probably reviewed in any conditions that might arise from that. But I think would it be possible to have that discussion in our next meeting with a we can ask and see if they're available. There is a condition number seven that is specific to the construction management plan that is substantially similar to what is in the current approval to just ensure that there's ongoing operations, particularly for the post office and the grocery store. I think we're comfortable with that and if there was additional language that the commission wanted to add, I think we would be open to that. We can ask Hazelton if they're available. And if they're not available, if we to have more in-depth conversation with you all I mean you understand is equally as well but I think that. I think that's a consensus with the commission that we would like to have that conversation maybe at the beginning of the meeting and then we'll work through the conditions and get this resolution. So we're looking. Helpful. We have five slides that walk through the specifics on the construction management. If you'd like me to do that now, we could we could do that now. Save it. Yeah. Fine. You guys get on time. David, you get on that. Go ahead. We'll do that and then we'll move on. Thank you Jessica. So as you mentioned, this is really a five phase construction management plan and really importantly phase one is all about utilities and making sure that we are working on access for the lower parking area. There would be no change to the tenants. There's no building construction that's happening in phase one. So this is really site work where we're working on that garage. The temporary access point and Alpine Bank to make sure that they are able to remain in operation throughout construction and have good access. We'll also be working on construction of the garage and the access above for emergency aids. Then we move into phase two, which is where we construct the new eastern annex, if you will. That is where the post office would be. It is the loading dock. And it's really focused on being able to move, finish that piece and then move tenants in. So it's a move once situation. During phase two, we would also be completing the lower current improvements in order to make sure that there's access up to the new loading dock area. In phase three, again, kind of tenants are staying open. We're working to connect the new Eastern Edition with the existing building because we're doing a remodel of the existing building. So we're focused on making sure that that connection is done properly. Phase four is where we start to demolish and rebuild the southern facade of the existing building. So where there are some existing office spaces, those get taken out. Clarks remains in operation throughout this phase of work. And again, doing vertical construction as we move through these phases to enable tenants to have a move once situation. And then finally, phase five is working on the roof and where we start to have some potential impacts to clerks making sure that they can stay in operation, but there may be portions of the store that would need to be closed for a limited period of time in order to do some of that work back there. But- What do you mean by limited? Six months or on and off week here- We care there, right? It's not a seven-month closure of half the store at all. This is really trying to make sure that clerks can remain in operation throughout this as just a four part of this NMS community and of course service. Question about the utilities in phase one. To what extent, and maybe that's subject to some of the other phases as well, but to what extent are you anticipating or future proofing the utilities for the potential future affordable housing in that purple zone there. So, for the utility work, it will be stubbed at the property lines to make sure that when the town does move forward with their development that you're able to tap in immediately to gas, sewer, water, fiber, and all of those. But the size is, things will be sized to where they can handle that future magnitude. That's the plan. Okay. That's good. Phase one with utility work, will that have any impact or lower current, will that impact into brush creek road, will there be a lane closure at any point? After having just dealt with that for the last time. Oh my gosh. Yeah, probably, but I think we would limit that to the extent possible. Access to the bank for that matter. Okay. So we kind of within each phase, there's many phases, right, to make sure that we are not closing off access to everything at one time there would always be emergency access and a clear access to businesses. So you know that's really important to us and I think to the community. Dave, questions? No, no. Yeah, I think that's a good overview. I think there might be some more specifics like still works, but that area right in there, where everything, all the phases connect and still that's key, the community just needs those functions unfortunately, unfortunately we do have them, which is great, but you need them. Best case, worst case timing and all this. Not too early. I mean, this month wise, not dates or. 36 months, 16 months, or we've. Open up a different document to pull it up. Give me just a second. If I don't, don't remember that off the path of my foot. So we've provided an updated construction management plan based off of some comments that we had received from the town and from the fire district. And so this goes into quite a bit of detail on limits of disturbance and phasing and things like that. This also has down here all of the kind of more detailed graphics that are specific to how access is being maintained within the different phases. So that's something that I encourage you to take a look at. And then in terms of the full, if we're not combining timeframes. Good. Anybody have anything else? I have to confess I didn't print all the pages. I mean, there was a lot of massive packets here to digest in a week. So it's got a fraction on it. So last book was 800 pages. Is there anything else for tonight? So the last book was 800 pages. Is there anything else for tonight or are you? No. I'm good. I'm good. Thank you for the prompt to structure management discussion. That helps me understand a little bit more. I think all of us important part of our review. At this point, I think we'll just continue to theimate it. I had to come back here on the force. If you want to do an update for any reason. Could we have a motion to contain? Any motion to continue? I am to the floor. Move we continue to December 4th. I'll second. All in favor? All right. All right. Thank you. Appreciate your patience and thank you for the Herkulean effort getting this off to us tonight. And I'm sorry that we since we have such a good resource here with Ann and Sam that we didn't. I do want to thank both. Yeah. And that's him for coming and. And also our staff are getting ready and they're the applicant for follow-up of responses and planning commission just to appreciate you receiving all the items and a lot of this was sent this week but not not last Friday so give it to you as soon as we could. The stuff was ground into the conditions so yeah. So yeah, we appreciate it. Oh, I do have one item I'd like to talk about. And that is in talking about dates again, because of I'm taking it, we're not meeting on January 1, which would be the first Wednesday, my suggestion would be to move to the second and fourth Wednesdays for January. So the eighth and the eighth and the 22nd rather than the first and the 15th. Yes. We could also do 15th and 22nd, but just providing two weeks between meetings. So we're not putting the same situation we were this last week. No. That's my suggestion. I think eight and 20 seconds make perfect sense for us. And Ashley and I can get getting this room reserved and everything. Yes. Yeah, I think works. That'd be fine. That's all fine. Okay. And for the next meeting, can you make just the first agenda item so we can? Yes, we'll put this on first. Then please, little red schoolhouse on second and we'll talk to the. We'll see if we can put the divide on or maybe talk to the applicant about moving that. Understood. I mean, Dave, just understand it. So right now, were we tentatively scheduled to have the ski co-housing projects on December 4th? Correct. And because that's a very important and it's got issues and it's a very important project, so I don't want to short change that either. Well, and that project has ever changed as well. We actually just saw changes to that project this week that were pretty significant. So I think Dave and I were just talking that that my merit pushing that back a little bit. Yeah, that's the case to be great. It's actually we think it's a might not be a bad change or a good change. Sure. But again, it just, but it is that sketch plan. And I think that's the time to where he make these type of suggestions. Sure. Yes. And it's an important project. And I don't know that we'll get three items on. I don't know that's what that's thinking. The three big items. It's different. We don't want any bad changes. Anyway, we want good changes and better changes. Correct. Any other items tonight? That's it. Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor? Hi. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Ashley, for everything you've done. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Thank you, Ashley. everything you've done. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Richard. Happy Thanksgiving. Yeah. Remember traffic traffic intersting. We'll be having to do in this next two weeks. Traffic and traffic traffic. Traffic intersting. you