I'm going to start roll call actually. Yeah, we're ready to go. Chairman Mershack. Here. Commissioner Clausson. Here, but recused from the first agenda item. Commissioner Seiglin. Here. Commissioner DeBae. Here. Commissioner Gustafason. Here. Commissioner Far. Here. Great. Thank you. First time tonight will be approval of you have two meeting minutes. So we'll the first one is on November 13th, 2024. Anybody have any comments or any additions or anything? Let me know. Not we'll pass up. I think just just do update the footer at the bottom of each page. It says June 5th. Yes, we're in a little bit. What page was that? All the pages. It's just it's just fix it once it'll pick it up on all the all the sheets. Oh, yeah, you're right. Thank you David. We will edit that out. Anybody else have any comments? Okay. I'm going ahead and motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Thank you. Our next item is approval of the meeting minutes on November 20th, 2024. Anybody have anything they like to discuss or add. Again, the footer needs to be updated. OK. David, did you have something other than that? No, just just the footer to date. Yeah. All right. In a motion to approve. I'll move approve the minutes. All right. In a motion to approve. I'll move approve the minutes. Okay. Second. Two more seconds. Okay. All in favor. All right. Hi. Hi. Okay. Stan will be abstaining guests. Okay. Our first time tonight is the snow mass center. Our continuation from our last meeting. I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Brian McNeilis to start. And then thank you, Mr. Chairman. Or thank you. Staff doesn't really have a presentation this evening. I understand that the applicant doesn't have a presentation either. I think the purpose of this meeting was to kind of dive into the resolution and go over specifics of it. And in particular, the conditions of approval that are included in that document. We do have a number of people from different departments within the town in the audience here tonight. I answer questions for planning commission as needed. I do want to fire authority as well. I'm sorry, fire authority. Fire authorities here as well. Before we jump into the resolution, I do want to point out that there were some changes made in particular. There was an error in terms of specifying that there are eight parcels within the faraway ranch north subdivision. In fact, there are six. So that has been updated in the resolution that those are on lines 31. And then the leave also in the conditions of approval lines 212 and As the planning commission wants, I'm bringing up the resolutions. This is draft resolution number eight series of 2024 from planning commission. And as desired, we can go through this resolution line by line. Hopefully we can probably be more expeditious and a quicker way just to jump into each of the conditions of approval because there are 35 of them. So that could take some considerable time. I know the applicant has highlighted a few that they want to talk about possibly the planning commission we can do it that way too or we can go through each of the conditions one by one if you desire. Yeah, that'd be great, Brian. I'd like to first hear from the applicant what they have highlighted some conditions. And then we'll take it from there. Maybe let anybody else have anything like to comment Dave go ahead. Just to further I wanted to just reiterate, we have had two meetings on this November 13th November 20th as well, and that's why we're starting with just going right into the resolution. That's right where we left off the last meeting and Don't want it's Reclude that we do another presentation, but I think we've gone through it at two meetings and we said hey, what let's Continue right onto the resolution. So that's where we're at. We ended up with almost reviewing it. So I like to get started. I like to I like to continue from there. But first, I like to have the applicant discuss any highlights that you mentioned. And then maybe open up some questions. Maybe what the town staff or anybody if there's anybody on the commissioner has on them. We can and we've got the conditions one to mention that this is a public meeting. So they're made members of the public that are here that may want to comment. It's probably appropriate that we do open up the floor. Is important. Yes, we will do that right. Don't worry that mix. But go ahead. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Again, Jessica Garrow for the record. I'm a Principal with Design Workshop and I'm joined by Darla Calloway, also a Principal at Design Workshop. We are just really appreciative of the time that the Planning Commission has spent reviewing the Snowmass Center application. We feel really comfortable moving forward with the resolution that is before you. As staff has mentioned, there are a few areas where we've highlighted as things that we anticipate needing to continue conversation at the council table. Some of those are related to timing of construction management as it relates to when the transit center is being developed and how the tie-in with WRIM Road occurs. Our team has been working really diligently with staff to work to address those. And so that we would anticipate that there's just continued conversation at council for some of those technical items. We're happy to go through each of the conditions that we've raised or if we wanna go through and we can just chime in as we get to each of those conditions that would be fine, whatever the commission's preference might be. Okay. I think we'll discuss through it our normal process. We start usually from the top when we just kind of go through each condition. There's really nothing of concern. We usually just kind of go over that, skip it. But I want to turn it over one last time to the fellow commissioners to see if there's any questions or any concerns that they want to bring up before we start our review with the applicant or staff. Now I think it's the last time to do that. So I think I'm going to start with Matt because you might have some questions or something. Well, I've had considerable downtime the last three weeks. So I was able to I know you've been anticipating offline though. Thank you. Right. Right. Yeah. I was able to review the video from the last last meeting and review the packet and familiarize myself with the plan. So I think I've got a pretty good grounding in the project as well as the resolution. One quick question is, and going through the resolution, is there an opportunity to add modify any conditions that are shown on the resolution? Let me, if I can answer that. Absolutely. We got through the presentations, through lots of several questions, many reviews. We did not, I think we were right at the beginning of starting the review of the resolution. So this is the time for any modifications, additions, deletions, concurrence questions. Like Brian said, we have a lot of staff here. We've got the fire authority here if there's any applicants here. So as we go through this resolution, we can answer those. Okay, great. Thank you. That's our word, but this started the start of the review of the resolution. Okay. I just had a few there, their minor. So, yeah, you want to be. Okay. Pretty, pretty quick. You want to just get when we go through you can add them in the proper areas. Okay. Yes. Thank you. David, do you want to anything you want to comment before we start our review? No, I just have a, you know, as we go through it, I just have one or two items I want to add for clarification. That's all. Yeah. Thank you. I'm fine. I think I have a couple of potential conditions that I'd like to discuss, but I think we could go through these conditions first. And my suggestion is that we just take the time to walk through and maybe Brian leads the discussion, just walk through the conditions that we currently have and the implications of each of those. And then like I said, I've got one or two other things I would like to bring up at the end. Okay. Brian, you just, so if everybody is in agreement, we'll just start with the conditions. If you want to kind of walk us through. Certainly. So I have the conditions up on screen for you. And, you know, these are never in a very specific order, but sure, often times we try to add them as a level of importance. And this is certainly one that was discussed a lot, not only with our building department but also with the fire district. And this is sort of a timeline that they came to agreement on. The applicant may want to speak to this, but there was some language in a previous approval, saying that they would have to adhere to the 2015 international building and fire codes. And by nature of opening this up, we would like to update that to make sure that we are, that the new center, if approved, would actually meet current standards and codes by no later than July 1st, 2025. Yep. And those would be the most recent codes that the town adopts. Sure. The town adopts new codes. Not necessarily the most recent codes. Yeah. I think. Yeah. To go. Okay. Yeah. Condition number two. This speaks to specifically the walkway in front of the new Clarks storefront. Staff was feeling that we really wanted to make sure we maximize the pedestrian way in front of that area considering that's gonna be kind of the epicenter of this project in many ways. The applicant, so we originally had 12 feet on this thinking that that was going to be adequate with. There is a covered portion of that front sidewalk. So given that, staff felt comfortable backing off from that 12 foot width that we originally stated because it's gonna be this 10 feet plus additional walkway underneath that overhang. And speaking with the applicant, and by the way, this 10 foot nine, 10 feet nine inches was taken off a landscape plans. After speaking with the applicant, we understand that probably they're gonna ask for that to be reduced to 10 feet. We are okay with that potentially, as long as we are putting things in place in order to make sure that that pedestrian way is protected such as ballards that you don't want. Bumper's hanging over onto the sidewalk, kind of compromising the amount of space that we have dedicated to pedestrians along that way. Would there be wheel stops in those parking stalls? Yeah, there's a curb. So yes, and I would say we agree with the kind of sentiment of this condition in the current design. We can have a 10 foot uncovered sidewalk in addition. There is an 8 foot area that is covered. So it's an 18 foot area outside of Clarks right now. We did want to flag that there are some conditions and conversations in the previous meetings about moving to diagonal parking. And if that occurs given some of the dimensions required for fire access and the dimensions for those spaces, this 10 feet might need to change and be slightly lower. But that's something that will continue to work through with staff and explore based off of the conversations we've had with the Planning Commission. Can I ask a question related to that, which is what is the actual driveway with, back of parking space, to back of parking space, currently in the design? And if depending on how the parking is configured, if that were to change up or down, where do we start? The aisle is actually determined by the width for fire access. So whether it's angled parking or head-in parking, we still need to maintain a clear width because of the fire access, which is 22 feet, 22 feet. Okay. I want to come back to that maybe later on with a question and condition issue associated with that width of backup space and roadway space. But I think that's pretty minimal for considering what we're talking about doing here. I have a question on that. Is that 18 feet? Is that encompassed outdoor seating or is there additional space beyond the 18 for that? That would include the outdoor seating space. So it's kind of an 18 foot wide with anticipated that 8 feet will be the outdoor dining space areas, you know, for people to dwell and have some space to be outside that is covered and then a full 10-foot sidewalk with planters and protection from the... No, the seating or tables will be fixed, a lot being moveable, correct? That's the anticipation at this point. I think we haven't gotten into that level of design detail yet. And with the perpendicular parking, the actual back of space to back of space for the driveway is 22 feet. Yes, in all conditions, it's 22 feet. 23, 23 feet. Well, that's lightly better. I have to play with that. Thanks. Okay, so moving on. Yeah, I think I think we've. Okay. Um, so this next condition is a little more entailed. Um, and I'm going to try to frame the discussion the best I can. Um, so. From a planning staff perspective, uh, when we saw this minor amendment come over, um, through our department. Um, you know, I have to admit from a personal level, working with the Planning Commission, working with the Town Council, I was a little deflated to see the new site plan. The reason for that is because I think we lost an essential element associated with that previous site plan, and that element being sort of that main street component that we were really trying to accommodate on a very difficult site. I think we were able to do it and I think it was something that the community has been looking for for a long time to kind of create that two-sided streetscape for a number of reasons. So you know so needless to say personally as planning staff I was a little disappointed to see the whittled down version of what we have in terms of this minor event. If we're looking at the architecture, I just, staff has to wonder how much we're actually gaining from this proposal right here. It's still a strip shopping center, right? We are still dealing with the same grocery store, albeit bigger. We are gaining in terms of a public amenities space on on top of the building, but we're still dealing with the same grocery store, right? We're dealing with potentially the same restaurants that we have currently and office space. So the question becomes, I mean, yes, the building looks much better. I think we even use the term handsome at one point. The architecture is handsome. I think everybody here would agree to that. But essentially, we have a structure that some of the commercial space gets moved around, but it's at the end of the day more or less the same product. So the question becomes, I mean, if this is something that's good enough for snowmats, quite honestly, if we're a community that's trying to strive to be one of the best in world class ski resort destinations in the world, does this make the mark? I had to ask myself in this situation, what would other resorts be doing? What would Whistler Blackcomb be doing? What would Big Sky be doing? What would Chalmanee be doing? So that's a question to pose to planning commission. If the planning commission prefers that this building be proposed kind of recedes back into the landscape. I think we've accomplished that. If planning commission prefers that this blend into the hillside. I think we've accomplished that. That's great. And then I think we deserve it. Deserve to move this on to the town council for their consideration. And we go that to the applicant. If we want to see something that's more iconic, something that pushes the envelope, so to speak, the place of community can be proud of that tourists are compelled to visit and explore. We need to ask more of this design. This is not a regular PED process, so I know the planning commission is aware of. You don't have a chance to weigh in on this again. You don't have this coming back in a preliminary process. So the applicant was given credence to have this reviewed as a minor PUD, as opposed to a major PUD, but that does not forfeit the town or the planning commission's ability to look at this with a critical eye and take as much time as you feel you need to to get the product that you want and need for the community. And you know, we are open and it's not planning commission's job to design this. It's's not planning commissions job to design this. It's not a staff job to design this, but it is planning commissions job to make sure you're critiquing this properly. So with that, we think it's actually some simple things that can be done, a bold architectural gesture, a water feature, our fire pits, a combination of all these different things, but we're open to it. And we feel that snowmass really deserves something that's going to be attractive, something that is going to be compelling for people that come here and visit our community. So I'll stop talking and planning commission respond to that. Thank you, Brian. Appreciate that. And something we spent some time on with our initial review of the PUD. So I'd like to hear everybody has to stay on that. But we had some key points that we think including the initial PUD. So Doug, do you want to go through? My comments, I just want to go through the conditions first and then. So Doug, do you want any of that? My comments, I'm just going to go through what the conditions first and then. Yeah. Well, this is a condition now that number two. So I'm far and right now. Yeah. Well, I mean, I understand what you're saying, Brian. And I think that somewhere I believe in the resolution, if I remember correctly, we did ask about or suggest a iconic, some iconic elements or an iconic element at least. And I know we have the atrium feature at the entrance to the grocery store. And I think that when we looked at the application, whatever it was a couple of years ago, that we were looking at, I thought we were discussing this iconic feature, both design feature, but also a interactive feature for the community to be that public space that interconnects, the post office and the grocery store and I was surprised to see that they're now separated and the iconic element is modest by whatever standards that although I like it, I think that the design is good but I think it's still, as an iconic element, it's modest in context of what you were suggesting, Brian, at world class resort. The disappointment for me is even more the interconnection between the post office and the grocery store and how could that be accomplished in a iconic element sort of way? And that's the nature of a PUD. I mean, we allow variations to occur. That's why applicants come through the PUD process to suggest variations to height, to suggest variations to all sorts of elements that may be required by the code in a typical circumstance. So again, this is planning commissions time to weigh in on those things as to whether or not it's something worth considering. And the PUD process doesn't accommodate that. Oh, that's good now. You know, when I first saw the plan that, you know, it's a good looking project, but it just felt like it was a will it's, you know, 2.0. And then today, but after seeing the review, I see a lot of how possibilities and potential that are exciting, but the centralize do we call that low-late trim space where the market is in? The community gathering. Community gathering. I said in the first review many years ago, but if you want to hide variants, it would be cool to see something like, maybe like a modern version of a clock tower or something there that would stand out. This is like town center. Well. Well in that town but I'm sorry not the interrupt Mr. Chairman but that was some sort of vertical element was what yeah staff initially had in mind yeah you know but of course you know as I mentioned that I could take lots of different forms good but you know we we did ask for this in the original PUD review. And we kind of compromised with the thought that what we got out of this was that Main Street component. And now with the loss of that, it does at least for staff raise the question, it was like, okay, what is really compelling about this proposal that we have in front of us today? Yeah, we had some interesting rift lines and some variation of buildings and some different materials. But the day, something that would create a sense of place, in my opinion, and architecture could do that very easily without having to break the bank or anything with this good good solid design, but I always thought something more. We've asked Skateco many times to give us different types of buildings that would be cookie cutter ski buildings and they responded very well to that. I think we're going to see more of that with their plans, but snowmessage unique and we just don't want to be that other resort or that other place that be any town in USA. So I might do agree. I don't have the answers, but I think the design team is very creative and I think that's something we should include and keep that conversation going. And I would think this is a very appropriate condition to include in this. And if I could really, sorry, go ahead, if. I've been through several plans and planning processes when you go into this type of condition. The concern is that if it's left to open ended that we don't really move forward or accomplish anything. I know it's hard to come up with something there. Certainly, I know Commissioner Gustafson has talked about the linking of the post office area with the clerks market. I haven't seen anything or talked about that. I think we can certainly leave this. I know the gathering location on the second story, the outdoor location. One of the suggestions was to have something that could maybe enclose that in the winter time. That's one item. There is, I didn't see an area for public art. You know, a lot of times you have public art that's put into a location, not necessarily put in by the applicant. Maybe they make a donation to it, but there could be a future area for some type of public art. Another thing is if you are trying to make a gathering location, you put some sort of fixed fire pit or something with some seating areas or something in the middle there where you're coming down the staircase or above, something like that would really add a spice to the site. The only question is that if this goes by this just goes by without some sort of, we want to see this or when this goes to plan to the town council that we're, it's unclear, it's vague as it goes forward. And I'll let you agree with you on that. But Jessica, I'm sorry. Yeah, I would just add, I think we talked about this a little bit at the last meeting. We really are excited about this building and excited about the architecture and particularly excited about the gathering spaces that are created, not just in the atrium and near clerks and at the post office, but up above with the rooftop terrace and park area. We really think that those uses are part of what makes this iconic in addition to the architecture. And so I think what I would say is with conditions two and three, excuse me, three and four, it talks about introducing architectural elements that's iconic in nature and shall incorporate the ability to enclose that second floor space for inclement weather. I think we're very comfortable moving forward with exploring that and sharing some ideas with town council to make a decision there. But we would like to suggest that adjustment to this as kind of shall explore. But again, we're really excited about this space and we think that it is going to be an iconic special place that is unique to Snowmass Village and it's not something that you see in any other resort community and that's something I think we're excited about and we think that the town is as well. I think that second floor space misses the point and the point is not to create an out of the way gathering place where people might go and say even the outdoor upper level it's a nice amenity but it again misses the point of what many of us that have lived here for many decades. I did my estimate again and I have been in and out of that driveway and post office and grocery store 25,000 times. So the essence of it that we were trying to accomplish is to maintain that special community connection that can happen not to go to someplace else and sit down or plan to meet with people, but to actually just have those those incidental connections that occur every time one goes to the grocery store post office area. And that's what I think kind of misses the point when you have these spaces that you have to go to that whether it's the outdoor upper deck or the upper atrium area. And so that's a it doesn't seem like an impractical or impossible thing to accomplish, but it's a serious concern that, and interestingly, for those of you that went to yesterday's planning, what did we call it, Dave? The destination plan, visiting. Destination plan. The visiting session. Visiting sessions, yes. Excuse me. Independently, several groups at eight different tables were asked to articulate some goals independently. And first of all, when they did the word salad, community was the number one word. And then secondly was the the interconnecting spaces. So again, I'm sorry to say it this way, but I think that we've kind of missed the point. Yes, those are nice spaces, but they don't accomplish that quick incidental come and go kind of activity that I think we all recognize is makes us sort of unique. Not having postal delivery, we all have to be forced to see our friends and neighbors every day. Jessica, how far is the post office and feet wise from the clerks? Or you know offhand, or can we look it up? How many feet? 20 feet. Oh, I'm sorry. But really, people will drive their car from the post office to Clarks. It's the way I see it. I think you're going to park and you're going to go to Clarks. Are you going to close up? Is there going to walk wherever you are. Is that fair assumption? I don't think so, actually. I think that again with the design and trying to have the ample sidewalks and different areas for people to be and run into one another, that people will do that kind of relatively short walk, thanks similar to maybe the post office and clerks experience in Aspen. You're typically parking once and doing that walk rather than reparking. The thing is what we would expect. Okay, and the sidewalk with the from, let's say, just to clerks, those office are relooking we're more than 10 feet I think, correct? That's something office are we looking for more than 10 feet. I think correct Yeah, yeah, it's it's more than 10 feet and we can pull it say interesting that you make the comparison to Clark's and the post office in Aspen because I would use that as From the opposite standpoint that that's two they're two Remove from each other and that it's to separate experiences. And yes, some people do walk between certainly and you might run into people, you know, as you walk across the parking areas there. But I think that's a that's a secret sauce in snowmass that we might lose if we don't really pay attention to that. I mean, this is an important issue. I've heard from a lot of people. that we might lose if we don't really pay attention to that. I mean, this is an important issue. I've heard it from a lot of people. What I'm getting at is there a way we can create a connection from the post office to Clark sets more viable to random interactions, you know, and create that community need that would keep that intact. You know, the big problem with the city of Aspen, you know, when you go to the post office, you have to move your car, you're gonna get the boot. So people don't generally do that. And so you actually go to Aspen and you drive your car to the other market, you know, you can't, it's just functional. I don't see that with this project and I see somebody would literally, you know, I think we're all, we do go get the mail and then we go, we usually just go to Clarks, you know, we would need something. But if you're just going to the post office, you're going to post office and you got the parking on the upper end, people's just going to do that. But yeah, I mean, I think it's a very important issue that we figure something out to strengthen that tie or keep that community tie because we don't want these individual silos of uses that isolate people in that way. So that's my suggestion. I don't know what we can do if you have some thoughts. Well, there is a condition of approval number 31 that talks about exploring the possibility of a covered connection and so that's something that we can explore and are able to bring back as part of that council conversation. So I think we hear and understand the the comments and the feedback and really understand the importance of spaces for community members to run into one another and have that impromptu conversation. And again, we really believe that this design will do that, but we also understand again, hear the comments. And so are comfortable with that condition that I think gets at that. Well, and I just want to weigh in on this as well. This has been a major talking point in our previous two meetings. And obviously we feel it's a very important aspect of this design to be able to create that natural and spontaneous way of meeting up with our neighbors as opposed to our electrical upstairs. Greed? That go ahead. Well, I noticed this issue when I did my review and noted its significance and the comments I'm hearing now just even more reinforced in my mind, the importance of this connectivity issue. I'd like to suggest an idea that I think might address it without creating a major redesign effort to swap buildings around. I have a degree in landscape architecture and for 30 years of walk around this earth looking at places. And noting what things I enjoy and what things aren't so hot. And one thing that seems to be in common in the places that really like is that it's not about iconic architectural elements entirely, although those things can be important. It's about what kind of activities take place along the path that one travels. If you walk Central Park, you walk, I mean, even, you know, crest of butte places in Denver, certain neighborhoods, for example, and ones that really get my attention of the places that have things going on along a path. It could be a pocket park. It could be a a very modest coffee cart. It could be a takeout sandwich place. It could be a fountain that's interactive. These little granular things are small improvements that add just way more value than if they were not present. So in this 120 feet, when you look at this project, not so much as at the physical sort of representation of it, but look at what you don't see. But imagine the activities that could take place here. There does a faxing to be avoid between parks and post office. So I'm wondering if there are things that can be introduced, that cost effective, that can return a bigger bang for the buck. I don't know what else is going into the post office building. Maybe there is some space there where something could go in, where people can interact so that that short trip becomes much more enjoyable, much more engaging. Matthew, I think you're absolutely correct becomes much more enjoyable, much more engaging. Matthew, I think you're absolutely correct and how you're thinking about these pockets of space along a street frontage that bring interest, bring the sticky spots for conversation. And there are some natural just undulations with how the buildings are organized. It's not 10 feet straight across. There are these step back in the building. Some areas that's 12 feet, sometimes it's more. And that's absolutely an element that we can explore within these pockets of space going forward. In addition, the retail space that is between Clarks and the post offices anticipated to be Sundance. And that's also a heavily trafficked area. And we think there will be a lot of activity in the area all along that street front edge with those different businesses and uses. Okay, one of the things we talked about last time was the possibility of, even if it's just an outdoor covered space, maybe there's some heaters in there. Maybe there are some alcoves that depress back into the framework of the building so that there's a small eddy-ing spaces along the way there that are not. I mean, again, I think that is, I've heard it time and time again from people that that's really one of the very special things about snowmass and find that we need to find a way to not lose that feature that's unique here. granular additions. It could even be like a bulb out. In one of those bulb out, it's like a dissipation of variation in the curb. Maybe it's one parking space and then something goes in there. Maybe it's a bench and a fountain and that's adjacent to, I don't know, just a coffee cart or something. You can see features like this in like Central Park and they're popular and they just add much more interest and they're not expansive. I mean, you get a sign of lease with someone but, you know, that's that's not a bad thing, but I think I can just add more interest and kind of fulfill I think most mostly of what the concerns are expressing as a lack in this design. I think it goes for all communities really you need to have that spot to Dandy. But I'm just trying to curious how, you know, if we want to make this a little more definitive in the condition or we want to, you know, well, as Dave says. This is an important issue that we need to make it, you know, a little more, I'm bringing out more, you know, to satisfy everybody on this commission, I think. If you make it too nebulous as Dave was trying to point out, then it's just, you know, take a look at think about this. So it's hard to be more specific because we have a specific design in front of us to look at. But I just don't think we've accomplished that connectivity yet that we currently have and maybe there's some intermediate steps like covered area in front of the post office, Sundance space or when I first looked at the plans, I was looking at the versions that didn't have labels in the respective spaces. And I just assumed that the post office is where you're proposing Sundance to be because that kept that synergy in place. But then when I learned that that wasn't the case, then I was just like Brian from a different angle, I was disappointed with that. David, do you have anything you want to add to this conversation? You have a lot of perspective on this. Yeah, sure. I do. Thanks, Brian. And I just want to say thanks to Brian, now this for voicing his heartfelt concern about where we are and where this is going. I don't have the history that my fellow commissioners have on this project, having only seen this for the first time in the past several meetings. So I'm not aware of why we lost building 6A and 6B and lost the whole mainstreet idea. But be that as it may, I think the comments I've been made are very good. And in particular, it's the horizontal element as much as the vertical element that we really have to spend a lot of time looking at and the design team needs to focus on because yes it is, it is those pockets, those spaces, those elements and amenities on the horizontal surface that work to create communal areas. I think that's important. I'm a little confused. I mean, we're still talking about many things that we talked about several weeks ago. And I am been under the impression that there's a time element here that we really need to be cognizant of as well. And that being the deal to close the separation of the residential from the commercial. And again, I have been under the impression that that was a time element that we had to be respectful of. And many of the things that we're talking about are going to have an impact on the design of this project. So yes, I have a lot of things that I can say about it, but at the same time, I'm trying to be respectful of what we have to do to move this project forward. And if that is not the case, then we can certainly entertain as a commission a lot of these ideas and design recommendations. I'm curious if Dave would fill us in in terms of what we can do. If my impression is different from what the reality is, then I think we only need to know that. You're correct. I'll speak for the applicant that your assumption is correct. We need to move forward. We have provided pre-notes for Council on December 16th in order to maintain the timelines that we've shared in previous conversations. So. Ready. Anything else? I think. Yeah, it's on. Absolutely. I mean, the timing aspect has been brought up by the applicant. I think that it is important, but from staff, community development staff point, there is a land use perspective to this application that we're going through here. That's the minor PUD amendment. There is an ownership relationship with the purchase of the property, a separate item, the town council has to modify where the two hats. I think it's fine to be respectful of that timing. Staff is trying to be respectful of that timing. One of the things we've done in the past, if you remember, and I do, and I know Brian does, and I know the applicant does, remembers back in 20 when we went through this, there was a discussion on the walls, and everything. We put a condition in that said, this can be reviewed by staff. Here's what we're looking for. And if it's acceptable, it can be approved by our building permit. If it's not, we would bring it back to town council and or the planning commission. I think in this case, we do have this comment in here. I think the applicants heard us and said they're gonna look at this. You can look at the, there are plans showing where the post office is. 120 feet, I can make it sound better, it's 30 yards. I think the covered. Three firsts. Three firstsounds. Yeah, three firstsounds. the current and the current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current current one spot which the Planning Commission hasn't said is a big deal and enlarge that and maybe put a covered area with a, you know, a gas lit, I don't know, fireplace or something like that. To make that space, you know, break it up so it doesn't look too far. This to me is a much better design than when I was an Aspen, I would not want to walk from the post office to Clarks, particularly now. I was just down there yesterday. I think this design, it's going to be shoveled. It's going to, particularly if it's covered and has some seating areas, it's going to still have a place for, we do the Salvation Army, Bell Ring, you know, and all of that. I think that's going to be here. You know, I'm certainly going to walk from the post office to Clark for 30 yards. I think that's, but it's just how do you make that space a more inviting space, a more space that links those two areas? We could modify that language and say that this has to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit. And, you know, you know, should, if staff doesn't feel that's appropriate, we could bring it back at that time. That's one way to get this thing moving, keep it on track, and still accomplish that without, I mean, you know, waiting for a plan to come back from the applicant that addresses design. Yeah, I mean, this is something maybe we could spend a little more time on and we could, you know, pull the plan up and maybe I work some things out. I don't know. I mean, I'm not talking about it. But I think it's an important issue that maybe we could make some more definitive language, you know, in this, if we pull it up and maybe, kind of if you could put the site plan up real quick, but I think Dave, those are all good suggestions and all, but I think when I'm here, we're trying to answer Commissioner Seglins's comment that yes, it's a timing issue. I don't think we need to try and to keep that on schedule, but I don't think we need to have that, you know, come back in another meeting or something. Our normal process, yeah, but I think we can maybe work this out a little bit if it satisfies everybody to, you know, maybe put some more specific conditions in. I know. Yeah, yeah. That's like, could you go as long? Yeah. And Dave, if you want to, I don't know if you want to have, we could pull the plan up a little bit, some specific items you might want to discuss or I don't know if that's what you guys want to do. But it's hard for us to try to help redesign it in some new fashion. I'd rather put down the conditions and the concerns. And I understand the applicants desire to move it quickly and we've had many instances over the decades where there's other times when we need to move things as quickly as we can and we certainly want to try to do that but at the same time at least for me I would rather get it right then fast if we can and and I just don't feel like that connection is is well enough delineated as of yet and you know we brought it up I think last time or the time before as well and I guess I haven't seen any maybe you've made some changes or thought through some things but I haven't seen any changes. Yeah I think we've again heard the comments and have started to think through what might that look like. As we've been sitting here, Darla has pulled together a potential condition that maybe we could add that would address this. We can wordsmith this together, maybe offline, but something along the lines of the applicant shall introduce pedestrian and landscape elements along the building front edge to strengthen community gathering spaces or something along the lines that are really picking up the idea of fostering your neighborhood interactions that special idea of your neighborhood conversations. I think the landscape features and the pedestrian scaled features that we've talked about are easy to imagine coming further into the plan and we're very open to exploring that going forward. Can you read that one more time? The applicant shall introduce pedestrian and landscape elements along the building front edge to strengthen the community gathering spaces. other things. I think that I mean I had hope for an internal connection. I don't see now that's possibly in the cards way it was talking about, those kind of elements. And I would, I mean, I think it probably says the same thing, but I would say the applicant must create that kind of interactive connectivity space and, you know, at least protected space. And in my mind, that's a minimum is a protected space. And in my mind, that's at the minimum is a covered space. It could be just an arcade of some sort that goes in front of the Sundance building portion. I mean, that's where I'm just one person talking. Where we all see it. I think where you started, but I also like where you went with that. The covered space is important. And I like the choice of word must create that spot that that space that we're looking for. We're open to exploring the covered elements. And we want to think about it holistically with the entire street front edge and having all of it really sing together. and we're open to exploring the covered piece and I think we're comfortable with looking for those elements that are pedestrian and scale welcoming and foster the community conversations. Well, I for one would like to go a step further than explore it and say you provide the kind of a feature. And I understand you can't just sit there at the spot of the room. So yeah, we'll change it all and do this, but again, I just emphasize the importance of that. I think we're more comfortable saying, we can't explore the landscape elements. I'm definitely not in architect. And so I think at this time, we need to explore the idea of what covered space looks like for the pedestrians and come back to council with a holistic look. Well, not sure, let me be speaking, has one individual. I think we, as a minimum, that we would like to see an option presented to the council that shows a covered connectivity area with some of the kinds of features perhaps that Matt's describing. Go ahead Matt. Yeah. I like. I like the initial direction in your draft. Going a bit further, I'd like to see sort of the term activation of the space. There are members of the town council who immediately will know what that means when they see this. So that there's just much more engaging things in that streetscape. I'm not saying the crowded with a laundry list of things, but purposeful, thoughtful, targeted features. It can only be maybe two things. I trust the team has enough experience and background that certain things would come to mind. But in the initial language, another suggestion would be to maybe list some examples of things that we talked about, you know, a comfortable seating, a fire pit, interactive fountain. This is not to enumerate all the things that would go in there. I'm not saying that I'm just saying examples to consider. And again, I might be one or two of these things. I think these elements, so long, that horizontal path, in my view, I think that would be more important, higher priority than the covered roof. Covered would be nice, but I think just from my experience, in a way I look at it, that those elements in the horizontal path are going to much, they're more impactful than the cover development. For me, it's something like, meet me in front of X, which is a feature, you know, be something like that. Let me go ahead. One, thank you for that, you know, that type of language. I would, you know, just say to the planning commission and to the applicant that, and I think that if this is an important item, and I know that Commissioner Gus was speaking for one member, but I'm trying to listen to everybody, that if you're trying to make this a strong point, you can use the language must. This is a recommendation resolution to town council. But by using language like instead of explore provide a covered area between the Clarks market and the post office that introduces pedestrian and landscape elements in this area, such as seating areas, a fire pit, a public art space. That's a good recommendation to town council. They, they, the applicant could then, in the next, when we have now two weeks, maybe come up with some ideas at the town council meeting that says, hey, this is what we're gonna look at, and we have some language going forward that does do two things. It provides what I think is an important aspect of the planning commission review, which is the architectural elements. And then also respects the timing and tries to keep things on board and also lets the council know, hey, this is an important item. We're not just saying, take a look at it, we're saying, provide it. And if council, and the applicant decide not to, that's what might happen at the council. If that could make a recommendation, Dave, I appreciate that comment. And I also appreciate what Gus is suggesting as being imperative here. I think if we think of the covered connection between these buildings and spaces as not necessarily having to be part of the architecture, but can potentially be part of the landscape architecture, we might be able to accomplish that. And if we give the design team that leeway to explore it as to it being a physical architectural connection or a landscape connection, when I say landscape, I mean something a little more femoral than bricks and mortar, perhaps it's some structure with canvas coverings that can be colorful and different shapes and provide that enclosure and connection from one of these buildings to the next. It's not necessarily part of the architecture, but it's part of the landscape architecture that we've been talking about was so critical here. And the covering can be designed along with the development of these communal spaces to enhance that both from a horizontal as well as a vertical connection. If we give the design team some of that leeway to expand their exploration, I think it might be helpful. They might be more amenable to that. And it might, if Gus is amenable to that as a potential solution, maybe a way that we move forward. I think there are alternatives. And the reason that I suggest a covered space is because right now that that casual incidental connectivity happens in the interior space, just that little space that's between the post office and the grocery store and a covered space. I don't see that kind of incidental connection opportunity being in the rain, in the snow, in the cold. But if there's an alcove that where you can sort of step back out of the pedestrian traffic going by, if there's some covered space so that even if it's in in climate weather, that you can still make those casual connections. And it can be done certainly with fabric elements or, or a building element. And, but I think that that's still in my mind, Matt, that's that the covered aspect is as important or more important even than some of those landscape features that create some friction or some excitement along the connectivity pathway there. I think when the atrium was suggested two years ago or four years ago, whenever it was, that the expectation of that atrium was that that was going to be the connective space between the post office and the grocery store. I understand a lot has changed since then, but I still think that's really, in my mind, a key important element. Some of that already covered and that walkway from the post office to there? The walkway, so there's an area outside of Clarks that is covered, that's that eight foot depth. And then there are some entry best of fuels, if you will, that are covered into Sundance and into the post office, but there's not a specific covering there. And so again, we're happy to look at that. Again, we hear you and are really comfortable with an added condition existing condition related to looking at that covering to move forward. We're very comfortable with with those conditions. Can you pull up the floor plans? The more detailed floor plans over the. So it's the inch off is just to make sure. On the same page. Yep. Yeah, so that's there. There. And again, the post office location is somewhat driven by their requirement for proximity to the delivery area. And so is that so that entire block of space there is the post office. And I don't really see the vestibule connection that you describe, but maybe that the dashed lines over the door. So those are some very small kind of you know, and covered entry features. It's just with the door swing, that little tiny area. Yeah. And it's right where the doors are swinging again. That's why I think if we're comfortable with the condition to explore opportunities for more of the covered space as well as that kind of, and I'm suggesting well space. Explore. That's all. Yeah. Um, kind of, and I'm suggesting well space, landscape, and so yeah. Um, the other thing I would add is that the post office in what in the approved plan and this proposed amendment is twice the size, um, as what exists today. So there will be ample opportunity to also have the run in with neighbors and the conversations within the post office, not just going between, um, different different. So with just that main outline of the post office space, there's no suggestion of how the lobby might work or where the behind the scenes back of the house. Yeah, it's not at this point because post office boxes, all those kind of thing. That is a detail that we have to work on with the federal government. And so that that will be part of the building permit process. Yeah, but the town there does not have any jurisdiction over how that design works out. How it is accomplished though could affect the goal that I'm trying to articulate. For example, if the, I'm assuming the storage back of the house space is to the left side of the post office area, but maybe you don't even know that. In terms of the specific design inside the post office, no, we don't have that information. Yeah. If you could flip the lobby over to the left side of that overall post office space, then that would make that connection so much more viable in my mind. Yeah. That entry connection here is what, 35? It's 30 by 36, 30 feet by 36 feet. So it's one of those areas, again, kind of that nook and cranny, if you will, throughout the design to encourage opportunities for people to converse. And. I'm sorry, I didn't understand. It's 35 by 30 foot, 36 foot space that you were just describing. Yeah, yeah, can you use a pointer and kind of point out where that is? The covered entry festival is 30 by 36. It goes all the way out here. And then there's an additional. And that doesn't seem right. If those doors are six feet wide and a double set of doors, seems like that wouldn't be 30 by 36. So again, we're comfortable exploring this as a and working with your team on the exact language. Dave, you want to, uh, it's, if the question is whether the beginning word is provide or explore in all of the planning commission agrees, I'd say use this and you want a stronger message than I'd use the stronger language. Again, you're making your recommendation to town council. Yeah, I think it's just a recommendation, but yes, I'm, you're providing stronger language itself. So I think we're in agreement to provide a little more stuff. And I know. So I think we could, you know, we, I've got some language of probably want to. I would say provide a covered pedestrian landscape elements between the Clarks market and the post office such as comfortable seating areas, fire pits, public art areas. For the connectivity? And for connectivity purposes. And I could, yeah, for connectivity purposes. You know, that'm better with that. Step. So we could move on. Yeah. And I would that just. It's stronger language from you. And it says, Hey, take a look at. David, you give it that. Anything more suggestions? No, I'm fine with that. Thank you. Just a clear which term we're editing. Is this number 30 31 3 3 We still want to keep the iconic element and stuff, but this will be the Connection pointer. This is a new item. I don't know. Well, 31 addresses the Covered connection between the grocery and the post office. So I thought, I mean, we just make that 31 and we'll keep the three of the way it is. That's that's fine. Yeah, three of the way it is. And then we we add that language to 31 right to provide pedestrian landscape elements per to provide covered pedestrian landscape elements between the clerks market and the post office. Such with areas for comfortable seating. Fire pit public art. Connecting for connective purposes. All right. In terms of number three is the planning commission comfortable with leaving that. Consideration up to town council has stated in the last portion of that condition. I'm comfortable with that. But. If you want to insert in both these conditions, you know, review by staff, which you mentioned the other day of that language. That option that we talked about, we've done it before many other. Comfort monster council will be weighing on this as well. Okay. So there is some covered in arcade space in front of the grocery store itself, correct? Correct. So that's the far less traveled route in my perception of how this whole thing will work. And I'd rather see if we had an arcade opportunity, I'd rather see it where people are moving around the most. And that's why, again, make it exciting, but also make it usable, covered somehow out of the weather. We hear you. Are comfortable to move forward as suggested. Huh? You guys are good to keep going. OK, yeah, so ready to move on. I'm going to let Dave take this next condition that we crafted. Number four was just trying to asking that the second story of us to be will be incorporate the ability to enclose that space asking that the second story best of you'll be incorporate the ability to enclose that space during and implement it whether. I don't need to add any that's pretty self explanatory. That's pretty self explanatory. Good, good, good. Five. And so this is a pretty significant one. The final design of the interim and final trade center shall be reviewed and approved by the town of Stomass Village prior to recording of final plat documents. I believe the applicant may have some opinions in terms of possibly recrafting this language. I'm not sure, but we do feel it's important to make sure that we have that design nailed down prior to any sort of submittal of the building permit. We need to know exactly what we're getting, what that product's going to be. And I think we have representatives from public works as well as a transit and parking that are here that would agree with that. That it's pretty important that we actually know exactly what that design is going to look like. Brian, which entity under the towns oversight would do this review for the transit center? Yes. I will include community development along with Public Works Department and the Transportation Department. Okay, so staff departments. Yeah. Okay. And to a certain extent, the fire district as well. I mean, we need to make sure that it's maneuverable and we're able to get fire trucks through there and the whole thing and we're going to see vehicle access. Let me add to that. I think the applicant spoke to this beginning of tonight's meeting. This is an item that's being worked on probably almost daily. I think that all we're saying with this condition is that it needs to be done so that we have the plans with the approval documents going forward. It has to be agreed to between both parties. There's not a final agreement on that right now, but it is being done. And we do have public works here. I know our engineers have been working with their, with the applicant on this. Well, this incorporates the traffic flow, the intersection. Correct. OK, grades. Not just with the budget. Could pick up and drop off. Could we maybe hear a little bit? I mean, I'm very comfortable, I think, with the transit facility itself. I think that's well planned and it's going to function well. But what I'm concerned about is just the overall intensity of traffic and turning movements right at that location where the traffic is coming down from the theoretical future housing area up above. We've got the draw site, housing traffic coming into that general area, and then we've got the traffic flowing both ways through the parking driveway. It's just a lot of. I said, I'm tensed out on bank. In addiction coming in from below. Yes, right. So there's a lot of intensity of traffic movement there. And I think the transit part seemingly works pretty well. Although I see Sam there could maybe speak to that. But. It's more the traffic intensity that I think we were concerned about. Well, I think we have all the appropriate departments here. I think in terms of the design of the transit center, there's agreement on the design of the transit center from staff standpoint to all the items you addressed. It's at this time, I think it's the timing of that. Does that get done with the final phase? Does that get done when the when the residential is developed? And that's where there's disagreement right now with what I heard you just say was that you're comfortable with the transit part. Are you also saying that you're comfortable with the the traffic flow and the turning movements and the whole traffic intensity in that area. That's my understanding. Yes. Okay. And the applicant is comfortable with this condition because we are also very comfortable with the design and how it's all flowing. The remaining details are very gritty, specific, engineering details which will come forward in permits. I got a yes, A kind of yes from. Anne Martin's Public Works Director Sam Grino, Transportation Director. Yes, to her point. As you can see, condition number six also talks about this area, because our review comments are very specific because we don't have the final design items and there is nuances to work out and there is some curb height, designed. There is timing and fine details that need to be resolved, but these conditions work for staff. Yeah, and I'll second it. I think that these conditions work well for staff that the transit center design should work well for the transportation department. I think when we talk about fine details, one of the things for us is if we were building a transit center of the size, we would do like a bus rodeo, we would call it, we'd set it all out, we'd make sure that all the turning movements work. So we're really just talking about making sure that the final design does in fact work, because we're still working through those details at this point. Again, I'm comfortable with what's designed and what you've said, the bigger concern was still the traffic intensity of the traffic coming down from the theoretical hundred units or 150 units, whatever it is up above there, coming right down in that area where the traffic flow is coming out from the grocery store and- From the housing. From the housing. Yeah, we're comfortable with that as well. Okay. They've given us information as far as- I'll be sure that you're- Post traffic and- For approval. The designs of those intersections we've reviewed with in collaboration with them and giving recommendations on stop-controlled intersections and making sure that transit can operate and as well as with the fire department so that they can operate. Okay. I think we're comfortable with that item. We, I think staff has a great grasp on this. So, I'm good with those two items there. Six and five and six. Right. For sure. I think that is important we keep it items there. Six and five and six. Right, for sure. I think that is important we keep it in there. So thank you. Seven. So number seven is building obviously on the transportation center component. So the staff and administrative position with regard to when the timing of the transit center's built is pretty paramount. We feel that the commercial development is the redeveloped snowmass center. And then what's tied to the development of the snowmass center is the construction of the road that goes up behind snowmass center, which is being called rim road. And that component needs to be completed as well along with the transist center in order to make grades work properly and more importantly, emergency access work properly. We do have John Mele here. He could speak to that as well. We really finessed this condition, had a lot of discussions about it, making sure that the Transit Center is directly tied to the redevelopment of the center itself. And then obviously that drives the need for the redevelopment of the road that goes behind to make sure that we don't have any sort of time where emergency access behind the snowmass center is cut off as required by the district. So that then the rim road Brian Brian, would include the what I've heard is the widening of it in the pedestrian way. And so forth, that would all be. Yeah. And of course, there's discussions that can be had in terms of whether or not that's a cost sharing type of scenario between the town and the developer and who would take on certain line items. But yes, that would have to incorporate that widening, incorporate retaining walls and regrading and asphalting, of course. Well, I thought it occurred to me that some of the elements that may not be in the applicant's budget to do that we've been discussing, connect more connectivity covered areas, landscape features and so forth, maybe in addition to the possibility of a town collaboration to get that road accomplished, that maybe there is still some public private opportunity for the applicant and the town to collaborate to make some of these other things be able to work. And so those internal discussions, at least on the town side have occurred, and we're open to that possibility. And applicant as well, again, we're working daily on these things. So in this moment, conditions, 7, 8, really conditions that are in the resolution we're, seven, eight really, really conditions that are in the resolution we're comfortable with to move forward knowing that there's additional conversation. At council. Yes. Yep. Continue. Okay, I mean, get through this. I'm sorry, John, you got something. Yeah, come on up. Yeah, please. Yeah, thank you for coming. Thank you. Yeah, I feel you. Appreciate the office. I'm done. No, that's it. Um, please, number eight. Uh, we're, we're a little bit, uh, hesitant on just the confirmation that that road will be maintained during construction. We needed afterwards as well. So I don't know who decides that maintenance feature. I understand the obligation of the applicant to do a law construction, but when the construction is complete, centers, operational, who takes it over is the town now committing to do that or as it's all on your applicant. That's we just need to tie that emergency access up during and after. I think I'll let the language during and after. That's fine with us. I just didn't want to stop abruptly. He said, hey, we got a C-A, I'm seeing that. So otherwise we're talking about it. We're good with that. And we're part of that conversation with Tom Y. Really flowed is. And I think that will be a full minute. And while we're on the subject of with the, I think they said that the road with in front of the grocery store is 22 or 23 feet. Yes. That's what we're given. Right. There's something that the consider is usually when there's parallel or direct straight into parking. The outriggers of a ladder or aerial thing that between parts. Typically, then if you switch to diagonal, we would start to look for a little bit wider. Is that that with just the fire truck in outriggers alone can get in the 18 minutes. So that's about that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you John. We could do that. Yeah, table incorporate those changes in our. I said, maybe after construction. Yeah. Sort of change. And when we get done with this, we could just say to incorporate all the changes that we discussed along the way. Yeah, we'll get that through. Thank you. Let's keep going. Is this done? So we're on this is somewhat boy. Yeah. Number nine. Yeah. I mean, if there's any sort of comments on number nine, this is rather boilerplate. I believe the applicant agrees with this. There is a subdivision improvements agreement and a development agreement that talks about utilities and the cost of implementing those. And so this is kind of technical along those lines. And we're comfortable with all the conditions as written. So we're happy to answer questions but comfortable to move forward. So Dave, did you pencil out some modification to condition eight per chance? I did, but what did you come up with there? That's what I I'm sorry if I I just added it's reads it shall be the obligation of the applicant to maintain rim road behind the snowmass center as well as the hammerhead turnaround during and then I added the words and after construction. I mean, that may be a big commitment that we're putting on the applicant. I don't know what the answer is, but I believe the answer, yes. We are comfortable and understand that that emergency access is critical during the time before Rim Road is fully completed by the town. And so we are committed to making sure that that access and the hammerhead are maintained. What about after? Is that in perpetuity? I mean, I assume that's a big issue with the town's situation. When the town moves forward with the residential development up above that road, rim, rim road and rim, rim court are the towns and so the town would maintain rim court because it's a, it's updated emergency access essentially. It should be. That's so, but we're comfortable with the condition. I believe that will be a dedicated easement at the end of the day to the town. Okay. Okay. That's the plan is to dedicate it to the town and the town takes it over as a town. Okay. Now if I'm hearing the applicant correctly, I think that, you know, rather than I don't think staff has to go read each one of these, I think if planning commission wants to talk about any one of these, we're comfortable and the applicant's comfortable. I think that we can spend some of these under. Just if you have, let's go to the ones you have questions on and talk about those. Sure. That was kind of open. You could walk us through the, we can walk through. You can walk through if you think that's what these like. Yes, they do. This won't take long. Yeah, and this is something that was always agreed to from the beginning. It's just making sure that you know, we're not shutting down the grocery store for long periods of time during construction and making sure that the public still has access safe access to the grocery store and the goods associated with the grocery store. Number 11, construction management plan shall address noise and air pollution. Obviously this kind of feeds off number 10 because there's going to be customers and public in very close proximity to some pretty intense construction going on. This was addressed in Tom Dunlop's referral letter. That was included in your original packet as a attachment. And so this is basically just addressing his concerns. Brian, I'd like to just add something for consideration. So this condition speaks to noise and air pollution. I'd like to suggest that the contractor and its work forces comply with the state law concerning exhaust noise from construction vehicles. This is a noise impact that occurs both on and off site when dump trucks primarily, the 10 wheelers are operating occasionally, somewhere operating outside the law with a respect to engine braking. So engine braking is not prohibited, but what is prohibited is operating the truck without the proper exhaust measures. So I just want to make sure that when compliance is being sought, that this source of noise is addressed. Yeah, and we can add that as a requirement of the construction management plan that they submit. Well, it is a state requirement. Right. It already is a state requirement. It's someone someone needs to be over doing the oversight. Yeah. I know our our police department has dealt with that before. Yeah. I don't have them here tonight, but I know they certainly dealt with that before. And Brian and his team have done a great job addressing that. They're aware of it and yeah. Time to time do do more than just occasional spot checks. Right. Yeah, they go out when it's reported. But, you know, we only have our forces only so big. We only have so many officers. So. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that. Number 12. App Council continue working with the Rwornfork Fire Authority. This is kind of going back to some of the previous conditions that we've already looked at. I'm sure this makes the district very happy. And I believe the applicant is agreeable to this. And then number 13 speaks to what Sam just talked about, just making sure that we know what the turning movements are associated with the entire area. And this also applies to the delivery area on the west side of the Snowmass Center, as redeveloped. This is something that we identified in one of our DRT meetings, which was that as you have delivery vehicles going into those delivery bays on the east side of the snowmass center, you know, in some cases direct headlights are going to be going into the, you know, the wood run units that are just downhill from the center. We want to make sure that we're not creating any sort of light pollution for those residents. And this could be very well taken care of just by a study, but we do feel that there's probably some sort of screening that needs to occur. Physical screening or landscape screening? Physical screening. So some kind of a ray of fence, a solid low-wall headlight height wall that would run across that. We brought it up, I think, at the last meeting, but we just asked the applicant to take a look at that to see, you know, how would those lights point into the residential units and provide screening for that. I mean, do we articulate that well enough in this condition? We can make specific that it's not actually landscape screen that we're talking about some sort of physical barrier. And again, it's a detail we're continuing to work through and we'll have some additional information during the council conversation. We can put screening wall. Personally, I like landscaping. Okay. But if it can, if it could, well, screening allows for either one. Yeah, if it can solve, which is wrong. Well, I mean, I think once we're better informed of what the, you know, pollution looks like, you know, what sort of headlight nuance may be. And what I can say from our initial work is that this is actually above woodbridge and so it would be a minimal impact, but we'll have that detail and I think are amenable to the exploration of the screening. This just speaks to the fact again that we need to make sure that the grocery store remains open on number 15. And of course what goes along with that is safe pedestrian and bicycle access. Both that we need to be specific about that. ADA access, course feeds off number 15 as well. Very important. Number 17, we know, you know, clerks, we have not spoken to Clarks about this, but, you know, staff feels strongly that, you know, we are going to see a lot of shopping carts ending up at the transit center, and we want to be able to accommodate them, you know, we are dealing with slopes where these things can, you know, run away downhill, and we want to, you know, make sure that we're keeping that from happening. I'm not sure if the applicant wants to respond to this. Yeah, and I think at this point, we're comfortable with all the conditions. And we're continuing to have conversations with clerks related to some of these. And we'll have that additional information. We did talk about number 18. The original condition stated that these bike share stations need to be incorporated within the actual transit center area. After speaking with the transportation department, SAM specifically, we determined that. It's okay as long as these stations are located in a very accessible, very prominent and visible area within parcel one. I'd like to suggest this is a great suggestion. I'd like to suggest that there also be spaces for personally owned or I don't know, non-bike share, but let's say personally owned bicycles. Bike racks. Right. Bike racks. Brian, if I may ask a question regarding this, I think the bike share at the transit center is a great idea. As far as I know right now, the only other bike share location is down by the town park. So I don't know if there are plans to add bike shares safe from the mall or from the base village or anything like that that would help facilitate the use of the bike shares at the town center. David, this is Sam, Transportation Director for the town. Yes, there is a planned recycled bike share expansion for 2025, which would include the mall, base village, the center, most of, if not all of the employee housing complexes and some other locations around town as well. Excellent, excellent, thank you for that. And I assume this goes without saying, but those are e-bikes? Yes, the 100% e-bikes. And I assume this goes without saying, but those are ebikes. Yes, on 100% ebikes. And I witnessed the problem in Aspen where the lady got sucked under a truck that because she was inadequately equipped to deal with riding an ebike. Is there any, I mean, obviously you can't give a roadside test to that. But how do you worry about maintaining e-bike competency, I guess? And what we are identifying as being a heavily circulated area. I think that making sure that we have safe bike infrastructure as much as possible in an already constrained villages is paramount to that. I would say that bike and pedestrian safety is have a connection outside of the roadway. I think that the e-bikes add another dimension to that. And I had never really thought about it until I heard it and was witness the immediate aftermath of that accident right by the hotel Jerome where the the woman just wasn't adequately familiar with how to use her e-bike and she accelerated herself right under the wheels of a big truck and was lucky to survive alive. At the at the risk of heading towards a different conversation, then this one I'll just say that these bikes don't fly. I've never had myself. Yes. Thank you Sam. Appreciate it. I just brought up the site plan to talk about the next condition. And this is something that planning commission talked about the last meeting was the fact that in order to meet the parking standard, the applicant took all the parking spaces that are leading up to the delivery base and made them all compact spaces. I think the planning commission was, and I'm sorry this isn't show at all, but I think the planning commission was generally comfortable with converting at least half of those spaces, the ones on the east side of this corridor that we're looking at here. I don't have the the clicker, but so those would actually remain compact if I'm not mistaken, but the ones on the opposite side, the condition addresses converting to conventional sized spaces, which may bring them slightly below the current parking standards per the code. but as I said, could those be reversed somehow and have the ones closest to the post office, be the standard size? You can't because there's not enough depth. And so the compact space is both a depth and a width adjustment. And so the depth that's available there would be the road can be longer. Correct. It just looks like when you look at this plan, it looks like a lot of people would want to just pull in there, run into the post office and walk back out to their car. So the more flexible the parking is, but at the same time, that speaks to the problem of not having the connectivity as much between the post office and the grocery store in and out of the post office and on your way, which might be convenient for sure. So these spaces would remain compact and then these over here would become full sized spaces. So with that change, we would have a total of 198 parking spaces as opposed to the 200. I will make maybe a note that there's a condition regarding exploration of diagonal parking, particularly here, and that has the potential to further reduce our parking count. But again, we'll share that with council and can work through that with them. Remind us what's the overall parking count now versus ultimate? 198. So this is the same. 198 now. And this would be 198. With this change. Yeah. When this is done. I mean, personally, I'd rather have the traffic flow properly than worry about getting the exact parking count. But if you can't find a parking space, this is a big issue. But I so far, I think it parking works pretty well given the level of activity there. Brian, on this condition, do we need to, should we write something like, if they do go below the parking requirements, we're, just satisfy that, I mean, yeah, we can expand on that if, if, if you want us to, but, you know, by nature of this being a PUD, you know, those are the types of things that are allowed by nature of the... I just want to make sure that they're not held to this 200 or if we go below for these reasons. Yes, that's what it says. Yeah. We can add a sentence that says, planning commission is agreeable. Should this reduce the acquired parking? Yeah. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. In general, I mean, we talked about somebody suggested before the possibility of taking out a parking space to create some landscape feature. And I would rather give your excellent creative design team the opportunity to do those kind of things and not be held to a rigid, precise parking count number. A few cars, the whole design and the experience work well. And even if that helps with that connectivity point, we talked about earlier. Right. We'd be okay with that. So. Okay. Let's try to get this. Get through this and get this wrapped up before six. This is just a little bit more. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's what we're going to do. We're going to this and get this wrapped up before six. This is just addressing the current trend towards EV vehicles and making sure that we are accommodating. A accommodating those with this approval and making sure we have the ability to continue to accommodate them in the future. Number 21 way finding and lighting plan. This is kind of boilerplate, but it's something that is also required at building permit submittal and making sure that it actually complies with our zoning standards. Same with number 22. We always require that at building permit. But one of the things that we really want to possibly address, and this may feed into the conversation about angled parking versus perpendicular parking, but is there a possibility of, you know, screening some of these retaining walls that were approved at the original PUD as seen from Brush Creek Road? You know, we think there's an opportunity there. We think we can soften some of the aesthetics of those large retaining walls and we want to see if we can accommodate that if possible. Brian, that sounds great. I had one comment which I mentioned at our last meeting that didn't make it into this, but on line 185, I wanted to add after the word development, so there would read on line 185, screening the development comma parking lots, comma vehicles, and retaining walls as seen from brush Creek. I don't want to get into weeds on this. I just want to ask a question. Is has the design team considered any substitution for just black asphalt on the parking lots? Is there an opportunity to do something a little more not saying decorative, but just a little less parking lot like that might tie into some of the sidewalk materials and things like that. It's just a question whether they've considered that or not or whether it's even possible. And we haven't gotten into that level of detail. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. Okay, well, if there's an alternative to asphalt, I'd like to see it be considered. Yeah. Okay, so jump it in the number 23. Well, last second, Brian, I'm glad I had our question to question further design team is is the parking lot to be illuminated? Yeah, it would be illuminated as required by by code. We are I think to Brian's point on the condition related to wayfinding and lighting, wanting to make sure that we have a safe space, but also that we're meeting dark sky intentions. Okay, that was my main question and concern about dark sky compliance. There's a lot of light already in the town. Be great if we can mitigate, you know, whatever is required in the parking lot. And there's a good possibility we will have a new ordinance adopted by the town for new lighting standards. And of course, you know, depending on when the applicant comes through, they would have to meet those standards as well. What's this rough schedule on that like ordinance? The it's in the final stages. So I would say January, February, time frame. Now it's in the building code so it does go to town council and it will be up to the town council if they want to refer it to the planning commission. Okay. Okay. Continue. Okay. So number 23. So with the incorporation of the transit center as designed currently and you know, as as Dave mentions, this is kind of a, you know, it's constantly being finessed but there are some rather substantial new retaining walls that are required to accommodate that center. Staff feels strongly that this really does tie into the greater area associated with the large round about. There's a certain veneer that greater area associated with the large roundabout. There's a certain veneer that we have associated with those walls right by the transit center stops, the raft of stops there on brush creek road. More of a stone veneer than what was specified in the final approval of the the PUD, which are more board form concrete walls. But in particular to these walls, we think it does create more continuity with the aesthetic that the town has tried to promote with the construction of the roundabout, and those should be probably veneered accordingly with what we already have out there. Yeah. The applicants remain silent. No, we. We're on. OK. We have a statement for you. I they're comfortable. I I I I understand. OK. Almost 24. This is this is basically just saying, hey, you know, as long as the post office wants to utilize this space, they have it. We actually have this perpetuity at one point, but you know, we never know what's going to happen with the US Post Service, so we kind of lighten some of the language on this. Number 25, at least two, the new commercial spaces in the redeveloped Stomest Center shall be ready equipped for restaurant operation upon certificate of completion and occupancy. We felt it really shouldn't be the onus of some of those entities that are currently occupying those restaurant spaces to have to finish them out in order to operate as a restaurant. There are certain venting requirements, you know, other requirements that go into the operation and final construction CO of a restaurant space. And of course, you know, the final finish would likely be the responsibility of those restaurant owners that are going to be transferring over to new spaces, but we wanted to make sure they were accommodated to move in with the proper ventilation and things that go along with it from a building code standpoint. Are those specific spaces identified anywhere? I don't know if those have specifically been identified. This condition originally read that it was actually on ground floor, but we wanted to give a little bit of flexibility to allow certain restaurant spaces to occupy those upper spaces of you know so does it. It just seems like those kind of elements are part of the fabric of the community aspect to this area and I think they're important to try to to ensure to the extent possible that they will remain eateries of some sort. And I know that's a design standpoint. You got venting and hoods and all that to consider, which are significant issues. So I don't know how you quite qualified that without having the users be a part of the dialogue. And it's important to know that I mean this certainly has not been run by you know I'm stacey or the other restaurant owners out there but this was a condition that was you know crafted by staff upon discussions that we had internally. I mean, I think just John, just the fire suppression issues in restaurants are going to be a fire marshal consideration I presume. So I mean, it's a very simple statement to say that they're going to be set up for that, but it seems like it's a significant effort on the applicant's part to ensure that those things actually happened. But the parts of the ventilation is a higher code of concern. And it usually does take the rest ground to out where the those kind of things are going to be. It is an important aspect of the restaurant with maintenance, you know, like six months. So however you want to figure that into this, but it is a significant investment in where that goes in relationship to your kitchen and your rest don't may operate on-site. It just seems like it would be hard to generically provide those, to have those provisions when you don't actually have the, even the spaces identified yet or the specific tenants that would be in there, the type of restaurant use, but I know the fire suppression is a significant issue. And how do we condition that into our requirements to be sure that we end up with some eating establishments and meat fire codes, which I would add at least as a minimum add that to this is that they had to be acceptable to the fire marshal. I think it depends on how far into the building permit process you want to get. I think we have a good building permit process that gets us there. I think the I've heard the applicant is good with that there's two spaces that are going to be equipped. And I think yes, there's going to have to be some. Coordination. So what that occurs at the time that a actual restaurant goes in and that coordination, I would not want to get into a condition that predisposes the building permit and fire department review process, which is going to take care of those things. But it seems like kind of a loosen to me, but maybe it's okay the way it's worded. I mean, I know we've taken other spaces and diverted them with landlords. Yeah, anything's possible, right? So number 26 is a remunent of one of the previous conditions that we looked at with the creation of the new transit center, So we want to make sure that, you know, we are keeping the design of that intersection at front of mind with how that's going to work and making sure that it's not repeating any sort of traffic flow going up to town hall and what could potentially be the draw site. I believe the applicant is agreeable to number 27 that the app they shall pay cash and a lieu for the construction of the software and trail. Is claiming commission is still familiar with this trail that we're asking for on the east side of the center leading up to and replacing essentially what that trail connection is right now. So the town wants to make sure that we are control that and a cash and loop payment to make sure that we're able to construct that as we feel fit as the best way to go. I have a question to the design team. There's a soft trail, soft surface trail connection to the trail behind Woodbridge condos, the melt and trail. Is that something that you're committing to completing before your CO is delivered. That's on your plan. It is and I'm kind of looking back at Bart. I am not recalling off the top of my head how we've addressed that in the development agreement, but it is timing is addressed in that. And the existing commitments that we have related to construction of those types of kind of public spaces remain. Yeah. I think the answer is yes. I believe that going back to the agreement was part of the previous agreement. It's part of the new agreement. It's not tied. It's not put off to the residential development. Okay. Thank you. So Brian, I as I informed you, I have a hard stop at six. And I have one condition that I, if I leave and you all continue on, I want condition I'd like to talk about that's not here yet. And the concern is the that whole driveway area and the parking configuration and so forth. I just feel like it's all too tight that 22 or 23 feet I guess is not really wide enough to have a it's not a parking lot it's a road that's got perpendicular parking on both sides so you got cars in and out of there all day long it's not a not only a road but it's a busy road in terms of car movements back and forth all day long. And the narrowness of the road, and the examples that I conjured up here are that I have reasons to have to go to the hospital three times a week and just park in just parking their parking lots. They have a very extravagantly wide driveway aisle there and yet it's still you see cumbersome vehicle movements for cars trying to get in and out with perpendicular parking on both sides and it's not a roadway it's a parking lot where this is a actual roadway. So my concern is, and I know the traffic people, I guess, have looked at this and said, yeah, it's all great. It doesn't look great to me. And I'd like to, and I think that a simple way to deal with that in spite of the potential with concern of the outriggers for the fire vehicles being able to somehow fit in between the perpendicular park cars versus angle cars. But I would still like to suggest that maybe this isn't a condition, maybe it's not a reason to put a condition on. But I would like to condition it that the council at least continue to study the possibilities of keeping that upper loop a one-way road and keeping it probably diagonal parking. The one way is probably more important than the diagonal, but I just see a real nightmare in terms of the whole parking configuration. Again, reiterating, it's a road that goes through there, a busy road, and it's got perpendicular parking on both sides, people backing out, blocking traffic movement. It's just to me, it seems like a big concern. I don't know, Doug, you... Well, I agree with your concern about backing out. When you back out into this two-lane road, you're going to be blocked. You're going to be backing not just into your lane, but in all honesty, you'll be backing into the oncoming traffic as well. And it will just be problematic. And I think condition 30 specifically talks about exploring one way and the diagonal and again we're committed to having some of those studies available for example. So you'll have actual, you know, not a not a verbal study but an actual diagrammatic puzzle to show an alternative and that the council then can grapple with and think about that concern. I just think that that it's just too tight. We added that condition for your 30. I think 30. For your comment last term. Okay. Thank you, Gus. So, I don't know if you get to reviewing this, but or finalizing this, but I'm sorry to say I have to leave. All right. Well, we're almost done. Brian. OK. Thank you. So condition number 28 kind of builds off of a condition number 27. The town just felt if we're the ones that are constructing the soft trail, it really ought to be included in the greater open space dedication parcel, which is actually number six. I think your copy may say parcel eight, but we felt strongly that, you know, if this is a amenity that is given and being built by the town, it should be incorporated in that parcel. The applicant did bring up that this may have some implications on what would have proved in terms of floor area ratio associated with original PUD. But we think we're able to work with that to accommodate and say that the building itself, the redeveloped snowmass center, cannot exceed a certain square footage rather than tying it to a floorarea ratio or FAA. Or provide credit for that open space that I can see. Oh yeah, sure. Yeah, so there's ways to do that. This is something that was actually created from the contract agreement. Just making sure that we have sized utilities that are actually gonna be stubbed out at the top of the Snowmass Center that will also accommodate any sort of residential development that occurs on parcels two, three and 4 in the future. If you cover 30, 30, 31. You want me to read 31 again or you've got it. Well, you guys put some work well. Yeah, and before we pass on number 30, we just will give this to sums up as well. This change explored to provide 30 or 30 oh Oh shall provide You want me to read 31 as I've we written it. If you have it, I mean, I have it. The applicant shall provide a covered connection between the grocery store and post office with pedestrian and landscape elements such as seating areas, fire pit, public art space, et cetera, to encourage connectivity between these areas. Plants for this will be considered by staff prior to building permit. If denied by staff, this could be appealed to the town council. In other words, if we, for some reason, didn't like what they did, they could appeal that decision. Good. Good. Okay. Thank you. I think some of these we can go through rather quickly. 31. We did. Yeah, sorry. 32. You know, rather, rather boilerplate. 33 is the same, you know, saying anything that wasn't modified by nature of this approval shall remain from the original approval. 34. to accommodate the expedited planning review process that we find ourselves in. I mean, undoubtedly we're going to miss some things. Undoubtedly we're going to have to go back and refine some things by nature of some of these conditions that we're crafting even tonight. This basically just protects the town. We can add, you know, additional language in there to, you know, accommodate what's needed. But this is something that was basically protecting the town in terms of this review process. And just tell you from my perspective, the commission's done a really good job over the past three meetings. And when we first started out, this was a greater concern to have it catch all, but I think if the applicant's okay with it, we'd like to keep it. Good. Yeah. But I feel better after what we've done through. I'm sure. So the final condition number 35, we made it. This is specific to the vested rights that are associated with the original PUD approval. A site-specific development usually does allow for 10 years. Vested rights associated with any sort of approval. There's four years expired on the existing vested rights associated with original PUD. Staff crafted this to allow for the remaining six years to be vested for any sort of approval that's come to with the town on this minor PUD. I think the applicant would argue that they would want their 10 years renewed. But we crafted this condition with the understanding that they still have six years left in that besting period and believe that's adequate. So does this suggest a continuation of youring period and I believe that's adequate. So does the suggestion continue? I think you're reading a little 10. Yeah. All right. And our preference is 10. We're comfortable with this condition. We expect to raise it at council as a specific request to go to 10 years. Okay. All right. Well, that's it. At this point, I'd like to add if anybody from the public would like to come up or any staff would like to come up and have any comments that they'd like to discuss in the time. There is just anyone we have space up here. Anybody? Nope. Okay. So anybody else? I'm commission anything else good? Thoroughly. Yeah. So I'm good. Nothing else. Right. Should we push to approve. I'll move approval of the resolution as amended. Thank you. I will second it. Second from David. All in favor. I. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Brian. And let me go on to the next item. We can. However, I apologize. We're going to have to a little bit schoolhouse. I've asked them to be concise. But there we do have the applicant here. And do you want to continue to the next meeting or it's after six so I mean. We would like to get it done but that's up to the planning commission. And I think we have commissioner cost and can participate now. Another hour at least. We think it would be another hour probably. You can only do 30 minutes. I think we're going to have time based on strengths. We can be excessively brief. But. Right. I'm I mean if you'd like to continue on. All right. Let's go. Thank you. I just know I apologize. I know that we have several items. Our meeting on the 18th. We do have the divide shop housing project coming forward. Thank you. I do appreciate it. That's a stretch break. Okay, we give a few minutes break, everybody set up. The two minute break. Yeah. Good to go. you you you you you you you you you you I'm hearing more in this one. you I'm going to start with the Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim will start introducing. I got a question for him. I'll try to be exceptionally brief too, is that it? Thank you. you I got two AMs, three AM both more. your stage. It's a controversial I was but for any of my work done. That's fantastic. It's a good time. You're like hell's and one of the good. I got that good. Hey, I'm going to go ahead. Let's start the review of the little red schoolhouse. Great or I'll jump. I'll turn it over to Jim. Yes. Hand it over to Jim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This particular item is a requested special review for a Lederitz Schoolhouse building addition as well as the supplemental subdivision plat for the property. we found that it was never really plated in the past. The site is zoned public and it's been that way for almost 40 years. But under that particular zoned district the proposed use is not permitted as an allowed use. So it requires some sort of a conditional use request, or in this case a special review under the S&M as Village zoning code. The applicant that Smith that we reviewed it against the standards, we felt it meant the standards as addressed by the applicant and their application. We also felt that the subdivision plat also meets the standards, which by the applicant in their application. We also felt that the subdivision plat also meets the standards, which are similar in nature to the special review request. So we did prepare a draft resolution, which outlines the findings while we think that complies with the zoning code along with a few draft recommended conditions for the project and the applicant may wish to address those or the planning commission may wish to make further modifications to the resolution as well. And by the way, the public noticed what was advertised for November 2nd, it was continued to this meeting. So here representing the applicant, which is the town is Mike Horvath, Greg LeBonk and Taylor Higgins, which is representing the applicant online. Okay. I'll turn it over to you guys. Thanks, Mr. Chair and planning commissioners. Thank you for having us back. In the interest of brevity, we did have a presentation for you all, but we can skip that or address certain things just to be expeditious tonight. And it's your pleasure. A quick presentation. Okay. We'll just expedite that. I'm going with the project. Yes. So Taylor, if you're able to share your screen, we can just give you a really high level reminder of what we're looking at. Thanks for fitting us in. All I'm Taylor with Landon Shelter. We're here on behalf of the town to show you guys the little red schoolhouse project and it's sort of current design state. Jim's sort of already given you the high level on the land use request that we're making tonight. Background Greg, do you want to get into any of this sort of backup sort of pre-project? Absolutely. I can go give you the quick and dirty on this. As you've heard this story before, this project came out of a council goal session, pre-me, so a few years ago, and in 2021, the council commissioned a feasibility study to really assess what was the need in the area. And by doing that, we got our, I'll say, guard rails on the project, so we knew we needed to expand childcare access in the area. We knew it had to happen at this site, and once diving into that site, we started looking at what it could actually accommodate. And so from that feasibility study, we looked at anywhere from more than tripling the capacity to somewhere more of like 50% doubling the capacity. Looking into that site, we found that there were some issues with the parcel. So we're looking at what the request today combining the two parcels into one, not having any meaningful impact into the current green space. The adjoining Kathy Robinson Park is one of the few parks. It's actually the only park of its kind within town limits. And so we want to have minimal impacts to that. And so that combined with improving the site overall is how we get to where we are today. And as you mentioned, there's no proposed change to use current use and there's no proposed change to the zoning designation. And this is just a little bit more up background on sort of a gray actually just went into how we got here. The feasibility study, the wait list data from Wodecrete Kids, Community Design Survey, and then all of the advisory group meetings that we held list stakeholders during schematic design. We presented to you guys back in February. At the end of schematic design, we had sort of a complete package at that time. And both Planning and Zoning and Council gave us feedback. We got a pretty substantial set of comments about scale and entry and parking. And there's sort of a whole laundry list of items that seemed worth addressing. And we also got schematic design pricing shortly after we presented to you guys. So comments plus pricing sort of resulted in us going back and really kind of taking another pass at what the project design and massing and floor plan program needed to be. This is quick vicinity map you guys know where the project site is. This is our proposed parcel or I'm sorry, plot combining the two existing parcels. The meats and bounds are not changing. It's just effectively approving this and recording it. Couple of quick existing site images looking up pill. The new proposed building is going about here and the ox building is proposed to go away. The little red school house stays the same. There will be a new sidewalk and access aisle here so that will look a little bit different. Quick view of the site from the if you're sort of standing over at the park. The new building is over here, so it's going to go kind of tucked into this hillside here and the new playgrounds are happening about where the existing playgrounds are. The shed structures go away and the little red stays. This is just a quick updated site plan. I think the last time you guys saw this it looked a little bit different. When we went back and kind of reconsidered program, we went to four classrooms. It reduced the amount of parking that we needed to do as part of the base project. So this is showing you 25 parking spaces in a phase one build out. And then there's an emergency access lane that gets you closer to the building so the 25 parking spaces in a phase one build out. And then there's an emergency access lane that gets you closer to the building so that fire truck. Bus for school trips dump or like trash pick up all of those vehicles can access closer to the building that will be gated. So it's not like people trying to park up there on a regular basis. We really can reconsider the entry sequence. It now starts at this plaza that joins the Little Red School House and the new building entrance here and it ramps up to the new building and there's this outdoor classroom zone that splits away from that. These are the new playgrounds, which we spent some time finacing. We got a lot of feedback about how the playgrounds would work and really feel like they're part of the hillside. We minimize the disturbance to the turf zone, which was also feedback we received. And then the auxiliary building, as we noted, would be going away. And this would be future southern exposure outdoor space. This is sort of just code information on the site plan so we'll keep this brief but effectively as designed with a phase one and phase two parking build out the lot would still be 79% open space. So we're proposing approving or recording this project at 75% open space for the site to give you a little bit more information because I don't think the phase parking was in here previously. The phase two parking would add an additional 12 spaces and a potential second drive access to Al Creek. And town feels it would be beneficial to have the right to add the additional parking if in future it becomes necessary, but they don't necessarily want to be obligated to build it at the outset. The 25 spaces is really kind of checking all the boxes for the minimum program size. And so that would be the assumption for the initial build, just Phase 1 parking lot. Phase 2 would be future. The program, again, is landed on four classrooms. They're sort of front loaded here alongside the playgrounds and then the back kind of band is support spaces. The trail gets a little bit realigned here because the parking lot isn't approaching, the trail sort of hooks over currently. So there's a little bit of rework to that existing trail. This is just quick reference to the shade study. Playgrounds being shaded was a big concern by planning and zoning and council. So this diagram down here on the bottom is showing you winter solstice at three times a day. There's a 9 a.m. and noon and a 3 p.m. And at noon, the playgrounds are shaded on December 21st, but in the mornings and afternoons, there would be ample sunshine on playgrounds. And obviously in the summer it's sunshiney. This is general site section just to give you a sense of the scale. So this is the new proposed building here in the center. This is the Little Red Schoolhouse, and this is the aux building on top of the hill. And the new structure at one story is really, it's this is the aux building on top of the hill and the new structure at one story is really it's lower than the aux building and just slightly higher than the little red schoolhouse because it's uphill. General program information. The current program is 25 kids. The new program will house 60 children. There's an infant classroom, a toddler classroom, and two preschool classrooms. Those are all designed to flex. So the infant room can become toddler. The preschools and toddlers are interchangeable. So if the program needed to hold a different set of classrooms based on who enrolled that year, they have some flexibility to do that. The little red school house is not currently in the scope of the project. It could be a gross motorroom, it could be converted to an infant classroom. It's sort of flexible what that might be in the future. General stats on the new proposed building. It's 5600 square feet single-story slab on grade 27 feet tall from the lowest existing grade point. We talked about 25 spaces with 12 in future. This is a quick shot of the new entrance and giving you the scale of what small children look like in that entry space. This is the outdoor classroom, which would have some built-ins, sort of gardens and rocks. This is standing up on the south edge of the site, looking back towards Al Creek, and this is sort of that covered porch next to the playground zones. Contextual renderings, just to give you a sense of the building tucked into the site, you really, there's a lot of trees. You don't see too much of it. The ox building here is going away so we sort of ghosted that out. Mike did you want to jump in on. HOA grading yeah we've met with a sync Claire meadows HOA to discuss some encroachments for grading and utilities and kind of showed them the renderings of the building tucked into the hillside and the way we've tried to mitigate visual effects, the neighborhood up above the little or at schoolhouse and they've been very supportive and feel like we've done a good job to blend it into the hill and not overscale the site and visually affect from gamble rate. And then generally this is just sort of summarizing the land use approvals that we documented within the application. That's all I got. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? I didn't quite understand a parking part of it. You've got X number of spaces required. Yeah, so I'll pull this out quickly. There's basically a calculation that we did and we worked with both. Woody Creek kids to actually get their sort of staffing count. To build out the minimum parking count. So it includes all of the teaching staff, the administrative staff, the maintenance staff, and then there's a certain number that are dedicated to drop off parking. And then we basically backed that number. So that came to about 23 parking spaces, one additional because we need a handicap space. And then we did a parking study that sort of confirmed the parking data. And I think the parking minimum in the parking study was like 24 spaces. So we ended up putting in 24 spaces with one handicap space. So the width of a parking space is that determined or are you squeezing in enough? And the reason I'm asking this question is having just been in Chicago with three grandchildren and loading and unloading. It's a parking space that almost have to be unloading zone. You open up the door, you're trying to get us a four year old into their car seat and buckling a man up the door, you're trying to get us a four-year-old into their car seat and buckling a man in the door, the doors open up so wide and then they open wider. And while you're doing this, you're butch sitting in the door and your door is hitting the car next to you. And and considerates of all the car owners, coming in with slightly wider parking spaces, AKA loading terms for these vehicles. So the spaces right now, I believe we sized them at, I think they're 10 by 19. I'd have to go check our civil drawings. That's sort of the margin that we set. Currently, the, we, in the base project, we're showing the lot as gravel. So like space is loosely defined right. Um if we end up paving a lot then that changes it a little bit right because then people are really working with the lines and that is currently being carried as carried as an alternate because i think staff would prefer that the lot be paved. They're not like eight foot compact spaces spaces. So that's, I mean, that's, that's. Well, I'm sure you'd every day, right? Yeah. OK. You know, intent the 10-foot one-foot wider than your standard parking spot. So, you know, you did a loading zone. Maybe not quite, but it is wider than your typical parking spot. Yeah. That any questions? I'll just a quick comment that I think the design is much improved over the initial design we saw. I'm just sitting up here just grateful that you heard our comments about the mass and the scale and the situating into the hillside. This is as much better and I think it still creates a huge added benefit to little red schoolhouse in the community. Appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. The primary criticisms, one that overshadowed the little red school house building. And this one sits much. More congenially in landscape, I think. Dresses that address that issue. I believe it's 24 feet. It is 24. Yeah. Hang on. Sorry. I was trying to pull the seven away that I can sort of zoom. I'm going to go ahead and see what I can do. I'm going to go ahead and see what I can do. I'm going to go ahead and see what I can do. I'm going to go ahead and see what I can do. I'm going to go ahead. It is 24. Yeah. Hang on. Sorry. I was trying to pull the seven away that I can sort of zoom. I would be what is standard and most place for it in parking weather or not. It's one way, whether it's one way. So that would be adequate, I think. So I'm very pleased to change. Right? David? Thank you. You've shared some additional images of the project. Then we had received in our in our package for review. And I had based my comments really on the elevation sheets, the elevation sheet that we had shared. I for one, I'm glad to see that the scope of the project has been reduced. It's a single story project, which I think is good. I'm glad you kind of put the floor plan on a diet and made that a little more efficient and a little more amenable to the site. I did have some concerns though about the elevations that I do want to bring up. And again, I don't know to what extent the current elevations that you've shared with us have been shared with the town council. Whether they've seen this, whether they've opined down this at all, or whether we're seeing this for the first time. David, we took it back to them, I think twice. So they have seen this sort of updated version. Okay, so we're a little bit behind in terms of weighing in on them. And that means that my comments may no longer be relevant, but I will give them to you anyway. If I might. David. Excuse me. David. Commissioner Seiglin. Yes. This is David Chinaman. They're absolutely relevant. The process that's going on to date has been the ownership process just like any. If the applicant was another. Private party. The council. I think this is the approval process that goes through. So this is the proper time to comment and your comments will be brought forward in town council. So I don't want to stop you from commenting or making any suggestions you have. There's still time and this is the process. Dave, I appreciate that, thank you. So I will make some comments. And again, I'm kind of going back to some things that we saw in previous presentations. I was a little surprised when I saw this just in terms of the roof configurations. We had seen a couple of items, a couple of options some time ago. And I had mentioned at the time that I thought I'd liked the shed roof scheme. And even though it was a two story scheme, I thought that if we reduced that building to a single story, the shed roof scheme would still be appropriate. And in that manner, it would potentially have a higher roof line facing a little red school house, which would have greater opportunities for glazing and views outside from in as well as viewing the inside from outside. And so I think that might be a reasonable consideration to what is being presented. I think with the exception of some of the clear stories you're showing that face the Little Red School House, it's a rather ordinary roof line in this drawing and I thought it might be a little more dynamic to have a butterfly roof or a shed roof or something like that. That's one comment I wanted to make. I would like to encourage the design team to consider a variety of colors and materials on this building, something that could in live in toddlers and young children to grab their attention. A facade that has a variety of materials I think would be a welcome variety of window configurations in the elevations that I'm looking at here that we're looking at on the screen. There's really not much there that references the scale of little children that will be the primary occupants of the building. I think it's nice to be able to have something that relates to children that pretty much come up to our waistline in the facade and in the treatment of the building. So I think scale and detail and colors are all important here and I would encourage a variety of that happening in these buildings. There's kind of a lack of playfulness in the fenestration right now. And I would encourage that to be considered as part of the design process. So it appears, again, in the drawings that we've seen so far with the exception of what you just showed us to be a little, little plan. And so I would encourage the design team to really try and make this as lively building as you possibly can, I think it's a building that you're going to want to look into from the outside because little kids like doing artwork and posting artwork on walls and things like that. And that can be part of the presentation of this building in general by seeing what's going on inside of the classrooms. And yes, they might be messy, but that's all part of the process of being a kid in a small school like this. So just to keep it brief, that is pretty much what I want to address. Material differentiation, small scale detail, color variety, roof lines, um, playfulness. Thank you, David. Um, Dave, if you can incorporate maybe some of those into our conditions, maybe some of those comments, would that be appropriate? We will take a stab at Dave. I'm sorry, I went so fast. Let me once continue and I'll take a stab at that one. Yeah. Um, you know, really, I don take a stab at that one. Yeah. You know, really I don't have much more to say. I think everybody's I'm in pretty much an agreement with everybody. I think that the project's really evolved into really. It's really mindful for the side. I think the scale. It's appropriate for the community and for for everything for the surrounding area. The neighborhood and. I really like the direction this has taken. And I think the whole team has done a great job. And this was an easy project with so many members of the community from council to playing commission to there's a lot of festive parties. But I think Dave's comments are very appropriate. And I don't really have anything else to add at this point. Wait for Dave, we go through the conditions, I guess, maybe real quick quick but really nobody audience if so we need to pop it comments but anything else? Where we move forward. How would make a month is in two proof? Wait a bit conditions as shown. As shown or do you want me to read that? to approve. We have the conditions as shown. Okay. Think as shown or do you want me to read? I think Dave has some conditions he's going to have a quick. So well, I'm not sure that I would support that. I'm not sure that it's really our job to redesign the building. I think we're presented with a building that is what, apparently the applicant wants. with a building that is what, apparently, the public at once. And I don't feel that we necessarily should be providing conditions that there should be a shed roof rather than a clear story or this or that. I think of the notion that it's lovely to have bright colors and things that are attractive to children is just fine. But I really don't support redesign the building at this point. Let's add a quick, go ahead, Matt question. The staff know if a recycle station is going in at this site. It's not currently in the plan. But. Yeah. Yeah. Expansion is kind of the bare bones and we want to see ridership and how that develops ridership is. Um, at a high level. We will certainly look at increasing places for it. And this is a great spot with transit nearby as well. Okay. Yeah, good to keep it open mind with respect to that site because it could be a pretty high activity node that could be well served. But I know I just stand here to wait and see, so I'm not asking for a condition. I'm just asking a question. I'm sure. Yeah, I mean, I think standard comments are valid. Dave, I mean, I think the applicant heard your comments or your suggestions. Are you fine if we don't put it in the resolution? I wasn't sure if you. Well, um, Sure, I said my piece. That's fine. I'd be willing to support Dave's suggestion as a condition that we recommend they explore. Now we're falling back and from from our previous discussion and eliminated the word explore, but in this case I think that would be appropriate. Okay. I'm with that. You get with that stand maybe just okay I think explorers spare. I mean I mean Dave. Then I would we would like the applicant to explore the art, the architecture to include a variety of colors, materials, and variations in the roof line. And scale, small scale as well. Okay. Okay. I think I'm going to motion to approve as amended. I'll second that emotion. I mean, motion. Second emotion. I'll second the motion. Who was the first? I'm sorry. I'll stand. Stand. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Thank you, Greg. Staff, everybody. Apotent. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Thanks for sticking around. And the next item is just any updates from Dave and we will adjourn. So very quickly, I wanted to one. Thank you all for getting through a couple several long meetings. I will not be here. So I wanted to wish you all Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I'll be back at the start of the new year for our meetings. I'm going to be going to Germany. But next meeting is the shop, divide housing project that you saw in the joint meeting. I can't remember October, maybe September. So that's coming to you. And then Mr. Wallstrum will be back with the signage on the mountain. It's a long love snowmass signage campaign. I just want to mention to that that one isn't what came to us in as an administrative amendment. However, because they are some I think they are what five feet tall by 18 feet 19 feet long. I just felt it would be best to come here. You would be the final decision makers in that. But I just felt that it's big enough signs going and change it to the mountain. It's not specifically covered in the PUD guide. I just felt uncomfortable making that type of decision administratively without knowing that the community body supports it. Does the town have a billboard ordinance? Their individual letters. Should we have a bill? Well, well, that'd be. They are, they, I don't want to get too much into it. You'll see the application was kind of a tongue-in-cheek question, but they're their individual letters. And I don't want to buy us you on. What my opinion would be, but it's at the top of elk camp looking out at the in the non-snakey's I think is the other location. location. So you're not going to see him from town, but maybe in the form of a drone light show. Yeah, but they're not wet. I don't think. Yeah, but anyway, that's why it's coming to you. I kind of weighed that back and forth and I just felt I think this is something that you'd like to see and and should weigh in on. But I won't I won't be here to actually I think that's on the 18th. Well, thank you for everything. Thank you for getting us through this year and happy holidays. Happy holidays Merry Christmas and a year and have a safe journey. Just want to remind everybody we will be meeting this second Wednesday in January. Yes, we did. Modifier updates to the eighth. I believe in the whatever the. Well, thank you. Eighth in the 22nd or January. We'll see you next year. So we're not going to be meeting on New Year's Day. No, no, okay. With the very bad. Anyhow, Ashley, thank you again. And at this point, could I get a motion to adjourn? What's the underage here? Yeah, I'll move adjournment. Matt, it's me, Stan. All favor? Hi.