Good morning. Good morning. Good afternoon. It feels like the morning. Today is Monday, April 14. It is 4 o'clock PM. This of the snowmass town council and I see we have some guests in the audience welcome So our first item for discussion is going to be workforce housing land use code review process code amendment discussion And I know we have Brian and Dave here. So I'll let you guys kick it off. Great. Thank you Madam Mayor. Yeah. So yes, as you mentioned, this is the Workforce Housing Land Use Code Amendment first on the agenda here. This is something that's been proposed by staff for quite some time. This amendment would allow Workforce Housing projects to be brought forth and proceed through the special review process as opposed to the current PUD process. As Council's well aware, we have a couple projects, workforce housing projects that are in the process right now are at least being queued up for a preliminary plan, in particular the draw site and the divide workforce housing project that's being brought forth by Aspen's skiing company. Both of these are subject to the current review process, which is planned unit development, the PUD process. And that is a three step review, as you know, both those applications are going through that process, as I said, they are going to queue up for preliminary plan. This amendment, as proposed by staff at this time, consolidate the review duration by making it a one step process by way of special review. The reason for this is three fold. The first is to bring the town of Snowmass Village into compliance with Proposition 123. That's a state proposition limiting the time frame of workforce housing review to no more than 90 days So that does put a limitation on Reviewing workforce in affordable housing type projects at three months The second would be to obviously reduce cost So this would be for the benefit of the town bringing through affordable housing projects as well as for Individual individual developers like gasp and skiing And then finally, they would allow the town to be eligible for state funding through Proposition 123 as well. So these are all reasons why we think it's a good idea. And it is recommended and supported by staff. It's important to point out that the amendment would also standardize the term workforce housing throughout the land use code. If you go through the land use code today, you'll see that there's a number of references to employee housing, restricted housing, affordable housing, so on and so forth. Basically, this would standardize the term workforce housing to be compliant with our workforce master plan. So again, staff is recommending that Town Council give direction to staff to actually bring this application forward. It would go to planning commission for their review and of course they would give a recommendation to Town Council when we come back to this entity. So with that, you have anything you'd like to add, Dave, or Clint? I don't. I think that just that the recommendation is to bring it back to planning commission. They would do the review and then it would come back here for a review of the ordinance prior to adoption. So action tonight to go forward is an adoption of this plan, but it's a direction that says, hey, might be a good idea. Let's go look at it Yeah, the only couple things I would add is the special review is an existing process so that's not a new process to land use code It's already in there so this idea is already allowed in the code the changes to allow workforce housing to use this process That's the big change and then I would just make one kind of minor modification for Brian said is, one, two, three does not require us to make this 90 days in order to be eligible for grant funds where we require to. So if we don't do it, we're not eligible for state grant funds. So the state can't mandate our land use change, but it's a new answer, but an important new answer. We're not saying you have to do it no matter what, but if you want to be eligible for the grant funds, when you read the detail of the grant funds, it talks about 90. It's a nuance but an important nuance. So we're not saying you have to do it no matter what, but if you want to be eligible for the grant funds. When you read the detail of the grant funds, it talks about 90 days, and then it talks about the developer can ask for an additional 90 days, and the town can ask, add an additional 90 days, but you need to have a fundamental process in place. There's absolutely no guarantee this will meet it. We think this is the right path. the state has to approve it at the end and say, yep, you have, you have streamlined, they have terminology, but basically, streamlined to approach this. Absolutely, you know, Guaranteedos immediate. We think this is the right path. The state has to approve it at the end and say, yep, you have streamlined, they have terminology, but basically stream lines reproach this in a way that you're eligible and they make that determination through the grant process. So, but we think we know our current process doesn't even come close and this would get us closer. So, that first round of grants that would require for this was about a year away. And so we've got a little bit of time, but we are hoping to get this underway now. Just knowing that we're going to take some time to get some adoption, it'll take us time to get our applications together, et cetera, et cetera. And then the only thing I would add is that there was a letter that hopefully you had a chance to read and support from our housing department, Betsy Crumb, and Betsy is also here online to answer any questions you may have. Brian, it might be helpful to explain so my colleagues have been through the process as much as some of us, just the difference between sketch preliminary and final and special review. Certainly. As you, some of you know on the town council, the PUD process can be quite lengthy. It's essentially comprised of sketch plan preliminary and final. For each of those steps, it does go to the planning commission first and they can have several meetings talking about a sketch plan application which is really supposed to be very preliminary. Over the years, sketch plan has actually gotten a little bit more detailed than we would like to see in our department but it's supposed to be just very you know to gauge basically the temperature of you know the town is to with regards to whether or not a application would actually go through the preliminary. So after you know gets reviewed by planning commission of course it goes on to town council. It towns council approves a sketch plan. The applicant goes back, they put together a preliminary plan, which is much more detail. We're talking civil plans, traffic analysis. Really the brain engineer analysis, all these sort of things. Yeah, and it's much more in tail. And as you know, that's essentially what the draw side would be going you know is working towards currently of course goes through the same process for preliminary goes to planning commission first they give a recommendation to town council town council sees it again and if it's approved at that point it goes into final this is where they button up all the loose ends in final plan they don't necessarily have to go to planning commission, it goes straight to town council for their review and ratification. Special review is a much more consolidated process. It is a one step process, which means it does go to planning commission. Planning commission can have as many meetings as they like on it. So just making sure the town council understands that this doesn't mean it's one meeting and one meeting by the planning commission, one meeting by town council. Planning commission can have as many meetings on it as they like. They again give a recommendation, it goes to town council and the town council can have as many meetings as they like during that one step process. So I would need to be within 90 days when first goes the planning. Yes, and as Clint said, in order to qualify for that funding. And then there's the fudge factor that's built in. There's the 90 days. The language says 90, then you read through the regulations. The town can add 90, the developer can add 90. So 90s, what they say, that's what we're aiming for. We know that's a stretch, but we think we can hit them. To add to that, it's important to note, it could be done in 90 days. Yeah. The process allows for it to be done in 90 days. I think it's also important to note that I don't know that it's any more detailed to go through a three step process. I mean that some of the things that have gone through PUD, the draw side is going through the PUD, the divide housing project is going through the PUD process. We've been, I think, in that process for over two years on one of those. There's the deerbrook project that's been going on for about four years to the PUD process. Now some of that's their delay, but that's the timeline. The review standards for a special review do allow for consistency with the comprehensive plan complying with the elements of the development code for evaluation standards, compatibility, access, impacts, you know, adequate facilities, parking, the same review standards that are part of the PUD process, but just in a shortened timeframe. And also within any residential or mixed use zone district. So we would show up with all that information on day one versus step two, basically. I mean, one, you know, maybe you could talk a little bit about, I mean, in the standard PUD process, three step. Preliminary design is when planning commission tongue counts are really delvin to it and really get into them, nuts and bolts and all that, right? Final design is really generally a technical reviewed by you guys and comes to us to be approved. But it really is pretty technical. The construction documents are all completed and make sure they've done everything. The promise are going to do, right? Correct. Development agreements, so forth. Right. So in special review, Would you have to wait until all that is done all that drawing information is completed as it would be for final design under PUD It would look similar to preliminary Hmm the counts of perspective it would look similar to what you see at preliminary Well, but that's my question. I mean mean, there's a whole step of development after preliminary in the PED process. Where things get buttoned up and then they get reviewed by staff and then counsel. That step would be gone. Is that correct? That's correct. So. But during that special review process, town council can ask for as much information as they want to during that time. So if they feel they don't have enough information in order to approve a project and they need to put it on the back burner, it can be continued to whatever date you want until the applicant come back with that information that's requested by town council. We got 90 day thing. But I wonder if the time for special review would be at a point in the project, which is a little more advanced than preliminary, maybe not as far along as final so that some of that important information, which occurs between preliminary and final, can be a important project. I think there's a lot of detail in there, right? It's really. Yeah. Yeah, the way I, I mean, just for, the way I think about it as a non-plan, is you guys as a council approve the preliminary plan, and you get all the detail you want, it's Brian, what you just saying. And then the final plan, I think the last couple that I can recall at least, the council actually approves on consent because these guys spend all the time with it to make sure that follow up but still happen by staff, it just wouldn't come back to the council. And so the development, the, oh my gosh, you just used the term, I just blanked it. Divide, I don't know. What the document, the Jeff approves, that says here's all the land use agreements. A development. A division improvement. Oh my gosh, you just used the term. I just blanked it. Divide? No. No. The document, the Jeff approves, it says here's all the land use agreements. A development. A development of the original SIAs. SIAs, all that stuff, would still occur. And so it just wouldn't come back for the for your guys to say make sure it's all done. We would know the poem. We would know what needs to be approved to the SIA. Would there all be in conditions in the... Yes, yes. It would be in conditions for all to understand us here. It would be in conditions in the... Yes, it would be in conditions for... I understand this. It would be in the conditions or it may be completed. Many developments have started working on all of those documents. But for those things that aren't done, which is a certain step, you could have conditions like you do. I guess you couldn't get a building permit to those things. Well, and that's why I was going to say is that we go through a very thorough review at building permits in the middle to make sure that we have all those technicalities getting care of at that time. Or we could say a plaque couldn't be recorded until those type of conditions. And something that we would, I think, have to be conscious of to do it right. The danger of the special review process is you go through the whole design before you start to get any input from planning commission. As we saw the original transit center didn't work out so good. You know. What we did when we were talking about the two levels scheme for the tram, we brought, we had a joint meeting with the planning commission, we brought them in. So what do you think? You know, and got some input. So I think if we were to do this, it would be important to have that kind of dialogue early on in the process or even periodically so that council doesn't proceed with the project all the way to the end and then find out that we have got community input or playing commission input and the project does not get approved. The public process is included in the both steps. We've had special review. Yeah. But even when we got the public service commission with me, the informal way I think was really helpful and I would hope. I don't know that we have to write it into the code but I would hope that we would do that in practice if we have a project where the town is the developer. We're doing special review to bring them in and get their input so we don't go down a blind path. I mean that's what this I think in the staff report we just said we called it extended owners review which however you want to have your ease on it. Is there a space in that special owners review where we can write into the code for that kind of opportunity for a first round with planning commission? No. Well, you use two different processes. Owners reviews is kind of what you're doing now with the draw site. You guys can say whatever you want, you don't stick to the code. Here's our opinion. Thank you. Make it happen. When it hits the land use process, you have to follow the conditions of the code. And so, you guys informally could say, we want as much community input as possible up front for whatever the next project is. Let's just point to the center site. And hey, we're going to build, you know, whatever pick your number. A hundred of students over there, and we want to make sure sure as this thing gets developed, there's neighborhood meetings and there's whatever and planning commission finance about you guys as the owners can say. But we can bring the planning commission in for an informal session during that. And I would call it neighbors for sure, but when you bring them in for a planning commission, this is what Jeff was talking about the last time we did it with the transit center, it gets gray because it gets to be, well, are they pre-judging the project before they actually see it? And so that's why it's specifically said, we can bring in the neighbors and individuals cannot for their input and all the kind of stuff. I understand that, but it's really important to, and that's when the advantage of sketch before preliminary, you get the planning commission to say, yeah, you're going in the right direction, whereas, you know, if we just go without any dialogue with the planning commission and bring it to them when it's all fully designed, it runs the risk of not being approved, which we don't want to have happen. Wait, so just to clarify, so when you're talking about the three-step process, when it goes to planning commission, aren't we still just as restricted in what we can talk about with them? Yes. So what difference does it make? No, no, I'm hoping is special review. Well in the three-step process everybody buys in at the beginning that yeah, that looks like the good direction to go on, right? By everyone you may planning in council. But what I'm saying is you're concerned with the one step or the expedited process is that we'll be limited in what we can even if we said we want to talk to planning commission early we have some constraints about how much we can. That is my concern I would like to have but that's my question is that the same in the three-step process when we talk to planning commission? Well three-step process there is the sketch plan which is early on in the process where it's agreed yeah it makes sense to a building sort of like that in that location yeah that seems like. We're not supposed to ask a lot of questions and you can't really have in depth conversation with each other. During sketch plan? Right, right. During the sketch plan. But they review it, we review it, and sorry everybody's an agreement that, you know, I'll be ludicrous. You know, 20 story building employee housing on the golf course, okay? If in a sketch plan, first a planning commission would see it and say, okay, yeah, that makes sense, yeah, well that makes that's a good idea. And then we see it at sketch, yeah, I think it's a good idea. Then the applicant goes through a lot of work and prepares the detailed drawings. But we've already said, yeah, it's a good idea to build a 20 story building of course. Where's a special review and say, where are the owner? We could spend two years on design and then we say, okay, it's ready to show. And we send it to planning commission and they say, no, that's ridiculous. There shouldn't be a 20-story building in the golf building. But can we in the special review talk with? That's what I'm asking. That's what I'm asking. What I want to know is, is that going to be more restricted than if we did it in preliminary in the... It's very similar to what you're doing now. The planning commission, I'll use the draw side as an example because it's not in quasi-judicial right now. They approved two buildings. And the owners have now said no, we want to do one building. And so, or recommend that approval is what the planning commission did. And so, your example is going to happen. With the PUD process, the last time they saw those two buildings, it buildings. It's going to come back to them in the next round, assuming that they get submitted with one building. And so it will be different than what they saw. But the benefit is the owners, in this case, you all have kind of said, hey, this is how we are doing it. And guiding it that way. My concern using that example is it was a special review review and we'd spent two years working on the design and then we sent it over to planning. We'd say the design we have now 64 units one building and they say no there should be no building over three stories on the draw site. Wouldn't we want to even if we were doing a special review, talk to them early? That's what I'm asking. I'm getting pushback the maybe week. And that's what I was asking too. Like, is there a way to write that into the code so that we know we're going to have that dialogue early so that we avoid that misstep that Tom's describing or something so baked that you? I didn't hear pushback. I just heard that it's under the same constraints as when we talk about it and special when you meet with another board, what I said was there's gray in the quasi-judicial. And so I can't sit there and say you can absolutely do that. Just like there's gray when you met with the planning commission regarding the transit center, it was gray. What does that mean? Like in fact, because that meeting seemed to function well, but what is that like? The process is set up so that the planning commission can hear from, there's the application can come in. It can be reviewed by staff. It can go to planning commission and have an independent review by that board who is charged with the, to provide you with a recommendation. We have mailings that go out, the properties notified, it's not a two-way street, there is very bored that you've charged to take a look at architecture and all of the development evaluation standards in the code. There's many. That's a public open transparent process. But it goes to them so they can talk about it. And they're not, I think when it comes here, it can be good if you want a larger group to make those decisions. And that's a group discussion, but it's not, the way the process is set up is to have planning commission be able to review it, take testimony, look at the evaluation standards and provide you with a transparent recommendation from them based upon their their feelings. If you're looking for a group discussion beforehand as an owner's group, you can do that like you did with the with the draw side. I just think that where that clouds or where that becomes gray, because now you brought the planning commission in. are they somehow hold held to that non public meeting sort of general open discussion when they get it for formal review or can they then act as an independent body and give you a recommendation once it comes into that formal review process that's where to, to me, the great area comes out of that. But still, we still run the risk that, like, if we don't have an official process for them seeing it a bit earlier in the process, say when we have the ingredients, that they are going to be seeing in special review, they'll be seeing more of a baked cake for the initial time that they see it. That's right, yes, yes. which means that it may expedite 75% of the projects, but... a baked cake for the initial time that they see it. Which means that it may expedite 75% of the projects, but 25, I'm just giving kind of arbitrary examples. 25% may get tanked because, or they may get shot down will later and more develop points in the process because they haven't been seen yet by. One way to get over that is to actually put something in whether you require a meeting up front, but now you're lengthening the process. Another way would be go to planning commission, that recommendation comes forward, Council reviews, something says, hey, nope, we don't want two buildings, we want one one send it back to planning commission for review review that would be another one. But if you're trying to bring them in for a joint meeting I think that's where I see the group. Well it's the pre-judging. Yeah only if I mean I'm not pushing back. We can modify the code. I mean, could we put something in the code under special review? That if they... I mean, I'm not pushing back. We can modify the code. I mean, could we put something in the code under special review that if the applicant sure requested, there can be an informal meeting at sketch level where however you want to call it, between Planning Commission, Town Council, early on in the process. And that's specifically for affordable housing work, for so our employee housing projects. Exactly right. That's based on the special review for the code. Yep. What I'm trying to do is avoid where we go all the way down the road and then it doesn't get approved. I think that's a good idea. I mean, they're area in the level of expertise. They may point out something that we weren't aware of. So I think that's meaningful early on. So let me So the goal is to get to yes quicker than let's put something in the code that we can have if the applicant should ask for it. So Councilman Fritz, you would say that be on a requested basis. I'm just suggesting that. I would assume the applicant, if they thought it would expedite approval, would request it. I'm trying to keep it very loose and non-quasi judicial and say, just get all the minds together, make sure everybody is agree or go in the right direction. the thing about the applicant would have open as an option to them before submitting for special. Yeah. Yeah. Too bad Jeff's not here. I think I've told you what I think that's where it was. This is what Jeff has told us. That's why we're saying. You bodies in and now they are they predetermining what their actions going to be when they get to review it So cut the up again, we're and let's live in it to work for us housing And let's ask Jeff. I think what you're hearing from council. I don't want to speak for everybody But I think four of us are agreementally is is we'd like to see something in there that facilitates the ability to have that informal I don't want to speak for everybody, but I think four of us are agreementally is we'd like to see something in there that facilitates the ability to have that informal discussion early on with planning and council. So everybody council doesn't go down the road or the applicant in any case of years of design and then get turned down. And does it have to be joint? Like if it's too legally gray for us to do it as a joint meeting, could it be just a quick, like, check of the ingredients with the planning commission early on in the process? Yeah, I leave that up. We can leave up the staff to figure that out. But you guys know the, you get the objective. I don't actually because here's, this is where, this is where I'm confused. I'm going to stick to the draw side example for a minute. You guys have spent the last six months year drawing it. Let me be ridiculous, use your 20 story example. They say, no, we want two buildings. We've proved two buildings in sketch. There's not two buildings. Go back to two buildings. And that's that they recommend this is not, this preliminary plan does not meet the sketch approval. It we wanted to build in and for all these reasons, because it was 89 units or whatever, 79 units, it was more units, it was more, whatever. And our recommendation is denial because this preliminary plan doesn't need whatever. I'm going to assume you guys have seen it enough that you're going to evaluate that recommendation on its merits. Just like you would through this special review, you'd recommend the recommendation on its merits. We can set up a special meeting in advance. The only thing that they can't do is they can't sit there and say, we love it or we hate it. They can say, have you thought about this access? Have you thought about this height? Have you thought about this view plane? All stuff that whatever, but they can't pre-judge an application until it's in front of them in the quasi-judicial. And that's what Jeff told you guys last time. That's why I'm comfortable regurgitating it. They just can't do it. I would take it back to Jeff, new guys thing about it. I think we'd like to have some way of having that community cage just to help protect the process. I mean, the Transit Center planning commission been involved along the way, maybe would add a different result. But they didn't see it till the end. There was no sketch plan. When, and I think about the opportunity that we had to chop before the Snowmass Club went too far down the wrong direction. You know, they didn't overly develop. They didn't spend years and, you know, tons of money. Was that a joint meeting? Yeah, we had that big joint meeting. It felt productive to have that up front. I know that's different from a work for a housing project, but I kind of think about that process. It gave a good, it was a good temperature gauge for the appetite for that project in our community with Planning Commission and Council. So how can we achieve that? Or can we? Well, go ahead. I mean, I'll just say, can I, I did a bunch of research on this this weekend and I actually talked to one of our counterparts on the council at Steamboat because Steamboat has done an expedited review process and I sit on Cog with one of the members so I called him and we talked through it and. And they have, he sent me, which I'm happy, I shared it with some of you, but happy to forward to you. They have this whole development review team mission and policies. And basically, it goes through this whole team. And then it goes to the planning commission for two public hearings and it goes to the council for two public hearings and he said personally that there have been no cons to the process that it has been successful. They've had a few development applications come through not a ton. This was just, you know, they adopted it in 2023. But how they've done it seems to work and he doesn't feel like it's to finish the review process at all. He feels like it's, you know, not reduced. It's just faster. One of the things that they did do, and I don't know if this is like common and other municipalities, if everyone's doing it this way but they They basically put our restriction on what kind of projects it could apply to not just Workforce housing but like for instance they say it either has to be That a minimum of 30% of the total proposed dwelling units are affordable housing or that a minimum of 30% of the total proposed dwelling units are affordable housing, or that a minimum of 30% of the residential net floor is housing. And I don't know if we were planning to do something like that, or we were just saying any workforce housing project, but they basically, that was sort of the applicability, how you'd become eligible, and then you basically get moved to the top of community development list in terms of projects, and then it starts the process. And one of the things, you know, they have this document, basically if the development team that's looking at it, the development review team doesn't feel like it's meeting certain criteria, they send it back to the applicant, and it might be that the applicant then reapplies and comes in as a total new application, which then sets the 90-day period to start over again. So, who does it remember? Who's the development team? So, Steamboat has something called the development review team, which you said is very similar to like technical review. Round Robin, yes. Is it staff? Yes. And I have a development review. Yes, and so it's very much like this, but they have like very specific responsibilities and functions in the pre-application and their application review. And it talks about if they feel like certain criteria aren't exactly quite there, maybe would be amenable to planning commission and council, they then kick it back and sometimes it means that they have to start the application process again, tripping the 90 day period again so that you can stay within that time frame. So there's an initial filter? So yeah it's basically what very similar to probably what they're doing now. Something similar to that now. We have a completion review and Yes. And we have a development review team that we We're all different departments are looking. That's what the town engineer, it's all the same style planners. Yes. The housing department, public works. But they spelled this out different than other projects. They did this specifically for this type of review. And they put a specification on the type of projects that would fulfill, that would meet this applicability for this type of review. That's what we're posing. Right, your completion review team that looks at it before if it were PUD, that would go ahead of sketch, and you would see it very first for this process. You can make that more formal. I mean, our completion review is more right now. It's informal. It's handled by the planner. But we could very easily bring that team together. Yes. It's a petition. It's at a staff level. It's the completion review is never, it's, whether it's Dave or Mike. I'm just asking where, where that starts. It is, it's step one. If you came in with an application, before it even goes to planning commissioner and gets put on an agenda, or even gets sent out for review, it's gotta be complete. We make sure you've addressed parking, you've addressed access, you've addressed the zoning standards, you've addressed all of those, you know, compatibility, consistency with the comprehensive plan, etc., etc. Before it even, so we would, we sometimes go back and forth a couple of times before an application is accepted for, to start the process. And I don't know how those compared to like what they've set aside for their specific development review as it relates to this, they've definitely it's Differentiated it's not the same as a typical And the only difference is it sounds like they're restricted to the number of public hearings and we don't have that restriction You can right they basically send it through planning commission and then to town council with two public hearings where you can get your Feedback and we don have that restriction. Whatever. But I mean all in all they feel you know he feels that it works well and not it doesn't mean that every single project has passed with flying colors like I think the first one they did it was like a three two vote three in favor of the project so I think it still it still allows for appropriate review. It's just meeting a different timeline. If you were trying to get the planning commissions feedback and trying to understand what the goal would be, when, I mean, again, just just use the draw site of the draw side. When would you get that? Would you get that like two months ago when you guys started going through it or would you get it kind of a force? The equivalent of sketch, you know, early on. Like we did with the two level transit center, early on, what do you guys think is, you know, so you know that there's some agreement that this is a good direction to go. It's supposed to just have the whole thing blow up because it's the wrong approach. Now, yes, Councillor Canoe, you know, planning commission can turn it down, Councillor Canoe Probe it. But, you know, we put a lot of faith in the planning commission, there's a lot of technical skills there, right? Wouldn't want to be in a position where we said well we don't care what you guys said because the next time is not going to go so well. Yeah the gray area comes when you're asking for them to have some sort of agreement before they've had their process. I understand. I mean can you take it back you've heard from us we just like to get... I'm going to say something to you. We're not all finished. OK. Yeah, but I mean, on that one, I was hoping that maybe you guys before we bring it to get, well, I'm going to say something to you. We're not all finished. Okay. Yeah, but I mean, on that one, I was hoping that maybe you guys before we bring to the planning commission in, you know, for approval, get something in there where there's an ability to have some kind of input discussion. I don't know, you won't put it at a sketch kind of level to get a sense where, you know, just expedite the process. I think this is all helpful. I mean, and we would do that. I mean, we're not going to bring an ordinance ready for adoption to planning commission. I think we'll take the comments here if there's a direction from the council. No, I'm just trying to get it, if we can get a clear direction from council. We'll take those comments and start the process. Co-demo process is a process too. I mean, I think it's, I'm in favor of having some sort of expedited process for housing. I think that's really important. And especially if that qualifies us for grant. Yeah, great. So that's the goal, right? So then I do think what you mentioned in the steamboat, where there is some definition of what qualifies as, because we do have, you know, it's restricted to the sale or rent to qualified employees is a workforce housing in our code currently I guess but do we need more definition like it has to be majority workforce housing or we're only ruling on them you know we're only interested if it's all workforce housing I don't really there might be gray area there and I also wonder if someone comes in and they intend to sell it to the workforce, but they want to sell it for really high prices. Are we still okay with that? No. No. And so that's already in the cause that it wouldn't be. You were saying to find workforce housing clearly. Because I was going to ask that question if, you know, only a portion of the project is going to be used to mitigate their workforce housing requirements. Would that go through this expedited process? Well, that's, I mean, this is in full. It's two percent. Right. basically has two options. It's 30% of the total proposed dwelling units or 30% of the residential net floor area within the project. That's what they use. It has to be one or the other in order to qualify for this expedited review process. ours would be closer to 75 or 95. Yeah, because I would appreciate that. But because otherwise I'm afraid it would be taken advantage of. Well, I could be whatever want. This is just what they did. But I think we need some sort of just definition of that. And then the way we proposed it is for a workforce housing project. Oh, yeah. Only. I mean, that's the way we didn't see it. This is only initially that you brought it. We just saw the one chart. Well, it's the language. I mean, it's the definition of it. It's the definition is basically the meat of this thing. Say, if you meet this definition, that's on the top of page two, the workforce housing means any families. That's, if you're a workforce housing project and you have a matter of housing regulation or restricted housing agreement approved by the town. And so to the point of hey if they're going to charge you a million bucks a month they still call it work force housing and we'd say no that's not it or whatever. We would review that like we do all of the other regulations to make sure they meet those types of standards. What's not super specific is if it's 50 or 50, does that count and our brains, it was no. But I mean, we have had some that we've had people recently proposed maybe they could sell a penthouse and offset the cost maybe, we could see that. But so that's why I said maybe it's 75%. But every project we've seen come through in the last more than eight years has been 100% work for a thousand, there's been no combo. And I think I would like to hear like your recommendation and Jeff's about how we could get, I don't know if I even want to call it feedback, but some sort of Suggestions from planning commission about things that we should think of as we go forward so that They're not making a ruling but they but we're closer to being on the same page in the beginning then Mm-hmm. And that's where that neighborhood review we just kind of mentioned. I mean, so whether whoever you are, you get to show up when we have an open house and we get feedback and we do that. And it's, you know, it could be the seven members of the Planning Commission. It could be anybody that shows up. But they're not acting as- They're not. They're not saying there's four votes that's four against three. And then you guys are there and your owners at that point. You can advocate, well here's why we're doing that. And you don't have to say we're following the code. It would be, again, if you wanted a more formal review, we ought to figure that out. But the way this is set up is that in formal feedback, from all the people in the community you want, however you want to farm them up, is fine. But when you say we want them from this specific board to act, that's where that gray kicks it. That's where you see my notice. They're the one who could be the spanner of the works as you get all the way down and the playing commission votes against it and you spend all that time and effort. And now you're giving an opportunity. If we give them an opportunity to participate. That's what I'm saying, yeah. Yeah, so yeah. Meeting that sounds good. Me. Give it some thought. Is there any scenario where we can instead of seeing it as a being taken advantage of by developers, is there any carrot that we can offer to developers saying, hey, like if you do include X amount of affordable housing units in that square footage or the number of units that then you do get to qualify for this, like instead of the bar being 75%. Is there a world in which that's a good thing that we're incentivizing a developer to potentially bump up the number of units because they know that the process will be expedited. If you wanted that to happen, sure, but I've never heard this council say we want to speed that up. I don't know. I'm sorry. I'm just like putting that out there. Yeah,, it's at that. If you want to, you know, like the hotel came in and they were going to redevelop. That's, that's my question. I don't know which one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you for coming in. And they said, hey, we're going to tear this down and we're going to rebuild But if they were coming in and they said hey we're gonna tear this down and we're gonna rebuild and we want 40 condominiums and we want 10 workforce housing or 40 workforce housing or whatever percentage you want to put in there you could say that that gets an expanded review process. So I guess my question for the council would be is there a bar which we would feel comfortable being like this is and this is our incentive to a developer that we feel like this could create situations where a developer might go after more units than they otherwise would because we're offering them an expedited review. And I am the newest to this process, so I'm probably not the best one to determine that, but I could see that being a good case scenario. And I wonder if Steamboat could have thought about that. When I talked to Michael, I mean, that is one of the things he was talking about was basically like, OK, you can do this much retail and this much workforce housing and it's a win-win for both of us and you're going to get an expedited review because you're at this threshold. So yes, I think that is part of their incentive to do. To do it. The part that we've got through our PUD process is the community benefit component. I don't know if Steamboat's got that or not. I don't know. I doubt it. I doubt they do. Just because ours are so strict and so that we get that benefit through the PUD through a different kind of process, through a different kind of requirement. So if you wanted to, if the code requires mitigation of 10 units and we wanted to get 15 units for whatever reason, we could, that could come through the PUD process. And so that opportunity to get the more housing is provided to you, but it's more, way more of a stick than it is a care that our process now. Got it. You're offering the opposite up. And if you wanted that, we could talk about it. But honestly, we thought this was a stretch to kind of expedite this one. And we didn't want to go one step further. Yeah, I just, again, I'm the least knowledgeable about what the unintended consequences of that could be. but given that it is nice to incentivize people other than just the town has no master built housing, just wanted to put that out to council, it's like what would that bar be that we'd feel comfortable with? And maybe it would be a bar so high that no developer would take advantage of it, but maybe there's a sweet spot that we could find. I mean, I'm more comfortable with the special view for 4,000 because in most cases, the town is the applicant. So we really are controlling the process. If you were to have something like, say, the Sumis Center had been, and they had some play out, and they had 10 play housing, you would consider that they weren't required to do it. I think they had more than they needed as part of that public benefit. But if we said, well, because of that, we'll let you do a special review. I mean, that was a very complex, controversial project to talk a lot of meetings, a lot of review. And I think A, it wouldn't have been fair to them to have not had a sketch plan and their primary plan and going all the way through and one approval and they didn't get approved. So I'm more comfortable with what we're doing with workforce housing because we're more engaged in the process as the council in the town Okay, so I think on the whole we all seem supportive of it. I think that Tom has asked for some additional thought to go around how we could possibly incorporate informal conversation with the Planning Commission to sort of give it a test go on this project, right? Yeah, really on. I just think it will help the process. Yeah. So I leave it to the brilliant minds of staff and council to figure out how we can do that. Any other thoughts, anything else anyone wants to put forward? Any questions from us? No, I think that's a good starting point. I think that's a good starting point. I think when we take it back we'll bring your feedback and I think we'll take it to planning commission and Get their feedback before coming back to you. Well, thank you Thank you, and I'll look up steamboats process. Yeah, and I can forward you this email that I got from them Yeah, yeah, and they said they're happy to talk please do any of our staff Right if you guys have questions I know that he's here here too. So thanks for being on Betsy. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Out with these guys and with the roundabout crew. And are you sharing? I don't think I sent this to you. I know I got it it on the table. Good evening. Hi. I have Chief Olson, Sam Guerino. Chief Olson, he's that transportation director in the green room. Chief Olson. It goes like... Chief Olson. My car bath and myself talk about the roundabout. So the last time in your documents there was some repeat information and there was some new information. Last time we talked about this was in October of 24. Want to bring back some information. the contractor has, or the design team has been working on. Further refining the civil plans. That's the only document there that's a little different. And it didn't include the whole package because I know it's probably could have taken out more. But the other document was the renderings that we did in October. And we've made the decision on taking the access, which is that location number three down to the trail. And so that's what shows in the renderings. And I can step through all these things. But the main point of the conversation is, oh, the last memo in there was from when SGM kind of talked about the level of service in the intersection. And mainly it was just a reminder, it's a little bit dated, but it's a reminder of that conversation and Suss Lane know this information is new to you, so I thought I would include some of that information for background. But the main point of the conversation is that we're at this point where we really need to move forward on the CGMC to talk about getting further phasing and pricing. And so that is our intent to move forward on that. And I just want to bring that conversation in, but also just to bring everybody speed up with any questions they have on the design and revisit those conversation points. So in my memo, I talked about the main aspects of the roundabout, and I'm happy to just open it up for conversation. And so that's where we're at today. Maybe you can walk us through some of these. Yeah, so a big picture. So this is the rendering image. Look at this funky. There we go. To the right is as you're coming in up Brush Creek Road. We're talking about the roundabout of Brush Creek Road and Al Creek Road. So to the right of the screen is coming up up and each of these little arrows show renderings, the page numbers of the renderings. And like I said, some of them have been chopped out. So, if you're missing one that you want to see, we can pull those back up. And then it continues up fresh Creek Road. As you come into the roundabout there. Oh, thank you. Apply myself. As you come up into the roundabout, the underlying existing conditions is shown on here. The contours are shown on this map. You come into it and it's a standard roundabout with single lane, with crosswalks, medians, and the two bus stops. Here's the upper bus stop, and then here's the lower bus stop, as well as there's a bus stop on Al Creek Road. And so each of the legs of the roundabout have deflection in them basically meaning that it has the curb alignment so that the cars have to slow down and it's a traffic calming element of the roundabouts as well as the yield so that people yield before they go on the roundabout and it's you know the alternating. It's designed to handle all the traffic that we encounter at this intersection, whether it be the trucks, the buses, pedestrian accesses, multiple different access points in here. Improvements is walkways along the sidewalk to connect the bus stops on each of the corners here. There's one. And then here's another coming around, and it also connects the culvert that we did a few years ago, so this is the culvert shows kind of the box underneath, and as you may have walked it, you walk underneath the culvert, and then you continue here, that would be continued to connect up to where the Mayfly Trail is. And if you were to go out and walk the Mayfly trail, there's kind of like this flat flagstone area, and that's where it would connect. As well as there is a connection point to get to. So I talked about that connection coming from seasons four that's coming down those stairs that are there existing. And then it would continue and land down on the trail. And then the can access the bus stop coming up those stairs and coming to the upper bus stop or they go under and then come and they can continue on the trail or they can use this staircase which is like our metal staircase so it doesn't have the slipping. And it just occurs to me if our last discussion was October. Yeah. And this is probably the first time Cessilies had this presented. See? That's why I'm going. Rest of us have seen it. I know. I go a little more detail for it. Yeah. That's why I'm saying that. Thank you for that. Yeah. That's why I'm trying to step through each of the elements. So I sound repetitive and I feel like a maybe but I think it's good conversation. And so the bus stops are designed for both raft and the town shuttle service. There's often two buses at the bus stops for raft, staging. And the other key element is that when we started this conversation on the roundabout, and it's been going on for more than, like I said in the memo, 15 years, just something like that. But right now, Route 3 comes up, I'll Creek Road, and people just get lured off. They can get lured off of the fire stations, the location that they designated as. But then you have the pedestrian access, if they're trying to get to As Aspen or try to get to someplace else. They have to walk along the road or they can use the trail that we have right now and go up that in prompt two stairs that we've got going on right now. So this would take and improve that situation because it would have the bus stop moved to a designated bus stop safer for the transit system as well as pedestrians and then they have a walkway to walk around to get to that bus stop. Do I miss anything in there Sam? Better for the fire department as well because the use of that pad is not ideal for them. Yeah. I think also one other improvement with that bus stop is it pushes the brush creek trail to cross perpendicular to the road versus the diagonal crossing that exists today. Yep. So it helps that kind of more predictability and safety wise for those trail users. So you can see underlying here is that we've got a diagonal crosswalk here that doesn't follow any kind of design standards for pedestrian safety or a vehicular. Basically, you can't see over your shoulder because you're walking at an angle and it's hard to see. So this would right here at this location would be the new trail connection and here is the existing trail coming here. So it still lines up with the other side but it will have a crosswalk here at this location. And so it's like our typical design is we try to do the bus stops, the pedestrian crossings at the back of the buses. So they're not crossing in front of a bus and then that can't be seen and then could have an accident. So that's the improvement there as well as this allows with the grade changes and I'll talk through all of that, but it allows this steep slope of the first part to be lessened, which is I think if you all have walked that before it's a good hoover. Yes. That's my technical term. It is. So the other thing with the roundabout design is that it's very important on the slopes of a roundabout. Currently this road right now, as you go down, it just continues to slope through. There is a little bit of a table right now just because of the culvert that got put in. And when the culvert was designed, it was designed with this design intent. So there's not, there's, there's a rework of the asphalt, but there's not geometry side waste that it has to be dealt with. And so currently right now, this is a sliding accident we can talk about that, but you've seen many of cars come down here into this hole or and or the site distance is not the best coming out of this intersection especially when people don't decide not to use their blinkers. But the slope of the road is designed to be 8% coming up, then it goes to a 4%, and then it's a 2% 4% and then 8%. And so what that means in real world is that you're coming up You slow the table in and then you get very flat in the roundabout and then it starts to gradually come and then you can get your Acceleration to go out which is very similar to this roundabout this roundabout It's actually a little bit steeper coming out. It's got a 10% coming on the uphill leg as you climb up that hill. What is it? Sorry. I'm just going to ask what's in the intersection now? Six to seven percent. So you come into it and you're then going to general level. Oh, current design? Currently, just what's the light? It's like a seven percent all the way through. There's a small short section that's leveled out because of the callvert. Yeah. Which is actually causing some issues. There's some audible noise to it. People make a noise as a boom, come through it. So just heard some comments on that one. Nothing design wise. And then same with here, the pinch point here is this elevation is we can't change the grade much of chapel drive. I don't know what it's curved. There you go. You can see it would go back to this far to take the improvements but that's mostly because it's slow. And so like this is the location that it matches up that you have to match. We can't change it because we've got the fire station fixed concrete, snowmelt to concrete, that that's a fixed point you have to match to. So what happens is it comes through, it raises up and then it raises 8% coming up here and then 4% and then flat and around about. And the reason it's flat in there is so that it's like 2%. The water can sheet off of it, but also so that people can do the turning movements without having it, that you don't slide off. We had a lot of discussion earlier on about trail connections in this location and we decided to leave it as is and that the existing improvements will cover those with not only this side what coming along here, but also the trail can allow you to get up here. And so it could be in the future, something was a desire to do that, but at this point, we decided not to do that improvement. And then in this elevation here, you can see these little blocks, these are round retaining walls. It helps support that area. There is guard rail as well, and then there is the sidewalk and like the curb and gutter that comes through. Is there anything on design? Is that so? Do you have any questions on that? OK. The biggest change over the years is the elimination of the slip lane on the lower right or lower left corner. Yeah, this. There was conversations about this as a slip lane, and we took that out when we looked at designs. Look at old stuff. It's always there in the last year or so, yanked it. Yeah. What's the difference? Oh, sorry, I almost blinded you. It allows the capacity of the roundabout to last longer, but we saw. Yeah. like here with the turning lane and it came and cut into the silicide to come through. It's a boy the roundabout. Yeah. You said there were some changes in the civil from the last thing we saw. Yeah. You point out specifically what change? It's more towards the back is actually like the concrete plans. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's like details. They're getting into quantities. Got it. All right. So. percent design but the thing is like their quantities in there they're not up to speed since it's 60%. Because that's where it's at the point, or the contractor should start doing the takeoffs to make sure that the quantities match and we get better pricing. So, I think in terms of layout, it's substantially. Nope. Nope. And just I'll go back, sorry, just to re-step through these. So what I took out of the renderings is the one that showed it going across to the landscape island. So is this the current plan now? Yep, this is the current plan. Because in the detailed drawings were included, I know. And so that's where we're a little bit of a, yeah, it showed the bridge. But this is that's what we're recommending. I'm sorry, what bridge? There was two options. Cessli, see where the stairs come down like from seasons four. Yeah. On the right. There was two options. One was a bridge. Oh, they went all it went on. It went on. Way across. Yep. And then there was this option. Yep. Yeah. And a lot of debate. And a lot of debate. Yeah. I'm sure there will continue to be that conversation. Let's see. That's looking up. That's the along the trail. This is as you're coming from seasons four and what it looks like aesthetically also at that level. This guy now he should run out of stairs. Yeah, probably not. This is looking from... Where am I looking from? Oh, the chapel corner as you would get off at the lower bus stop and you walk across. This is the chapel corner. Oh, that's how the chapel corner is. Yeah, it was like standing right here. Sorry. Yeah, if you're looking towards seasons four. Yeah, it was like standing right there at that crosswalk, looking across. Do you wanna go back to that one? Are we good? So that's seasons four up here. Yeah, OK. All right. That's where, see, this one here shows that bridge. Yeah. In the back. That's not there. And then this is the underpass. And what's not there now. And then this is the underpass and what's not showing here is the rendering is the stairs. They're hidden behind the trees. It would be hidden behind the trees here. That'll start case. That's the bus up there. Yep. And gray is supposed to blue. And then this is that improved crosswalk. This is the chapel lane. And this is the coming down that switchback on the trail and the realignment so that it's behind the bus, back of the bus stop. So if you get off the bus on the chapel side. It the only, will the stairs are on the other side? Right? I'm just trying to, I've had a lot of comments from people on the stairs. Let's go back. So, well, yeah, good to plan. Yeah. OK, what do you, and you're talking about, if you get off of the chapel bus stop here? If you get off the chapel bus stop, you don't have to deal with the stairs, or you do. Well, you can use the crosswalks. Depends on where you're going. I guess I think it's mostly from people who have like strollers and other things, or like bikes. I don't know. You can use. Or seasons people. Just like anyone. Anyone who's like using the trail. A lot of people have said, well, but then you get to these stairs. So it'll be improved because it has this walkway to get down to the trail. Okay. And go on. Or if you're going to the other side, you can cross here and then this will have this connection here. We don't have that final detail. I think it's behind here. I think it's going up to season four. I'm going to surpass our thing and then they're going to pester anyway. You are. Right. It was more of the people that are using it as like cross trail like to go up to the mountain. Where it's fully ramped. Yeah, there's fully ramped. So this would be the desired location. and you come down this sidewalk and you can go up the trails. Got it. OK. Let's see. I don't have a quick number button. That's the one looking over towards, we call itman corner. That's the so from that bus stop at. This thing died. No. Yeah. What's that? It is. It is. It needs to be done. Right. We haven't finished on this. Kate plants. This is Alokreeq road down that direction. What is that feature in the middle called again that looks like a little triangle that's got landscaping on it or the refuge? Oh, the refuge? What's it called? Refuge? Refuge? Refuge? So this area here is a refuge for the pedestrians to get off across one leg. Look, watch traffic and get to the next lap. Okay, thank you. And then lastly, this is coming up Alakryk Road. And this is coming up, Brecht Creek Road as you head up to the village, and the rest of the village and the last one's coming down from the village. So like I said there's not much difference in the design elements they've been working on the fine tuning of like concrete scoring and things like that but we just wanted to give you an update and see if you had any other questions. Well, another thing I'd add is in the 2025 budget there was $250,000 added to keep continuing this project going forward to bring a CMG just a contractor on board to help with timing, quantities, get all that stuff. So we've got the facts. I know ANS will make it up within a month. Shortly have that RFP out to get the contractor on board so that they can say, what's the best way to construct this with at least a amount of construction impact? Whether it's half and half, whether it's 1-3-1-3-1-3-1-3-1-3-1. We don't know. That's certainly something I'm really interested in is how it impacts the traffic, how it's phased, and how long it's gonna take, and all that. And that's what the community's, and we were purposefully we wanted the contractor to make that decision rather than an engineer because this is what they do. Yeah, okay. And in that 250,000 additional, was some of that allocated for public outreach or was that all just for engineering and it was to continue the project forward. So there's all the above. Okay. Questions? That's. I guess like not necessarily pertaining to the current... what you guys just currently presented, but as we continue the discussion around the roundabout, about. I would love to just firm me to catch up on the issue. I would love to see just this put into context around like a five year data on like intersection and hotspots in the village for crashes. So just to understand like putting into context like how dangerous is this intersection? How often are we seeing slip crashes compared to other places in the village? That would be really helpful in just making a decision about moving this project forward. I don't know this is more, it sounds like what the next step is as a construction management plan of just understanding what are the implications of that construction timeline, closures. It looks like there's a portion that's gonna be both Al Creek and the intersection, so it'll be those two segments, is that right? And then one more question, is there like an eventuality where this is gonna connect? We have that really funky spot on Al Creek, where there's no path. Meaning sort of between like a little red and the... Fire station. The fire station. So parents who, and there have been not a lot, but like each year it's one or two families, where they're walking from that bus stop on the road with their kids to get to little red. And I understand that it's like, it's a hard thing to invest in for potentially a limited number of users, but it's also a place where we see people walking with really young children, which isn't great. And it's just a funky missing spot in the village. Like, we don't have that many of them where there's just a... Like, it's one of the last remaining connectivity of the node spot. That's funny, and I know there's like issues with like wetlands or riparian areas, but I just wanted to throw that out there too. It was discussed in the CCP plan that connection. So eventually, these could all connect from the fire station all the way through, but it hasn't been designed. Okay. Right. And then I'm not sure that this is for this group by understanding in the greater calendar of what we're proposing so that there's like an understanding of as far as what we are currently able to control what's going to be breaking ground at the same time as far as construction projects go in the village. So that we have a matrix of understanding if we are to move forward with this project on X-Day, what does that look like? Or if we delay it and other projects are going to get done first, you know, when would we be slotting it in there? And in that case, should we be implementing some safety things in the meantime to just improve the safety of that intersection. So maybe we can jump on that one first because I think that's probably our most significant point and Brian I know I think's got the accident data but just on that point Councillor I think our part of our recommendation is along the lines of we know we can get this done next year, maybe even sooner, dependent on design and whatnot, and we have a high confidence that, at some point, the Snowmass Center, the View Line, other projects will happen, and so if we can get this done first, we think this is our best chance to reduce that construction fatigue to make it work make all those other projects be less impactful and so if I'm not saying speed it up because we need to find out the timing of the cost and all that kind of stuff but we know that we can control this one and we do think that this one's got the best chance to reduce the impacts of the others and we didn't even get into the utilities and all the other stuff that we've talked about for years about that the importance of getting that all done. But that's why this has been planned for 2026 and now understanding what may or may not happen at the other two newer locations, the Uline, maybe the mall, who knows. They've got a lot of plans you step to go through so I don't want to worst case that at all. But the center certainly approved. If we could get this constructed earlier, I think that I will speak for everybody. We do think this is a best, a good way to get this infrastructure in place and allow those construction projects, those eventual, whatever they happen, to be less impactful. And that's, that's your tiny, that's kind of the way. Can you explain how it makes them less impactful? Yeah. I'll let these guys share. Yeah. And one final, like, just piece to, like, add to this, which there's, I don't think there's an action item around it. But as we are attempting to figure out with Aspen, with the upper valley mobility, if there happens to be like an option for mobility and STEMAS that we haven't explored yet, that it doesn't make this intersection as necessary to turn into a roundabout. Is there, I guess, just taking that into consideration? Like, are there mobility options in the upper valley that would make this, like, less of a necessary construction project? Unfortunately, no. And the reason, I mean, there's transit, but that's part of this whole improvement project, is to improve that transit to help with the master mobility improvement throughout the valley. You know, it's one part of the whole leg. But there is only two routes into snowmass, and this, at this point, this is the one spot spot know it's one part of the whole leg but there is only two routes into snowmast and this at this point this is the one spot where there's only one leg and it's so it's the every car that's coming into the village is hitting this intersection and so that's where it's the most vital intersection in the village besides this one that was out here. Brian, I want to talk about that. Let me speak to the safety of the current intersection. So, I'm brushy-growed, the speed limit transition is going downhill from 30 to 35 at or about this intersection. At that intersection it's about five lanes wide. If include the two bus stops so visually when you approach that it's five lanes wide and cars easily do 14, 45 miles an hour and that's actually okay because that's how we built the asphalt and that's how wide it is and the cars are actually okay and accommodated at 40, 45 miles an hour through there. It's not the speed limit but I'd have to look at the last study but well over 50% of the cars travel well over 35 miles an hour through that intersection going downhill. So this roundabout with the first thing it would improve is speed going into that intersection, obviously just like this one here. Before this roundabout, people went through that intersection at the conoco 40 miles an hour all the time. And it was also for five lanes wide. And unless you were trying to run across it, there was no problem with cars traveling that fast, except for the movement of other vehicles entering, the intersection. So speed would definitely be reduction and speed would be accomplished with this pedestrian safety. Right now, even though we put rapid flash beacons up, people are traveling five lanes to get across that intersection. And college are doing 40 miles an hour approaching those people. It's a challenge to get across safely just because of distance, because we don't have those refuge areas that this roundabout would take care of. So pedestrian safety would be maximized by producing this configuration. The two bus stops, one of my biggest issues, both bus stops are in the intersection right now and those bus stops are used as passing lanes. When someone's stopping to turn going uphill or making a movement one way or another through the intersection, people find it convenient to drive through the bus stop to get around to anybody. If you're stopped at Alcreek wanting to turn uphill, if you leave enough room, someone will scoot by on the right and turn through that downhill bus stop, running over everybody's toes to get down valley. And that's dangerous, super dangerous. And then going uphill, same thing. The bus stop is right at the point. We have a big sign there, do not pass. It's a big white painted line for at least a summertime. But people use that as uphill passing lane. And again, for people standing there waiting for a bus extremely dangerous. and both those bus stops would be moved out of the intersection and provided some curbing and elevation protections that would make the bus stops a lot safer and kind of vehicle free. Public safety access, the fire department coming out of the fire house want to access that intersection. There are a lot of times where cars even if they're 4 or 5 stacked up which isn't that bad that's a challenge for a fire truck to kind of decide are they going to take the wrong lane to go into that intersection. So now everyone coming down the hill wants to turn on Al Creek is going meet a fire truck. So that's not the most optimal situation. With that roundabout, we would get a constant movement and fire trucks would have a lot greater access to access that intersection and keep moving, whether they go up or down. And then lastly, of course, just convenience. People coming from Aspen, I mean the shuttles that are coming from hotels in Aspen now, every morning and every afternoon to pick people up, drop people off, that intersection trying to get on to brush creek is challenging. I don't know what it's currently rated at, but it's in the morning and in the afternoon. It's ruining our transportation system, delaying our buses. It's causing a lot of fatigue, a lot of frustration. I call it Ben Steering-Wilson drum, because then we end up dealing with that person up the road a little ways when they pull a bad move driving. So lastly, it would improve traffic movement and make that intersection a lot safer. It's a very dangerous intersection right now. So last five years, 42 accidents. That's a lot. And I would say the majority of those are slide offs, no injuries. One injury accident and just actually two weeks ago, I investigated a lady out from Al Creek. Her vision was blocked by a car coming down and turning. She didn't see the car behind it. She pulled it right in front and got hit broadside right in the driver's door. And luckily no one was hurt. It was dry pavement so brakes worked better in that scenario when it's it's slippery, it's more dangerous. So the accidents there, that's a lot. I think 42 in five years. How does that compare to just to put it in context? Because I don't have context of how many cars go off onto the golf course at the hair pen turn or like where are we going? I would, I'm just gonna guess anecdotally that's probably our busiest accident intersection and those again, majority of those cars are coming down the hill, trying to take a right hand turn and going down into the punch bowl. Sometimes all the way down, a lot of times just slide two wheels, four wheels off. They're still visible. Sometimes we can pull them right back on. Other times, tow trucks are required. But I've climbed down there. Climb down there, sorry. You're speaking about the hairpin, not the nose intersecting. The downhill brush, rightcreek going towards the firehouse So they go too fast through that intersection when it's snowy and they slide down towards number four right there And they just go off the road whether all the way down I've helped several tourists kind of gather their belongings and hike back up the hill in the deep snow. And luckily, again, no one gets hurt. There's no rocks and trees and things down there. It's usually just deep snow and it's a soft landing, luckily. Right. Can I ask you about two things you pointed out? It still appears that the bus stop up by number seven is still in the intersection. Yeah, and I don't think that that designs 100%. I mean, it's out of, because right now it's where three is. It's at the top of that circle right now. Now it's, yeah. I understand. But a car could come out of the roundabout and go where that number seven is, right? Yeah, I mean, like this, let Anne jump in this. So the curb here, and then it has a pan in here. So it does have a kind of effect. Perfect. And I will continue to push for design elements like an actual raised curb. Yeah, just a little bit to protect. And it's also awkward because you got the crosswalk going right in front of the buses. Crosswalks behind the bus. Behind. No, but the bus is coming in out of the intersection right there. But then the other thing you mentioned about fire truck access, there could be a situation where, say, late afternoon after skiing, we got a lot of cars coming down brush creek and continuing on brush creek, which would stop up the old creek traffic approaching the intersection. it be possible for emergencies only activated by the fire department to have a stop light of some sort at the brush creek, upper brush creek side and at the lower brush creek side to keep vehicles on brush creek from entering the roundabout? Which would keep the intersection clean. I think it would be a lot safer to just have the emergency vehicle request the right of way. When you start putting up kind of an all stop like that, on a grade that's covered with snow in the wintertime. Well, I'm talking about what the roundabout. No, I know, but still people coming down, if they are suddenly all stop and they have to stop on that grade without doing it in an organic way. I mean what's the alternate how do they get the ambulance and fur truck are going to request the right away they're not just going to drive out they're going to slow they're going to make sure that cars that have now slowed because of the roundabout have slowed enough to give them way so they can enter in and drive off. If you create a red light stop kind of scenario that suddenly I got jam my brakes on and oh my gosh, it's going to bumpers. Yeah, I think the trucks can request the right away and then they can hesitate to make sure if car number one didn't get his brakes on in time, let him go through the roundabout and I'll go in behind him. Then it's driver driven and not a red light driven. I think how is that? I'm curious. How is that significantly different with around about than it would be at a T junction like that? Well then. Well then. Because this is slowing everybody up. Everyone that approaches this is slowing back up the road and not doing 35, not doing 40, not doing 45 as they get through the intersection which they do now. They look and they've got a free shot. There's a stop sign and they've got the absolute right away when you got around about everybody's yielding everybody. It's an absolute natural slowdown. This roundabout is a perfect example. It used to be 45, 40 through this intersection. Now everybody comes down anticipating what am I going to be met with? And they come to a creep and you can stop for pedestrians you can stop for traffic that Apparently pulls in front of you maybe all that stuff it just it's anticipation that that provides a safety You had a question about about doing the project now versus later, kind of conversation, how that helps with the anticipated construction. So with the construction of this, one, it's designed to have concrete, so it doesn't have that asset that we have to mill and pave so many times, and the turning movements and their beat up the asphalt. So one that helps with... Oh. that asset that we have to mill and pave so many times and the turning movements in there beat up the asphalt. So one that helps with a longer asset being in place and not having to rebuild so frequently. But two is that by putting in the elements now, it can handle those features or those design the construction traffic for other things coming about. Whereas if you delay the construction of this and those construction projects are going, it's harder to do the improvements because of the increased traffic. I just be curious and again this is why this master schedule, Clint, is so important. I'd like to know, what is the schedule for the draw site housing? And what are we doing there and all the heavy excavation coming through here? That's really important to understand in relation to any project here. Yeah, and update on that. We're starting to work with the GIS project managers to start developing a map that you can filter a year by year, understand what construction projects are going to go at the same time or plan to go at the same time. You can look at it for the next five years. It will be a user-friendly map for everyone to understand when we come in and talk about that kind of master schedule and impacts project project. So there's two sides of it. There's the public or the private. Public was much easier for us to plan out. What we're doing, we have no idea what happens on the private side. But we can guess, we can give it a hotspot like this has been approved and they've got best human rights till this time or whatnot. The other thing is we can show active building permits. And so just to give you an idea of what's going on in the village. So. Passes through Sunday. The other thing is we can show active building permits and so just to give you an idea of what's going on in the village. Plus the Sue Sun becomes forward to the project goes on the schedule. Then you know, with a little more surety. And in the memo, I think it's like towards the end, you talk about snowmass water and sand needs to do the final segment of the waterline and then also other utility companies are sort of planning around this. If the project for whatever reason gets delayed, like what is the time frame that water and sand has to have that done by? So they're supposed to be giving me a five. I've got a utility meeting this week to talk master utility plans because we're doing a lot of those coordination projects with all the utility companies. Their plan is to coordinate with this construction because there is a point that brush creek road would be much less traffic because of, you know, it can be one lane or whatnot and they can allow that construction to take place. That's the last segment that they haven't replaced on brush creek road. They haven't said it has a life of two years, or three years, other than they have it planned that they will coincide with this project. It could be that they have had water main breaks in that last section. There could be more, you know, it it could be that they get to a point if this is delay and they go then you just got a brush Creek Road project that It's just as impactful. Right. Well, I think that's like what I was thinking is that if regardless of we want to do the round about or not They have to press go and it's gonna create an impact in that intersection then yep As I was just curious. That's why they have it on their books to go with. They would like they have it on our books to go in 2026. Okay. So. So Holy Cross has improvements in there. The other utilities have improvements but a gas line's done. That was one thing we got accomplished with that culvert. The other thing, so the water line ends right here because we only stubbed it out as far as the culvert. And so this part of the water line is old as well, and they're planning on doing that section of water line during this project. And then it's new from here all the way down to Sinclair Road. And then that's a section from Sinclair Road to Twentham Alcourve that needs to get replaced. So even if we didn't do the roundabout, and they had to do this pipeline project, like what is the length of time that the road, like guess, that it has to be closed down to deal with this project? I would say a whole summer because that section that was done below Twin Malikov when we did that during COVID, was the whole summer. Right. Impacted. Yeah. So irrespective of this project, there's another roughly mile of water-aligned thing that is going to be put it in, right? At the same time. Yes. But if we didn't do this project and it still had to be put in, we'd still be impacting the community. Correct. So the idea is if you're going to impact, impact all at once. I mean, everyone's like, don't do the roundabout. It's going to be impactful to this, this, and this, but this project at some point has to be done. Yeah. I mean, that's not really a choice. Because there is a water line in here that's aged. Right. The other thing on that is the asphalt. So if this project doesn't go, we have to deal with asphalt. As you can, when you drive this, especially in a rainy day, you'll see the rutting. the two lanes of all the people climbing off the road and digging into the asphalt, it's getting to the point where we need to do an asphalt patch. So if we're not going forward with the roundabout, I got to do an asphalt project, which is not as long. It's, you know, two weeks, but it is a cluster for two weeks. That's like, do you have an estimate of what you think the project for the whole round about would take? And are there, albeit like they might be financial, but are there levers that we can pull as a town, given how impactful this is, to make it faster for the community? So the estimate that we have from the engineers, and we'll give that a little caveat in the sense that they're not the contractors. They're not the contractors. But it's a summer long project. The big things that are done already, which is, and the only reason it's that long is two things. The concrete takes a while to cure, but you can do fast, cure concrete. But the other part of it is that there is some water lines so you still have some deep utilities in there. The good thing is that the culvert was the major, you know, that was a major long term project. So that's done so that helps the project. Otherwise it would have been like a two-year construction project. So one summer is the estimate that we have. And then the other, what was the other question? Well, are there any levers that we can pull that to give in how impactful this is to the community and to tourism and everything else? Is there anything we can do or decide to do that they could expedite that? So there's things such as construction hours, but I'll say around here the contractors aren't built for and you're going to pay Exorbitant premium and even if you paid that premium They can't staff that they can't accomplish night time construction as well as I don't think the residents around this area would appreciate nighttime construction either. So that would be one thing that you could do, but I would say you can't do. The other thing is... I mean, this is where I have the contractor. They can close a road. So if we closed off, press creek or allocator, whatever, and had one going one way and one going the other way, it should be impactful. That may or may not speed it up, but that's part of the evaluation we would ask the contractor to do. So when you say a summer, and you like to do it next year, so basically you would start about this time next year, in finish in October. And, and, it's not June to September. No, sorry April 15th usually. And, yeah. Huh? We're going there, Brian. We're going there. One mother starts in June, but, concerns starts in April. And can you remind us how long it took to do the other one up here. It was, April through August. Yeah, it's about the same. And then the landscape contractor is usually the next year, which is minimal. Yeah. I think the thing is the way I say summer is that the April impact people don't notice and that's because there's just everybody's cleaning house and they're all not here or whatnot. So after Memorial is when the traffic picks up but just like Clint mentioned, there's some opportunities here that it's not the, everything's coming to a grinding halt. There's mechanisms to use brush creek and owl as the detour, so maybe it's the downhills and it's big, like, you know, that big, the golf course is the roundabout, so you come in one direction and you leave the other direction, or whatever creative ideas they come up with. You had something. I was just overall, you know, there's two ways to look at impacts. There's length and there's kind of more of that day-to-day impact. If you're going to go shorter duration, you're going to go higher day-to-day impact normally. So, you know, there's just two ways to think about that. Well, that's kind of what happened the last time when we were talking about it the decision was you could keep the road open one direction or you could shut it down For the culvert you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, we had to admit that was the decision. Yeah, we ripped the band-aid and got it done. Right. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Thoughts? I have some questions. So if we felt that this was too impactful, this major roundabout construction, the full project, at least to push go for 2026. What could we do in the meantime to I think, you know, as far as the bus stops, it seems like that as a major safety issue. Could the bus stops even in this summer be moved with this design in mind to help support a safer intersection? Or are there other components here that could be addressed without the full project, the grade in the road, maybe concrete versus asphalt? I look at the refuge there and I wonder, could a right hand turning lane off into Al Creek help alleviate the congestion of the traffic? Because now you absolutely know whether someone uses their indication or not that they're going to turn. So you can safely do a left turn off of Al Creek. Or would something like that refuge space support a traffic control speed? Sort of. Are there, would you have any recommendations in this that could work toward the roundabout potential design, but still get us some of those components in place that could help with either congestion or safety. I mean, I think one thing that I'm grateful for is I feel like the safety at the intersection as far as pedestrians has been vastly improved since we put the culvert in. But I'm curious if there are other elements here that you might look at this. I look at it, but I'm looking at it from a pretty naive perspective as far as my suggestions. I'd like to know what you might say. So one of the elements that you know, and that slip lane was there 20 years ago. I remember it. One of the things that, putting that, one of the things that we talked about not only was it a huge impact to put that in as part of the roundabout, but the other concern with this is it doesn't do anything for traffic calming. It just does traffic movement. And so the concern was, I mean, right now people are scared to use this crosswalk because people are coming around that corner. I've always been nervous about that one. Yeah, pretty good clip. And so the slip lane wouldn't help that it just helps cars get places, not people. The other thing with it, and this is the problem with looking at just layouts is that you're not quite catching and I'm happy to step through the plans with anybody, but you're not catching what's going on elevation wise. So putting in any mediums right now there isn't enough room for those even though we do have massive asphalt in there just because of the turn lanes like so say we put this in here I'm sorry I don't know where it went but we put in one of the medians it there's not enough room with it just because of the way things are lined out right now but the other part the geometry part of it is that I wish I could show oh there See that rock right there? That's a, that monument rock that's out there. That matches the grade right there, but out here it's a four foot cut. Because- It's four feet higher. That rock is, that rock is up a little bit. It looks like it's flat there, but from the curve, that is, that spot right there is where, sorry, higher. It comes up to that spot. In the middle. Yeah, so much, as much as we have the elevation changes, there's not really what we can put in is like moving the bus stop now because it will be not at the elevation, it's not at the right slope, it's a 6% slope. If we just moved the bus stop up, it wouldn't meet the exiting the bus stop and getting out of there. So unfortunately, we've got a bad grade situation in there right now that we can't really put any elements that I can think up off the top of my head, that would meet some of the goals we're trying to accomplish. I mean, yeah. Because there's retaining walls to get built to put in the sidewalks. Yeah. I mean, for example, the bus stop down at eight there. Yeah. Is that something that could be done this summer? Would that be helpful? Could it be done? So again, that's that great elevation where it's going to come up 8%. So it'd be filling. And the road's sitting like it is. And unless you have that roundabout with that table at the top, you're not going to have the right grades going into the intersection. You wouldn't have the side block either. Yeah, and there would be no connection. Side block connection. So really the bus stops require the rest of this design to be moved. All of them all three. They require to be built in a way that we wouldn't have to pull the bus stops back out when the roundabout was built. Yes. I mean, you could build bus stops in those positions, but if we're then going to move on and build this roundabout, they would have to come out completely and be rebuilt at the correct grade. Okay. I see. But say we never were able to get the funding or the public appetite, and the roundabout was just far out into the future. Could the bus stops be relocated for the meantime to help with some of those safety concerns? They could physically be done without designing this, but they would be something that we would have to redo, is what you're saying? Yes, it would be with the goal of or with the future of around about in this location, it would be, I don't want to say wasted work, but it would be work that would have to be removed. But it could be done. The best stops could be moved for safe areas without that. So, someone. No, no, no. Because of the grade of the road. Yeah. We wouldn't be able to get out of there. Yeah. The lower one may be able to. Yes, number seven, because it's on a grade would be a no. Yeah. require retaining walls that number seven. Well the road getting changed. Elevation wise I see. A bus can't stop on a steep slope, so it's got to stop kind of flat. Can't start on a steep slope, yeah. And the bus stop just below nine, I mean, you couldn't solve, it would take excessive retaining walls. And those are, yeah, okay, I understand. But they could be done if we didn't want to do around that. Yes. Okay. Could we just jump in on a similar question? Could we change the location of the flashing light for speed just to be a little closer to the intersection? Just right now. Would that help reduce speeds? We didn't. In that sign? Or the flashing beacon across? No, the speed limit sign. Oh, telling people how fast they're going. Because isn't it like? Yeah, we can put that sign anywhere we want. It's the people drive. In fact, there's another drive the road drive that have improved in level, improved in speed, which is probably 40 miles an hour through that intersection. It just do because the width and the gray and everything works well. This speed limit sign doesn't matter. I hate to say that, it's a cop, but everyone that passes that time and sees it for a few times and they stop seeing that could be drive by every day. One of that flashes says thank you, that was great but I would never rely on that. So I think that you could slow that intersection down without any improvements. No, no, no, I'm just asking, could it help, could it be a safety improvement that we could just do tomorrow? Like could that be something we could implement that might help reduce? Because isn't the risk of like, again like you said, breaks are working in the summertime, but like isn't the risk of a t-bone? Isn't that a very, very dangerous crash? So would there be any chance we could get people to like a 35 mile an hour because once you get into that 45 mile an hour, it's just a much more change that bit. You're seeing an armbrecht crew right now with the Woodbridge Colbert project. That's a 20 mile per hour. It's posted as 20 mile per hour. No. No, I'm four year old, the Yellows at us. He's like, it's red. You're speeding. Like Brian's saying, people drive the environment. People don't drive the speed limit, unfortunately. So you need to be so. It's fairly. Yeah. That's how you share it. That's what I was trying to build a road. You let people run it and take the 80% out of that. So what do you do? So that speed limit there is 45? No. No, it's 30. It's suppressed on the 30 and transitions to 35. It transitions. OK. 35 is not bad. 35 would be better all the way right up to the bridge. Yeah, right. It's built into handle that easily. Right, okay. When we put a letters, we run an eye, we have high hopes, but it doesn't change. Okay. I guess I, Yeah. Although I think those things you have to show you how fast you're going are really effective. I think they are too but maybe we're just rural followers. For me they're very effective. I say it's that nobody got to slow down. effective they are. Yeah. Go for run in the morning, go have someone by your house and everybody invent early morning hours. In fact, if I say, I said, oh, I got to slow down. In fact, if they are, yeah. Go for run in the morning, go pass one by your house, and everybody in that early morning hours, six to the night. Big numbers. 45 to 10, nine, eight, eight, eight. They can see it. Well, they do, I was seeing how fast they could go. The road is the handle that they drive. So if you're going to be approved the moment and at 6.30 in the morning, morning, Twilight, yep, that works. Well, I mean, it's just like when you're going up and you get to that intersection you're going up brush Creek And there's that sign that says don't pass on the right hand side because there's a bus stop and people and you're trying to go left and someone passes you And a lot of those people they're just like they, they don't even notice to sign anymore. No one pays attention to it. And that is so dangerous because there's the bus stop right there. Right. Yeah. Now, I guess I'm trying to ask this outside of the like, if it were to incrementally, if we had something that said like dangerous intersection and then flashing your,'t know. The T-bone accident support a dangerous intersection. Okay. I think the vast majority of the slide-offs and driving at far away is protracted from the truck there and narrow the drive lines and narrow it a lot. That doesn't help that is the term far away to get away with that. But you could traffic from the truck there and do that. Wait, what does that mean? Medians and other stuff. Ah, okay, okay. So, refuge spots, raise the knees and the lower the length of the separate turn lanes from drive lanes as you approach intersections. Nero's your view and you have to slow down to not bump some wheels off the curve. That's a bit lower than our attention. But now we have 35 foot roadways and that's easy to drive fast. So any traffic furniture at this intersection would create more congestion or is there one place that it may not contribute to the congestion? I feel like the congestion and I could be wrong is Primarily coming off of Al Creek and trying to make a turn Am I wrong? I mean I feel like it It flows otherwise a lot of cars come to number two and just putting traffic for each other, I'm not a fan of that, I'm not having the roundabout to keep everybody moving. The traffic for each other is not help out when you get off. Sure, not to keep with congestion, but yeah, for safety. Would there be anything? I mean, you would be able to change the grades. And if you were going to change the grades, then you'd like to reverse the wave to a roundabout. So just putting stuff in the way in the road is. Yeah, it may slow some cars down. And there's not. And the geometry of a right now doesn't support that, because it's the center lines. There's a skew in there that it won't allow you. You'd have to wind the road and change a lot of sideways geometry or put mediums. And I look at like if you were to put a medium, the only place I can think about is here because the fact is that Scott the width, but what's it doing? There's no pedestrian crossing at that location right now. So it doesn't really accomplish any tasks. And then potentially traffic calming. Right. So it would accomplish one thing. I'm just trying to think just big enough, what would that mean at this intersection? What could we do to address safety, congestion and other issues if we were really trying to within that just big enough space and not design the full blown project. Are there other ways to accomplish a few of these things? I don't think there's any improvement you can do that will alleviate congestion. You need to change the intersection design in order to improve that level of service. I think maybe possibly medians in slight geometry changes to slower, slow vehicles down. But it's steep road right now. It's dead straight. I think slowing vehicles down without a round of about as a difficult task. Like you're saying, if you're going to put medians in and create some sort of jog, you're halfway to a roundabout. But yes, there's a new possible geometry improvements that could slow vehicles down, but it would be pre-trastic change, even without the other end. Can I ask a question? Is what's the feeling on the roundabouts that we have? Are they, do they not function or is there concerns about those? I can tell you, my concerns. They're, you know, right here, I feel like we've got this kind of urbanized core that we've created. And I think we've all adapted to that at this point. I think that when we create that urban suburban effect at this roundabout, we've lost that pleasant rural experience that, you know, when it's not congested, when there's not, you know, hide weather issues of safety concerns, I think it's incredibly pleasant and a huge part of what makes, you know, that character of snowmess so rich in that we have that beautiful rural arrival experience that takes you all the way to the Woodbridge Road. You pass into the Woodbridge Road and then you're kind of in more of the urban side of the town. I sort of see that as a delineating moment of transition. This I think would certainly change that experience as far as no longer would it feel quite so rural. For better or worse, I think a lot of people really appreciate that rural experience. They don't know what they've got until it's gone. And I think that when I look at those renderings, they're lovely and they're nice, and they certainly address a lot of the concerns at the intersection, but they absolutely change the character in that location. So I think there's one thing to be said there. And you know, as far as the functionality of this roundabout, I think you're the round abouts that you put together in Avan are so attractive. This one we could work on making it a little more attractive. But it's very urban, it's not particularly attractive. The one down at the brush creek, Russian highland. Yeah, the entryway, right there, I think, you know, that one still feels like people speed up to go through it. It doesn't feel like it creates quite that safety traffic calming. But I mean, I feel like it more or less works. I'm not convinced that it is absolutely necessary there. But it feels like it's functional. It works. OK. And you don't get a lot of crossing there. But when you do, it's not safe for pedestrians crossing around there trying to get to bus stops and walking into the roundabout there. So I think there's some room for improvement. And then I just, you know, obviously budget construction fatigue and clearly landscape impact would be the reservations I have about this location. Those are my thoughts. I mean, I will just say because I was the only one sitting here when we did the other round about that people didn't want that one either. And we got a lot of pushback on it and and they're like, why are you doing this for five days a year? But seeing the patterns of the people, namely, ski complies when they get off the bus and the way that they'd cross at a diagonal and the cars coming from all different ways, I think it vastly improved that experience and the safety. I mean, I hear what you're saying, Britaina, and I do think there is something really nice about coming up into this valley. When you come off of 82, and you leave that light, you have that long stretch till you get to the roundabout, and then it's like you have another long stretch coming up brush creek. I mean, of the way the intersection is I feel like it's more natural. I mean I personally hate when you go to Ava and it's like roundabout after roundabout after roundabout. I'm like I can't even like figure out which way I need to be going. I think they're attractive roundabouts. Yeah but it's so much and there's no right there's no sort of like long drive and then you and hit another roundabouts. Yeah, but it's so much. It's very urban. And there's no sort of like long drive, and then you hit another roundabout. And so I do think, you know, the one at Brush Creek and Highline, you know, when you're coming from Highline, there is that sort of steepness going down into that roundabout. And it is nice. It slows you down because you know you're approaching and you're forced to slow down versus if you went flying and you go like this with the other cars. I think the other thing is that snowmasses, whether we like it or not, has grown up and there's more people here and with more housing there's going to be more people here and potentially more buses if people start using buses more. So and maybe other new things that we haven't even heard of. I mean I just I feel like if we hadn't done this round about before the rest of base village got built out I think we'd be really regretting it. And that's kind of how I'm feeling about this. Like we now are at this point before any of the other stuff that we don't even know about new hotel development or whatever that is comes online. If you're just looking at what's within our control, which is the draw in the area behind the center, that alone increases the number of people. So I don't know. I don't look at it as like urbanization. Like I just, it doesn't, they don't bother me to be honest. And I understand and when you hear Brian or you hear Sam or Mike or anyone talking about this list of reasons, I think it's kind of hard to refute that. And if, in top it off with water and sand, I mean if water and sand didn't have to do this project, I think we all, it was COVID when, you know, that road got torn up, but that was a big deal. And regardless of what we do, they're going to have to tear up the road again. So we didn't have the time frame on that too, but I agree with you. Yeah, but they're gonna have to tear it out. And so I'm like, I feel like we should get something out of it. Like instead of just tearing up the road and going back to the intersection that we have, that's just my feeling. Anybody else wanna try and bring your welcome to it? I mean, I just, I have a hard time hearing how all of the list of safety fixes that this has and not doing it. That God forbid something happens and we just decided we didn't want to do it because it's, you know, we want the old snowmass or we want the old intersection or whatever. That's just not enough for me. Like I feel like we really do need to address the safety and the driveability and it's pretty. I think it's a nice looking roundabout. And I personally don't see roundabouts as being urban. Like they seem calm because it's not like coming to a big red stop sign and making a decision about what to do there. So I don't know. To me, I think it's something that we should do. And I think it's important for safety number one. I think it also creates more natural, predictable traffic pattern, because I think about all the time when I leave school, and you get to the roundabout. And first, when you sit there, you're like, oh my God, the traffic in the aspen, it's never going to break gonna break I'm never gonna be able to get out to the roundabout but it just naturally does and I think right now the intersection is not predictable like a lot of people don't even turn on their blinker to turn to make the turn so that that also makes it hard I mean I do I wonder and I wonder, and I question, with a consistent traffic flow now, there is no break. What happens to far away trying to make a left and sing clear? Trying to make a left cost the roads. Like now, there's just going to be constant flow of traffic. There's not as much of a break in the traffic to get out. So I mean, are we creating a new traffic issue in other locations? One element on that is that if you leave lower currents right now and I often won't make a left I'll make a right to go uphill to use the roundabout and so by having that is an option These things in here people learn lessons on I can continue to wait and take that risk, or I can take a shorter or safer alternative. So that's one element it does provide. None of our analysis is showing an impact on far away. No. For me, it's an issue of priorities. I mean, lots of very good arguments of why to do this. It has gotten smaller in size than we saw four or five years ago. I think the team's done a good job designing as well as they could. But the intersection isn't great today, but it functions. So it's a question of, I think, eventually we will build this question as when. I think that I like to know when we're going to be building the draw site. Now that impacts with this, because I do think that the construction fatigue is really important on our community. I'm very worried about the cost of the draw site with the tariffs and with immigration issues where the workers are disappearing. I think what we have ahead of us is sort of a uncertain, scary time in the construction world. So, you know, I don't know if we can use money that was, can we use money that we might have spent here to round up the draw site if we need it? I don't know. I don't know. So that's why I think we need to know about the draw site. We need to know more detail about this. We don't know what this is going to cost. Well, this is groundwork. There's still a lot of rebar. There's a lot of stuff in here that's going to be affected by tariffs. I like to know the schedule for both of these projects and the cost for both these projects before we can make a decision. You know all the other projects that are out there are all maybe but we do know the draw site. I don't know about this. Right, so. All right. Any other? I have a couple more questions about what is our public outreach plan with this project? So it's not finalized because we don't have the contractor on board to kind of give us those options to talking about. We currently do have a project page and we have these renderings out there and we continue to update that whenever we come to council. And then we'll develop a more robust plan as we know more what's going forward. Okay. Yeah, I think that I'm it's funny it struck me when Bridell said that it looks a little bit urban. It does look like I'm like, oh, boulder. Like, it feels a little like maybe we can work on that because it is a little bit more urban feeling than like it's very pretty. There's no doubt about that but I'm definitely like struck by a place that I've lived most of my life or between here and there and it feels more like bolder than it probably does like Snowmass. But I think my second biggest concern is Echoing Tom, which is like, I get it. There's a lot of things here that are going to improve safety. But when I think like the impacts to snowmass village residents and visitors, I just want to be sure that we are, we're being really thoughtful about this because we've had some pretty impactful projects to date. So we've had the Colvert Project, I'm sorry. We've had the Culvert Project, we've had for us we had the Far Away Project, which was very impactful. We've had various other road closures throughout and obviously base village. In some of the projects coming up, when I look at them, they're even more impactful to people's day to day lives. And I think that when I look at my family living here for the next seven years and how it affects my kids, my husband are like day-to-day lives. And then I think about how that sort of extends out to various people living in other parts of the village. We're we're stacking this on top of the center, Dross, I, potentially the whole mall, potentially the view line. And I just want to be incredibly thoughtful to what this means to people's data they live. And what it could mean for the next 10 years of people's lives, depending on how these pieces kind of fall into place. And I've just, like, if there was one thing that I heard really consistently as we spoke to people on the campaign trail, it was like we're pulling our hair out because of construction. And so I think just ensuring that we're taking a sort of next level approach of thoughtfulness to the planning, the impact, the day to day, just to really ensure that we're kind of placing this into the right place, the right part of our schedule. And I appreciate the GIS, so we'll be able to pull up what's going on at any given time. I think all those are absolutely the right steps. It's just the hesitancy is based on that and based on that which we can control and knowing how much we need housing. So it's a, I agree with Berda that we could maybe make it more if we're going to do a roundabout. Let's certainly make it the character of Snowmass. But also if we're going to do a roundabout, let's ensure that this is like not making families like totally crazy for three years because it's that and then their post offices inaccessible and then all the restaurants that they could eat at are gone because of them all. It's like been both bolder. I'm being sort of hyperbolic but like I want to I want to do the best for the residents of Snowmass that we possibly can do. And Cessla I agree. I mean like we set that as a priority during our goal setting session and like that is definitely important. I think the only thing to think about is that even if we said, okay, we're gonna put this off because we're doing the draw site, then water and sand comes along and says, sorry, this thing has gotta get torn up right now. And then you have both things happening. So it's like you could, we could try to control it by doing it an off time as that, but it might be out of our control at some point because just like the culvert was, you don't know when they go. I think it's just to clarify. I think the impact of water and sand on that intersection is far less than this roundabout will be. We're changing grades, retaining walls. I mean, it's a big deal. Digging a trench, putting down a pipe goes a lot quicker than what we're talking about here. So I wouldn't equate the two, but I do take the point, be great to do a wall together at the same time. All right, any other thoughts? Oh, is there just like, as we're talking about a project like this, it's taking place during fire season. I'm assuming there's no period in which you wouldn't be able to drive through like any given intersection. So we're not narrowing down our evacuation to just one route. OK. I mean, no different than it is right now that it only has one in and one out. Okay. Thank you guys so much. We'll get a lot of these answers. We'll get more of these answers I should say. And yeah, sorry can we find out from water and sand if they could give us any kind of estimate on there? I can follow up with them. That would be great. Thank you. Thank you all so much. Oh, see on. I don't understand. I don't understand. I'm just appropriate to ask what I would love to hear more about the ozone pilot given that you're here or we can do it another time. I was just curious about it. What? No, it's it's it's a little early on to to say that anything is is set as to how it looks. We applied for a grant. The state has a program called the ozone season transit grants. It's kind of an odd name for a free summer service, but it grew out of ozone season and then we're trying to combat it. So you're eligible if your Faire organization did, to do free fare for the summer months, this year it's June through August. If you don't have Faire, you are able to expand your service and apply for money for that. So that's what we did. We were successful and the idea will be that we'll try to get our hands on some smaller vehicles that we currently have so we can navigate neighborhoods like Vans. Yeah like transit vans. And then if we're able to do that and if we're able to put the staff together, we'll expand our service to all really all the public roads in town. So we'll go to the top of the far. A lot of the things that when I talked about how we haven't done, this would be our opportunity to try it out. I'd call it a proof of concept, it's more than a pilot because a pilot kind of makes it sound like you're gonna keep doing it if it it works well whereas this is going to be this is how much it would cost, this is how many people we moved, be able to talk about what the successes or the struggles were with it. And yeah, we'd be going to Tom Lake Trailhead to down out to divide to the top of farway to the top of Sinclair, that would the, that's the idea. All through our current app, you'd be able to request a ride from those locations. We also hope that as part of that, we can provide more service from town park to the mall for bikers and take that service like our current route for by Mountain View, by the rim trail. So it'll be a great trail connection for us as well, going to Tumblake, trying to leave it that perfect. Is it like a dial right? It'll be, you'll use exactly the same system you use currently to request a ride for the summers, which is, now it's our app and used to be called the phone, you can still call the phone if you need to. And then you'll get the app will tell you, okay, it'll be here in, you know, 10, 15 minutes, it'll work. You think about if the the salt down tower, it's exactly the same concept, except we would still have a couple of fixed routes. It's really exciting. Yeah. Can maybe electric, is there any chance? You know, with our time frame, I mean, we just got this grant last week, and we've got to try to get these vehicles by, get rolling by June's second. So it would be great if they could be electric. Chances are we're going to take what we can get for vehicles and again, you know, make this sort of proof of concept work. And then yeah, we were, I mean, we're gonna, these are gonna be least vehicles. We're gonna give them back. So if it was something we were to look at doing again in a future year, have a little more time to prepare. Yeah, possibly. We're still, we need infrastructure. Would be the other issue of it. Yep. Cool. All right. Thank you so much. Work session is adjourned. All right. See you now. The road. you you you