I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to get the Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you you you you Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good afternoon. It feels like the morning. Today is Monday, April 14. It is 4 o'clock p.m. This is a work session of the Snowmass Town Council. Nice to see you, 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 Aspenstean company. Both of these 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're going to queue up for preliminary plan. This amendment as proposed by staff at this time would consolidate the review duration by making it a one step process by way of special review. The reason for this is threefold. 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 know 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 Asmonski and. 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 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 an 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, this might be a good idea. Let's go look at it. Yeah, the only couple of 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 to change is 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 what Brian said is, 1, 2, 3 does not require or should make this 90 days in order to be eligible for grant funds where required 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. It's a new one, but an important new one. 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 that we'll meet it. We think this is the right path. The state has to approve it at the end and say, yep, you have terminology, but basically streamlined to approach meat it. 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 are approached for us 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've no one will take some time to get some adoption. It'll take us time to get our applications together, et cetera, et cetera. And then just, yeah, and 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 that 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. So 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. You know, 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 with regards to whether or not a application would actually go through to preliminary. So after, you know, it 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, you know, traffic analysis. It's really the drainage 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 a 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 to go straight to town council for their review and ratification. Special review is 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 make 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 to planning. Yes, and as Clinton said, in order to qualify for that funding. And then there's the, there's the Fudge factor that's built in. There's the 90 days. It's the, the language says 90, then you read through the regulations. The town can add 90, the developer can add 90. So 90s what they 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, some of the things that have gone through PUD, you know, 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 dear work project that's been going on for about four years to the PUD process Now that some of that's their delay, but that's the timeline The stand 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, adequate facilities, parking, the same review standards that are part of the PUD process, but just in a shortened time frame. 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 delving to it and really get into the nuts and bolts and all that, right? Final design is really generally 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 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. From the council perspective, it would look similar to what you see at preliminary. Well, but that's my question. I 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 council. That step would be gone. Is that correct? That's correct. But during that 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 till 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 for for an important project, I think there's a lot of detail in there, right? Certainly. Yeah. Yeah, the way I mean just for the way I think about it as a non planner is you guys as a council approve the preliminary plan and you get all the detail you want as Brian would just say. 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 spent all the time with it to make sure that follow up with still happened 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? No. No. The document, the Jeff approves, that says here's all the way. I just agree with this. A development. A division of the original. A division of the 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 what needs to be approved to the SIA. Would there all be in conditions in the... Yes, yes. We'll be in conditions in the... Yes. It would be in conditions or... 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 next 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, you know, 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. And as we saw the original transit center, didn't work out so good. What we did when we were talking about the two levels scheme for the tram, we had a joint meeting with the planning commission, we brought them in. So what do you think? 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 haven't got community input or playing commission input and the project does not get approved. Well, the public process is included in the both steps. We've had special review. Yeah. Even when we got the public 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 the input so we don't go down a blind path. I mean that's what the staff report we just said we called it extended owners review which however you want to do these owners. 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. What? I mean, 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 whatever pictured number. A hundred units over there. and we want to make sure as this thing gets developed there's neighborhood meetings and there's whatever and planning commission and 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 I did it with the the the the chair of the center it gets gray because it gets to be well are they pre are they pre judging the project before they actually see it and so that's why I specifically said we can bring in the neighbors and individuals cannot for their input and all the kind of understand that but I think it really important to, and that's when the advantage of sketch before preliminary 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? Planning and Council. But what I'm saying is,'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 do. 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 it. We're not supposed to ask a lot of questions, and you'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. Sorry, everybody's an agreement that, you know, I'll be ludicrous. Say, you know, 20 story building employee housing on the golf course, OK? And so if in a sketch plan, first, a planning commission would see it, you know, and say, okay, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, well, that makes a good idea. And then we see it at sketch, really, yeah, I think it's a good idea. Then the applicant goes through a lot of work and prepares the, you know, all the detailed drawings. But we've already said, yeah, you know, it's a good idea to build 20-story building in the golf course. Where's the special review and say, where are the owner? We could go, 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-year-old. But can we in this special review talk with? That's what I'm asking. That's what I'm asking. Yeah. 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. I'll use the draw side as an example because it's not in quasi judicial right now. They approved the two. 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 two buildings. It's going to come back to them the next round, assuming that it gets 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 kind of said, hey, this is how we are doing it and guiding it that way. My concern using that example is, it was special review and we'd spent two years working on the design and then we'd send 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 it even if we were doing a special review talk to them early? That's what I'm asking. I'm getting pushback that maybe we can. That's what he's asking. And that's what I was asking to like is there a way to put right that into the code so that we know we're going to have that dialogue early so that we avoid that Yeah, miss step 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. No. When you meet with another board that I what I said was there's gray in the quasi-ditial And so I can't sit her and say you can absolutely do that just like there's gray when you met with the with the planning Commission regarding the transit center It was it was gray. Well, what what does that what does 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 an 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, properties notified. It's not a two-way street. There is, there a board 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 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 being able to review it, take testimony, look at the evaluation standards and provide you with a transparent recommendation from them based upon 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 and I just think that we're that clouds are where that becomes gray because now you brought the planning commission in. Now 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 meet a gray area comes comes out. 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. Which means that it may expedite 75% of the projects, but 25 might, I'm just giving kind of arbitrary examples. 25% may get tinked because, or they may get shot down later and more developed points in the process because they haven't been seen yet by it. 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, we want one, send it back to Planning Commission for a review review. That would be another way. 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. Only if... I mean, I'm not pushing back. We can modify the code. 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 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 into the special review portion of 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 areas of the level of expertise. Like they may point out something that we weren't aware of. So I think that's meaningful early on. So, let me- But 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 mean, I would assume the applicant, if they thought it would expedite approval, would request it. I mean, I'm trying to keep it very loose and nonquasey judicial and say just get all the minds together, make sure everybody is going to be there. Sort of thing at the applicant would have open as an option to them before it's supposed to be for special. Yeah. Yeah. Too bad Jeff's not here. I think I've told you what I think that's where it goes. This is what Jeff has told us. That's my resume. You bring both bodies in and now they are they predetermining what their action is going to be when they get to review it So could 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 know I want to speak for everybody But I think four of us are in Green Middle East 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 the 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 believe that. We can, we can leave up the staff to figure that out. But you guys know, you get the objective. I don't actually, because 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 prove two buildings a sketch There's not two buildings go back to two buildings and That's that they recommend this is not this this preliminary plan does not meet the sketch approval It we wanted to build ins and for all these reasons because it was 89 units or whatever 79 units It was more units was more whatever and that our recommendation because this preliminary plan doesn't need, whatever. I'm gonna assume you guys have seen it enough that you're gonna evaluate that recommendation on its merits, just like you would through this, through this special review, you'd recommend their recommendation on its merits. Like, 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, if you thought about this height, if 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 a 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 and you guys think about it. I think we 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. Well, and I think about the opportunity we had to chop before the snowmess club went too far down the wrong direction. 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 workforce 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? 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 talked through it and you know They have he sent me which I'm happy I Share it with some of you but happy to forward to you. You know they have this whole development review team Mission and policies and you know basically it goes through This whole team and then it goes to the the Planning Commission for two public hearings, and 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 basically put a 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, 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 review? 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. 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. Is there an initial filter? So yeah, it's basically what very similar to probably what they're doing now. Something similar to that now. Yes. We completion review and we have a development review team that we all different departments are looking. We're all the same style planners, 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 proposing. 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 would start. We could 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 that starts. It is, it's Dave. I'm just asking where that starts. It is step one. Step one. If you came in with an application, before it even goes to planning commission, or it gets put on an agenda, or even gets sent out for review, it's got to 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 Applications 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 review. 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 want. 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't have that restriction. Whatever. I mean, as many as they need. 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, you know, 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. It would be very similar. 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 first? I would be like equivalent to sketch 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. As opposed to just having 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? We 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, okay, 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. OK. Yeah. But I mean, on that one, I was hoping that maybe you guys, before you bring to the Planning Commission for approval, get something in there where there's an ability to have some kind of input discussion. I don't know. I won't put it at a sketch kind of level to get a sense You know just expedite the process I think this is all helpful. I mean and we would do that. I mean we're we're not gonna bring our ordinance Ready for adoption the planning commission. I think we'll take the comments here If there's a direction from Just you get I mean I don't know 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 grants. 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 it had to be 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 to you know really high prices are we still okay with that like no no yeah and so that's already in the cause that it would be saying to find workforce housing. Right. Right. Because I was going to ask that question. If 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. With 2%. Right. Steamboat basically has two options 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 it's written, 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. only initially. We just saw the one chart. It's the way. We didn't see it, Greg. This is only initially that you brought. Did we just saw the one chart? Well, it's the language. I mean, it's the definition of what? It's the definition is basically the meat of this thing. Saying if you meet this definition, it's on the top of page two. The workforce housing means any money. If you're a workforce housing project and you have a murder and housing regulation, a restricted housing agreement, approved by the town. And so to the point of hey if they're going to charge you million bucks a month they still call it work for sounds and we'd say no that's not it or whatever. We would review that like we do all 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? In 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 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 we're closer to being on the same page in the beginning than the beginning. 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 can be anybody that shows up. But they're not acting as a... They're not saying there's four votes that's four against three. And then you guys are there and your owners at that 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. And that's where you see my notice. There are 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... Give them an opportunity. Huh? If we give them an opportunity to participate in it. That's what I'm saying, yeah. Really? 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. I mean, it's at that. If you want to, you know, like the hotel came in and they were going to redevelop. That's my question. I don't know which one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you for coming in. They were coming in and they said, hey, we're going to tear this down and we're going to 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 expedited 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 an 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 thought about that. It, when I talked to Michael, I mean, that is one of the things he was talking about was basically like, okay, like you can do this much retail and this much, you know, workforce housing and it's a win-win for both of us and you're gonna get an expedited review because you're at this threshold. So yes, I think that is part of their incentive. Right. To do it. The part that we've got through our PUD process is the community benefit component. I don't know if steamboats 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 at 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 of Snowmass to build housing, just wanted to put that out to council, is 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 can find. I mean, I'm more comfortable with the special review 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 Sumayman Center had been, and they had some play, I mean, they had 10 play housing, you would decide 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 preliminary 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, early on I just think it will help the process. So I leave it to the brilliant minds of staff and counsel 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 you know take it to planning commission and Get their feedback before coming back to you. Well, thank you. Thank you And now 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 easier to. So thanks, thanks for being on that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Out with these guys and with the roundabout crew. I don't think I see anything. I don't think I see anything. Am, are you sharing? I don't think I see anything. Am, are you sharing? I don't think I see anything. Am, are you sharing? I don't think I see anything. Am, are you sharing? I don't think I see anything. Am, are you sharing? I don't think I see anything. Am, are you sharing? I don't think I sent this to you. I know I got it. Okay. I know I got it. Okay. Good. Take a look. Sorry about that. I'm going to put it on the table. Good evening. Hi. I have Chief Olson, Sam Gourino. Chief Olson, he's that transportation director in the green room. Chief Olson. It goes like... 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, one to bring back some information. the, 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 and the intersection. And mainly it was just a reminder, it's a little bit dated, but it's a reminder of that conversation and Suslay 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's speed 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. Well, 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 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 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 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 the 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... 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, it'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 pedestrian 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 then this is probably the first time Sessley's had this presented. See, that's why I'm going to. Rest of us have seated. I know. I feel a little more detail for her. 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 it sounds repetitive and I feel like it may be, but I think it's good conversation. And so the bus tops are designed for both RAF to and the town shuttle service. There's often two buses at the bus stops for RAFTA staging. And the other key element is the, 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 RUP3 comes up Alcreek Road and people just get lured off. They can get a lot of the fire stations, the location that they designated as. But then you have the pedestrian access if they're trying to get to 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 the pedestrians and then they have a walk way 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 rise 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 at 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 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, and 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 is 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 is actually a little bit steeper coming out, it's got a 10% coming on the uphill leg as you climb up that hill. And that, sorry, I'm going to ask what's in the intersection now? Six to seven percent. So you come into it and you're then going, then you're going level. Oh, current, current design. 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 are Make a noise as a poop, 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's curve. 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 around about. And the reason it's flat in there is so that it's like 2 percent. So water can sheet off of it but also so that people can do the turning movements without having to get on 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 if 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 that 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? Assessment, do you have any questions on that? Okay. 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. It's always there and then the last year so we ain't to. Yeah. What's the difference? Oh, sorry, I almost blinded you. it allows the capacity of the roundabout to last longer, but we determined that 2040-2050 of a life of this roundabout that decision can be discussed later The footprint was way bigger. It was right. It came from like here with the turning lane And it came and cut into the silicide to come through The round's a boy the roundabout. Now you said there were some changes in the civil from the last thing we saw. Yeah. You point out specifically what changed? It's more towards the back is actually like the concrete plans. Yeah, it's like details. They're getting into quantities. All right, so. We're at 80% 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 take-offs to make sure that the quantities match and we get better pricing. Nothing in terms of layout is substantially. No. 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. included in the bridge, right? And so that's where we're a little bit of a, yep, it showed the bridge. But this is what we're recommending. Yeah. I'm sorry, what is the bridge? There was two options. Cessli, see where the stairs come down like from seasons four on the right. There was two options. One was a bridge. Great one. Oh, good one, I'll wait a while. Oh, good one, I'll wait a while. And then there was this option. Yep. Yeah. Um. Yeah, on the right there was two options one was a bridge Yeah, and then there was this option 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 stare. 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 looks. 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, okay. All right. That's where, see, this one here shows that bridge. Yeah. In the back. That's not there. Yeah. And then this is the underpass. and what's not there. 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 sircase That's the bus up there. Yep, 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, is 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, you got good to plan, yeah. Okay, what are you, and you're talking about if you get off the chapel bus stop here? If you get off the chapel bus stop, you don't have to deal with the stairs, where 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. And then 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 behind. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think it's behind here. I think we're going to go 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 the people that are using it as like cross trail like to go up to the mountain. It was fully ramped. Yeah, there's fully ramped. So this would be the desire location you coming down this sidewalk and you can go up the trails. Got it. Okay. That's the one looking over towards we call it Consumand Corner. That's the, so from that bus stop at this thing, guide, no. What's that? It is. Right. We haven't finished line SK plants. This is Alokreeq Road down that direction. What is that feature in the middle called again that looks like little triangle that's got landscaping on it? Or is it neat? Oh, the refuge? What's it called? 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, 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 that have been working on the fine tuning of 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, continue 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, get the contractor on board so that they can say, are we going to, what's the best way to construct this with the least amount of construction impact? Whether it's half and half, whether it's one third, one third, we don't know. I mean that's certainly something I'm really interested in is how it impacts the traffic, how it's phased, and how long it's going to take, and all that. That's what the community is. 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 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 in confidence. All the above. Okay. Yep. Questions? That's- Okay. Um, I guess like- questions that's um I guess like not necessarily pertaining to the current, what you guys just currently presented, but as we continue the discussion around the roundabout, I would love to just for 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, putting into context, 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 going to be both Al Creek and the intersection, so it'll be those two segments, is that right? So what's the... And then one more question, is there like an eventuality where this is going to 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. We don't have that many of them where there's just a... It's one of the last remaining connectivity of the node spot. That's funny, and I know there's issues with wetlands or riparian areasarian 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. 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 a matrix of understanding if we are to move forward with this project on xd What does that look like or if we delay it and Other projects are gonna get done first You know when 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 it'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 get this done next year maybe even sooner dependent on design and whatnot and we have a high confidence that at some point the snowmess 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 I'm not saying speed it up because we need to find out the timing and 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 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. The other two newer locations, the U.I. maybe the mall, who knows, and they got a lot of blanches 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 mean I don't I will speak for everybody that we do think this is a best a good way to get this infrastructure in place and allow those those construction projects it was eventual whenever they happen to be less impactful and that's that's, that's kind of the... Can you explain how it makes them less impactful? Yeah. I'll let these guys, sure. 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, like if there happens to be like an option for mobility and STEMAS that we haven't explored yet, that doesn't make this intersection as necessary to turn into a roundabout. Is there, I guess, just taking that into consideration? 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 where there's only one leg. And 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, let me talk about that. Let me speak to the safety of the current intersection. So I'm brushy-grow 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 you 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 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 and 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 Al Creek 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, super dangerous and then going uphill the 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, wanting 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, however, I'm coming down the hill, once it's turned on, I'll creek, is going to 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 lowways 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 two weeks ago, I investigated a lady pulled 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 slippery, it's more dangerous. So the accidents there, that's a lot. I think 42 and 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 under the golf course at the hairpin turn or like a lot less I would I'm just going to guess anecdotally that I propose that's 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 punchball 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 toe trucks are required but I've climbed down there. You're speaking about the hairpin not know center.. No, the down hill brush right hand down to Alcreek going towards the firehouse. Okay. 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 together their belongings and hike back up the hill in the deep snow. And luckily, again, no one gets hurt. There's no 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, 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. next all of a fact. And I will continue to push for design elements like an actual raise curve. Yeah just a little bit to protect. And it's also a rocker because you got the the 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 you know a fire 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 all creek traffic approaching the intersection. Would 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 the two? What's the difference between the two? What's the difference between the two? 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, I think the trucks can request a right away and then they can hesitate to make sure car number one didn't get his brakes on in time let him go through the round about and I'll go in behind them then it's it's driver driven and not a red light driven I think how is that? I'm just curious how is that significantly different with around about than it would be at a T junction like that? Well then. Because this is slowing everybody up. I see. 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 a round 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's anticipation that provides a safety. You had a question 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 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 is so important. 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 were starting to work with the GIS project managers to start developing a map that you can filter year by year, understand what construction projects are going to go at the same time or our plan to go at the same time. You can look at it for the next five years. It'll be a user-friendly map for everyone 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, what's much easier for us to plan out when 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 besting rights to 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. Plus the Sue Sun becomes forward the project goes on the schedule and you know 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 water line 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 give 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 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 is 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 of batter not, they have to press go and it's going to create an impact in that intersection, then, was just curious, I'm 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 you 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 Mall curve when we did that during COVID yep was the whole summer right impacted yeah so irrespective of what we did this, there's another roughly mile of water lines that are going to be put it in. 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, good. So 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 rut. The two lanes of all the people climbing up 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 the roundabout, I got to do an asphalt project, which is not as long. It's a mill, it's, you know, two weeks, but it is a cluster for two weeks. like do you have an estimate of what you think the project for the whole roundabout 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. Yeah. 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 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, 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 and you're going to pay an exorbitant premium and even if you paid that premium they can't staff that they can't accomplish nighttime 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 you re-closed off, press creek, or allocriector, whatever, and had one going one way and one going the other way, you 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. Yeah. And, and, and, it's not June to September. No. next year. So basically you would start about this time next year and finish in October. And, and, and, it's not June to September. No, sorry April 15th usually. And, yeah. We're going there, Brian. We're going there. One weather 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. So, 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 a big, like, you know, the golf course is the roundabout, so you come in one direction, you leave the other direction, or whatever creative idea they come up with. You want 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 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'd have to end the pass right. And we had to admit that was the decision. Yeah, we ripped the band-aid and got it done. Right. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? 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 Alcreek 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. And 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, so I hear you. 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. Okay 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 mediums 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 it is. See that rock right there? That's that monument rock that's out there. That matches the grade right there, but out here it's a four foot cut. Because- Is four feet higher? 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 move 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 of 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 best up down at 8 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 gonna come up 8% so it'd be filling and The road sitting like it is and unless you have that roundabout with that table at the top You're not gonna have the right grades going into the intersection You wouldn't have decided either. Yeah. Yeah. And there'd be no pedestrian. No, the sidewalk 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? OK. It would be with the goal 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 number one, no. Because of the grade of the road. Yeah, we would be able to get out of there. Yeah, the lower one may be able to. Yes, number seven, because it's on the grade would be a no. Yeah, because it would require retaining walls, that number seven. Well the road getting changed elevation wise I, 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 a roundabout. Yes. Okay. Could we, it's all just jumping 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. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. We didn't. Yeah, that's fine. 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, a lot of people drive the road, drive it at a proven level, proven speed, which is probably 40 miles an hour to that intersection. They just do because the width and the gray and everything works well. The speed limit sign doesn't matter. I hate to say that as a cop, but everyone that passes that time and sees it for a few times and they stop seeing it. Because they drive by it every day. One of that flashes says thank you, that one was great, but I've never reliant on that. So I think that it's more of that intersection bound without any improvements. No, no, I'm just asking, could it help? Could it be a safety improvement that we could just do tomorrow? Could that be something we could implement that might help reduce? Because isn't the risk of, 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 dangerous and accident. You're seeing an armbrech degree right now with the Woodbridge Colbert project. That's a 20 mile per hour. It's posted as 20 mile per hour. No one. No one. Four-year-old Yellow said 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 mean. That's fair. 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 85% out of that. So if that speed limit there is 45? No. No, 35. It's suppressed on the 30 and transitions to 35. The transition is OK. It's not bad. 35 is not bad. 35 would be better all the way right up to the group ridge. Because load is built to handle that. It's easily. Right. OK. When we put a lesser speed on the line, we have high hopes that it doesn't change. OK. I guess I, yeah. Although I think those things you have to show you out fast, you're going really effective. I think they are too, but maybe we're just rural followers. I've been saying that they're interested. For me, they're very effective. I say it said, oh, I got to slow down. In fact, they are seeing how fast they could go. on that road to handle it, they drive to lift it in and be prudent. Yeah. The moment, and at 6.30 in the moment, morning, twilight, that work. The road can handle it, they drive to what they can be approved. Yeah. The mom and at 6.30 in the morning, morning, twilight, that works. Well, and 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 in you're trying to go left and someone passes you. And a lot of those people, they're just like, they don't even notice to sign anyone. 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 dangerous intersection and then flashing your, you know. I don't, I don't, the T-bone accident support a dangerous intersection. Okay. I think the vast majority are the slide-offs and I can do faster conditions in the amount of beautiful object glass and the motion of the question is. Pretty low. Okay. Okay. It's not. I'm thinking of if you're interested in this. Pretty love. OK. OK. I think you're correct. OK. But it's different. So without a roundabout, what traffic calming recommendations would you make? Would there be any? I would say the same design we have at far away is protracted furniture out there and narrow the drive lanes and narrow it a lot. That doesn't help that is the term far away to get away with that. But you put traffic furniture out there and... Wait, what does that mean? Medians and other stuff. Ah, okay, okay. So, refuge spots, raised medias, and the water-coloring that separate turn lanes from drive lanes as you... Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Nero's review. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. traffic. 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 pretty much flows otherwise. There's a lot of cars coming down the road. And just putting traffic on the ground, I'm not a fan of that. I'm not having the roundabout to keep everybody moving. The traffic on the interest is not going to help all of them. You get all. 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 like three words away 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 geometry of a right now doesn't support that because the center lines, there's a skew in there that it won't allow you. You have to wind the road and change a lot of sideways geometry or put medians in. You know, I look at like if you were to put a median, the only place I can think about is here because the fact is that's got 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 to stay 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 leave you a congestion. You need to change the intersection design in order to improve that level of service. I think maybe possibly mediums and slight geometry changes to slower, slowed vehicles down. But it's steep road right now. It's dead straight. I think slowing vehicles down without a roundabout is a difficult task. Like you're saying, if you're gonna put mediums in and create some sort of jog, you're halfway to a roundabout. But yes, there's, you know, there's possible geometry improvements that could slow vehicles down, but it would be pre-trastic change, Can I ask a question? 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. 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 when it's not congested, when there's not high weather issues of safety concerns, I think it's incredibly pleasant and a huge part of what makes that character of Snow Math