[1:48] Oh really?

[11:54] This time I would like to call the order of

[11:56] the August 26, 2026 meeting of the Garfield County Planning

[12:00] Commission. Brooke roll call, please. Reed Jolly? Here. Kohlberger.

[12:12] Here. Eric Brad? Here. John Kerson. She's Lammy. Here. Mike

[12:20] Daimler. Steve Kyle? Here. Cambol Blazer.

[12:32] Loud. Yep, I'm like. Very good, thank you. I see

[12:41] we have a quorum so we can proceed. Tonight's public

[12:47] hearing is for a rezoning from rural to PUD and

[12:52] a major subdivision sketch plan review. For the Mitchell Creek

[12:56] Community PUD located at 50235 Highway 6 and 24. Glenwood

[13:03] Springs, Colorado 81601. Project involves parcels number 21.

[13:19] Same thing ending in 73 and 77. Her presenter on

[13:24] this hearing tonight is John Laborne. Burked just reminded me

[13:28] that you have approval of minutes, Mr. Chairman. Oh yes.

[13:32] Lately I've had that problem. In front of you, sorry

[13:36] that they're so late. All right, so the first agenda

[13:39] item is to prove them in itself. Thank you. Is

[13:45] any additions deletions or corrections to the minutes. I'm very

[13:51] emotionally improved. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been

[13:55] moved in second. Voice vote, all in favor say aye.

[13:58] Aye. Aye. Same sign. Motion caring. Now we can move

[14:06] on. I'm not going to repeat the parcel numbers. Our

[14:11] meeting tonight is Representative Tonight is John Laborne and you're

[14:15] here. And I assume you are ready. Right? Yes, sir.

[14:19] And our applicant tonight, I believe is Nell's, Cotter and

[14:23] Andrew Settle. And are you here? So please come forward.

[14:32] And take a chair and introduce yourselves. If you have

[14:35] anyone else that's going to join you other than the

[14:37] two of you.

[14:48] Hi everyone. It's a privilege to be here. My name

[14:51] is Needles and we're really excited to. Talk about this

[14:54] project. I believe our presentation is after your presentation, correct?

[14:59] Perfect. So very excited to see you for joining us.

[15:04] Like all commission public hearings. Tonight's public hearing will consist

[15:07] of nine segments in the following order. First, I will

[15:11] swear everyone in that's going to speak tonight, that staff,

[15:14] that's public. Then we'll go out and we'll check noticing.

[15:19] Make sure we have the noticing proper. We may have

[15:21] an issue about that, I think. Then staff will introduce

[15:25] exhibits. I think we have 18. Let's serve more. Then

[15:30] we'll go out to the staff for their presentation. Following

[15:34] that, we'll give the information a chance to ask questions.

[15:39] For the staff or council, then we'll go out to

[15:41] you for your presentation, the applicant. After that, we will

[15:46] go out and see if there's public comment. And if

[15:48] so, we'll take a quick comment until someone wants to

[15:52] talk. Ultimately, we'll close public comment, and we'll come back

[15:56] to our group and the evidentiary portion of the meeting

[15:59] to discuss how we want to proceed. So that's the

[16:01] nine steps. That we're going to follow. Before I convene

[16:06] the hearing, we need to complete the swearing end process.

[16:09] So. Anyone that's going to speak, do you raise your

[16:13] right hand. Do you swear or affirm underpitative law. That

[16:19] the statement or evidence that you are about to give

[16:21] before the commission shall be the truth, the whole truth,

[16:24] and nothing but the truth. And if so, please say,

[16:29] I do. I do. Well, I proceed. This is a

[16:33] sketch plan. In addition to the other rezoning issue. We

[16:39] are tasked with reviewing the sketch plan to determine if

[16:42] the plan complies with the applicable standards. And John will

[16:46] probably fall ascend further. And is in general performance with

[16:50] the comp plan. We will not be taking any formal

[16:54] action on the sketch plan. We'll just be giving comments

[16:57] or feedback that might help you as you move forward.

[17:00] And, uh. Of course, we're not the final authority on

[17:03] anything like this anyway. So on the, um, rezoning issue.

[17:08] That will have to go on to the board accountant

[17:10] commissioners. Regardless of how we proceed. So. With that, I

[17:14] believe we're ready to discuss notice. How do we do

[17:18] unnotici? Have fun. Issue. But I would like to enter

[17:21] one more exhibit. Prior to that. So that would be

[17:26] exit or exhibit, sorry. Exhibit 18 have in front of

[17:30] you, the waiver of public notice provided by that applicant.

[17:33] To the property owner that had a typo in the

[17:37] notice that was sent to him, but he did receive

[17:39] it. So. Our cove does not. Have a waiver provision.

[17:44] Of notice, but there is the. Constructive notice provision. If

[17:47] you feel like they've met the constru. Provision, you. Can

[17:50] move forward. And just early. Is where they're negotiating. So

[17:57] how does the commission feel about this? You think this

[18:00] is constructed notice. That is signed. Dated. Mr. Chairman, I've

[18:06] got some comments. That place gives you. Okay. Yes, of

[18:08] course. It's probably overkill, but I just want to make

[18:10] a record here so that you guys feel comfortable making

[18:12] this finding if that's what you want. But, um, we

[18:16] accidentally transposed a number with 6874 versus 6875 Highway 82.

[18:22] The Maryland went out and we didn't get the return

[18:24] and sell 28 days before the hearing. And so, um,

[18:27] we didn't do that. First, the code requires that we

[18:30] show proof notification or attempted notification, which is what we

[18:34] did in good faith. Second, the code treats this as

[18:37] a minor defect and not a jurisdictional bar. That's 4101

[18:41] E5. It says minor defects and notice shall not impair

[18:44] the notice or invalidate proceedings. Third, we published in the

[18:48] newspaper and posted. And so the public at large has

[18:51] noticed. And fourth and most importantly, uh, the landowner had

[18:55] actual knowledge of our application. Well before 30 days before.

[18:59] The owner of the land that we were manning this

[19:02] is an entity called MMMEWGLLC owned by Mark Ruled Sr.

[19:09] Mark. And these two have been working together for months,

[19:12] um, for water supply out there. So he knew completely

[19:15] what was going on out there. Um, Mark signed the

[19:18] waiver that you have in front of you. And so

[19:19] nobody was prejudiced. So we would ask that this commission

[19:23] make a formal finding that there has been substantial compliance

[19:26] with the notice requirements. And Mark's on line too. Kelly,

[19:34] any additional comments. Just your decision whether constructive notice has

[19:38] been. Good to go. Yeah. All right. With that then

[19:43] we shall proceed. I believe all of our, if I

[19:51] calculated correctly. Yes. We have seven voting members present. So

[19:59] we, um, will not need to decide who the alternate

[20:04] might be. And with that. I think we've read it

[20:09] open meeting and you can begin at your leisure. So

[20:12] just a point of order on exhibit 16, you have

[20:15] that in front of you. The city of the Glenwood

[20:19] Springs originally received the application as part of the IgA

[20:22] that we have with them before technical completeness. And then

[20:25] it was recent out to them at the time after

[20:29] technical completeness for another referral process for 21 days. I

[20:33] did not see in any referral comments from the city

[20:36] when I received this file after Phillip left and reached

[20:40] out to the city. They indicated that they would get

[20:42] on it and return comments at least by five o'clock

[20:45] last night. So the comments you have in front of

[20:47] you are the comments from the city of Glenwood Springs.

[20:50] And that's exhibit 16. To review. Exhibit 16. We tended

[20:59] out tonight. And I assume you've seen exhibit 16 as

[21:02] well. With that, I will go ahead and enter into

[21:09] the record exhibits one through 18. We let's the highest

[21:12] number, right? You ready.

[21:23] This is public hearing for the Mitchell Creek community PUD

[21:26] rezoning and major subdivision sketch plan review. Auditors flipped.

[21:38] Hey, really the base monitors are on. There?

[21:48] No.

[21:59] Field. But. It's a pretty picture. You haven't seen them.

[22:09] There's been a couple of them going right at the

[22:10] city. Really? I had much wandering around.

[22:24] Didn't. Get your hair up. First guy, I'm trying to

[22:29] figure out what I'm doing for a second, God. I

[22:31] think I got all the randoms to do. Key training,

[22:36] doghouse. Good. Nothing yet. Yes, and he said we had

[22:42] almost two tenths on two. Just spin around. Yeah. Maybe

[22:48] so. Well, that's a big screen too. I'll just thought

[22:51] it would be simpler.

[23:19] Nothing yet. My third cut is coming. Looks like. I'm

[23:26] going to be in the third ten. I was wondering.

[23:32] That's okay. Yeah.

[23:57] Did you. Get twice.

[24:17] So as it's noted, four, the PUD zoning and a

[24:20] subdivision sketch plan. The owner, I'm not even going to

[24:23] try to pronounce his name again because I always butcher

[24:25] it. The applicants are Neil's cotter and andrew settle. Applicants

[24:29] representative is LAN studio inc. The practical description of the

[24:34] property is it's the existing RV park north of highway

[24:37] six and 24 in west of the city of Glenwood

[24:40] Springs. It's a total of 24. 98 acres. It's currently

[24:44] zoned rural. And it's proposed to be residential PUD zoning.

[24:49] The comprehensive plan calls calls it out as the Glenwood

[24:53] Springs area of influence urban growth area, low density residential

[24:57] designation. The existing RV park has been there since 1973.

[25:05] The Atkins proposing 95 to 100 residential units proposed with

[25:09] two units currently existing on the site on the east

[25:11] side. Units will range in size from thousand to 2,

[25:15] 600 square feet with an average of 1500 square feet.

[25:19] Water is provided by the city of Glenwood Springs via

[25:22] a new waterline that was recently installed. And wastewater services

[25:26] are from the Glenwood Spring sanitation dit district. The two

[25:30] existing access points do have access permits previously to this

[25:35] application and new access permits have been issued. This is

[25:40] the layout of the PUD. The two access points are

[25:44] down on the lower right - hand side where the

[25:46] detention pond. If you look further up to the west,

[25:51] the top left - hand corner, two hammerhead turnouts are

[25:54] up there for fire apparatus turnarounds. We did send this

[26:01] out for referral comments. c. Obviously said that the C.

[26:06] access permits have been issued and we'll cover that in

[26:08] more detail later. Colorado geological survey stated that the recommendations

[26:13] submitted should be implemented into project approvals as applicable role.

[26:19] These included the maintenance of the conveyance channels debris flow

[26:24] features. As they're implemented and built per the recommendations of

[26:29] the geological mud flow study. CPW recommended a raptor nest

[26:35] survey be conducted within a half mile of the project.

[26:40] Prior to the commencement of construction. And if any nests

[26:43] are found that CPW. Guidelines or buffer zones being implemented,

[26:53] bear wear practices should also be implemented. Mountain cross engineering

[26:57] had a broad range of comments ranging from the mud

[27:01] flow study. Specifically that the lots affected by debris flow

[27:06] should be removed from the plan. Wildfire recommendations would be

[27:09] placed in the CC and ours for the PUD and

[27:12] the landscape plan should be compliant with the wildfire plan.

[27:18] The Garfield County Sheriff's Office recommended that C. Dot reduce

[27:21] the speed limit from 40 miles per hour to 30

[27:23] miles per hour in between the two access points of

[27:27] the project. Vegetation management asked for more detail. On the

[27:33] vegetation management plan and weed treatment plan. And the city

[27:38] of Glenwood Springs commented on in the comprehensive plan and

[27:41] also a stormwater management permit or discharge permit be issued.

[27:46] We also received comments from public health, Colorado Department of

[27:51] Public Health in the environment and also the Glenwood Springs

[27:54] fire department. The adjacent land uses or the existing RV

[28:03] park. The stealth storage facility that's currently under construction to

[28:09] the west with a residence that's proposed on the site

[28:14] and also to the East residential and commercial uses. The

[28:19] application included a geotechnical study and ecological impact report, weed

[28:24] management plan and wildfire hazard assessment. A rezoning justification report

[28:29] was provided with the application provided by JVAM. Staff did

[28:34] find that the rezoning criteria has been met as the

[28:37] proposed application will result in the logically and orderly development

[28:40] pattern which meets the demonstrated community need through the redevelopment

[28:44] of the property. The traffic study that was included in

[28:48] the report indicated that the increase in traffic flow is

[28:52] below what 6 and 24 was built for, but that

[28:56] the increase in traffic did trigger new access permits and

[28:59] they have been issued. This is directly from the zone

[29:06] regulations proposed for the PUD. Single family dwelling units minimum

[29:11] lot area per unit 2000 square feet. Maximum building height

[29:17] 35 feet. Lot coverage 75 feet and setbacks on three

[29:21] sides of five feet. The attached dwelling unit minimum lot

[29:29] area is 1, 500 square feet and all the other

[29:32] parameters are the same as the residential dwelling units. It

[29:36] should be noted that these are not ADUs but these

[29:38] are more townhone concept type structures. By way of comparison

[29:44] in the rural zone district. The minimum lot area is

[29:50] two acres. With a maximum coverage of. The street would

[29:58] be 25 feet. Rear would be 25 and the side

[30:01] would be 10. The maximum height in the rule zone

[30:04] district is 25 feet. Garfield County comprehensive plan designates the

[30:12] property be residential medium high with a density of one

[30:15] dwelling unit per two to six acres. The comprehensive plan

[30:19] for the county also states that since this property is

[30:22] within the Glenwood Springs, urban growth area and area of

[30:27] influence that we defer to the Glenwood Springs comprehensive plan.

[30:31] Excuse me. The comments received from Glenwood Springs touched on

[30:36] this. The comprehensive plan for Glenwood states that it's low

[30:42] density residential. From the comprehensive plan itself appropriate density is

[30:48] determined by existing land uses, topography, infrastructure capacity and road

[30:53] networks. Additionally, the low density residential designation functions as a

[30:59] placeholder within the urban growth area until specific development proposal

[31:04] demonstrates alignment with comprehensive plan goals. Infrastructure capacity and community

[31:09] objectives. As stated before, the waters provided by the city

[31:15] of Glenwood Springs. Wastewalt water is through the West Glenwood

[31:21] water and sanitation district. The property owners will own and

[31:25] maintain the distribution system within the property itself. But the

[31:29] city will own the firehead hydrants and they will be

[31:31] located within easements. Electric and gas supply are to be

[31:36] extended to the development. The applicant will need to supply

[31:40] will serve letters for those utilities. Rhodes will be 24

[31:44] feet in width with a three foot rock... Yeah. Walkway

[31:48] on one side of the road. There will be separated

[31:52] essentially by a painted line. Hammerheads. As I pointed out

[31:56] earlier provided for fire apparatus turnarounds. And the appskin has

[32:01] been working with the fire district on the dimensions of

[32:04] those turnarounds. Soft surface trails are also proposed throughout the

[32:08] development. A conceptual mud flow analysis was provided in the

[32:14] analysis indicated that some of the lots should be removed

[32:16] due to the mud flow. These lots are up on

[32:21] the northern northwestern section. Of the property.

[32:31] And those were noted by Chris Hale in his direct

[32:33] comments for mountain cross and engineering. The fire protection also

[32:41] were also stated that wildfire has a review is provided

[32:44] with the application and that the requirements of the Colorado

[32:48] wildfire resiliency code that was recently adopted be implemented throughout

[32:51] the proposal. Let's go back up to... There's proposed channels.

[33:02] For the three flow areas that were identified along with

[33:06] four capture basins. The capture basins are the northwest. The

[33:11] central the east. A fourth one in between the two

[33:15] access points along six and twenty four. Provided geotechnical study

[33:23] did provide design recommendations for foundations. And other types of

[33:28] slab structures and building parameters. And also we're recommended mud

[33:33] flow design recommendations. The plan did is... I'm

[33:43] sorry. Let me back up here. The plan is actuable

[33:47] to the inclusionary zoning for housing. So with 100 units

[33:51] they have to provide 10 units. The plan that they

[33:54] submitted for the affordable housing is compliant with the LUDC.

[34:02] Staff does have some concerns that the PUD guide indicates

[34:06] the residential units may be rented for any period of

[34:09] time. Nightly weekly monthly seasonally or long - term. Note

[34:14] that the county does not have any regulations on short

[34:17] - term rentals themselves. And that they are permitted in

[34:21] any zone district. But due to the close nature of

[34:26] these of the proposed site plan and the units themselves,

[34:32] we feel that it could be problematic for the sheriff's

[34:35] office or anyone else. That lives within the community. The

[34:42] appkins should also explore pedestrian connection along Highway 6 and

[34:45] 24 to the Mitchell Creek area and city limits. And

[34:51] the PUD guide should also provide more information as to

[34:54] how to determine the structure height once it goes to

[34:57] building permit. I believe the adapts against going to touch

[34:59] on that later. So the staff recommendation is to move

[35:05] to recommend approval of Mitchell Creek Community Plan Unit Development

[35:08] to the Board Accounting Commissioners with findings one through six

[35:11] and conditions one through 13. These are the recommended findings

[35:17] one through six. Sketch. Alright.

[35:29] And then the recommended conditions here. Items to note are

[35:37] the will serve letters for the utilities. The applicant work

[35:44] to reduce the speed limit. Theed management plan. And to

[35:51] provide a detailed and thorough mud flow analysis epilemonary plan.

[36:01] If you would like to discuss the PUD zoning will

[36:05] stay there and then move on to the sketch plan

[36:07] afterwards if you would so wish. I would be my

[36:09] preference. What is the rest? What do they think? Instead

[36:14] of the BUD then. Mr. Chairman just a couple sort

[36:21] of highlights for you. Condition one requires the applicant comply

[36:25] with all the representations and really of significance as exhibit

[36:29] 17. Exhibit 17 includes their responses to a number of

[36:34] different provisions uh... Referral comments. Um... And I'd just like

[36:39] to highlight a couple of those. Um... Comment three and

[36:43] four from the mountain cross engineering had to do with

[36:46] road standards applicant and represent there going to comply with

[36:50] those road standards. And so that road cross section that

[36:53] I think is included on the bottom of the PUD

[36:56] guide shows that 24 foot cross section. Three feet of

[37:00] that 24 feet is part of a sidewalk or a

[37:03] pedestrian access way. So there's an area that down the

[37:07] road for their representations. That's an area that probably would

[37:11] get some additional attention. Um... Article 7. We're already 7.

[37:17] There's 7. 0. It's table 7 - 107. So good

[37:21] news is applicant is indicating they're going to comply with

[37:23] those standards. And that's an entirely appropriate way for us

[37:28] to connect the dots between referral comment. John's recommended condition

[37:33] and the applicants representations. But exhibit 17 is pretty significant

[37:38] in terms of their representations. The other one to note

[37:42] there is comment number 10 from Chris Hale had to

[37:46] do with the geological mud flow hazards. And that condition

[37:50] indicates that certain lots that are subject to those hazards.

[37:54] Perhaps might need to be removed from the plan. It's

[37:57] worth acknowledging that the applicant is committing to more detailed

[38:01] study. Refining perhaps the layout and providing for mitigation. So

[38:06] once again exhibit 17 is important in that respect. So

[38:11] just wanted to identify those two areas that are specifically

[38:16] addressed and John's report and addressed in the applicant's response

[38:21] to Chris Hale. And last but not least is the

[38:25] short term rentals just wanted to echo John's observation. Short

[38:28] - term rentals in a fairly dense project which is

[38:32] coming in at four to five units in acre based

[38:35] on the overall density with small lot sizes can be

[38:39] problematic. And so we would encourage maybe the applicant can

[38:42] address that. In their presentation as well. Just a couple

[38:46] additional comments. Thank you Mr. Chairman. That's full report off

[38:52] the BUD had. In the sketch plan? It's relevant to

[38:55] both. Yeah. But as we're talking primarily PD issues those

[39:00] are appropriate kind of inclusions and reflect consistency with John's

[39:05] recommended conditions. At this time, other questions of staff. Council

[39:11] about what we heard so far. I just put it

[39:15] in the record. That just so it's there. There's no

[39:18] real neighbors close to this development because of the mountain

[39:22] and the development that gold's doing correct. So as part

[39:27] of the Royal Mini Storage Project there is an existing

[39:30] house on the far west side. And then the employee

[39:33] housing unit that's going to be centered on the project

[39:37] by the front gate. And there is one residence to

[39:40] the north. I guess. Yeah

[39:50] the only thing this isn't a rezoning. This is in

[39:55] a PUD approval. This is just a SketchUp. So this

[39:58] is at actually two parts. The first part that we

[40:01] just went over is the PUD rezoning itself for the

[40:05] Mitchell Creek community. So okay. And then this proving is

[40:08] zone. Yeah. Yeah. And then the second part is their

[40:13] request for a sketch plan. A sketch plan for major

[40:16] subdivision. Okay. Do you have comments? No they both go.

[40:21] Together. Oh wait till we see what subdivision is. I

[40:25] think we're ready to go out to the applicant for

[40:27] their presentation. Go ahead. I just wanted to comment really

[40:34] briefly my name. Matt with the LAN studio. And a

[40:38] lot of times you get PED applications that don't always

[40:40] include sketch plans. We decided at this stage to include

[40:43] a sketch plan so you could get some idea, have

[40:45] some idea about how this PUD overlays a land. What

[40:49] the density looks like. I just wanted to kind of

[40:51] make that clear that this is a tandem application as

[40:54] we just discussed. So we are seeking PUD approval. The

[40:57] sketch plan. We'd love to get as many comments from

[40:59] you about the sketch plan as possible. So that when

[41:02] we go forward with preliminary plan we have all of

[41:04] those comments that we can work with. So that was

[41:06] just a little bit of a preface. So I'm going

[41:08] to let these guys go ahead. Thank you.

[41:32] That's perfect. That's good. Oh, it's going to just like.

[41:36] That.

[41:46] So again, it's privilege to be here. We're really excited

[41:49] to present this project and appreciate all the help from

[41:53] staff and also the great team that's helped us guide

[41:56] us through this process. And the folks in the community

[42:00] that provided input. Our goal, and I'll start with that

[42:06] we're calling this a Mitchell Creek community because we're trying

[42:09] to achieve a community here. I'll start with the vision

[42:13] that we came up with, which is to create attainable

[42:16] single family home ownership opportunities in Garfield County. And this

[42:22] vision was sort of developed through feedback that we received

[42:26] from the community and local leaders. Um, which is what

[42:32] is really needed in Garfield County placed to accommodate families

[42:36] and those that work in the area. Um, as an

[42:40] example of this need, um, part of the latest regional

[42:44] housing needs assessment commissioned by Garfield County and other counties.

[42:50] In the nearest city to this project which is Glenwood

[42:52] Springs. Only 30 single family homes have been developed over

[42:56] the past 10 years. Uh, and there is no signal

[43:00] family home. Sorry. There's no single family home that is

[43:06] in the pipeline right now, uh, according to that report.

[43:10] In that time frame, uh, Garfield County has added 4,

[43:14] 000 jobs. So it's, and home prices have doubled. And

[43:18] so our goal is to create efficient, healthy community with

[43:22] open space. And units that are primarily three and four

[43:26] bedroom that accommodate families. Uh, another stat that really struck

[43:31] me was at twenty five miles to go to work.

[43:38] So the idea is to be able to bring some

[43:40] of those people, uh, into the community that are working

[43:43] in the community. Um, we heard, you know, people talking

[43:47] about, well, my children can't live here or, you know,

[43:50] we, we want to downsize to a house a little

[43:52] bit smaller, more efficient. So really this was part of

[43:54] the goal. And so we're thrilled to be able to

[43:57] respond to that, uh, with an attainable ownership opportunity. To

[44:02] allow the community here to live and grow here. So

[44:05] this is a photo of the site today. It's 25

[44:08] acres. Um, and it's operated as a campground and RV

[44:12] park. This is a photo of the existing conditions on

[44:17] site. Uh, there's RVs. There's the roads are mostly dirt

[44:23] and gravel. The existing infrastructure, the site is served by

[44:32] two private wells with modern pumps, um, chlorination, uh, and

[44:37] the sewer is currently being served by Glenwood Springs sanitation.

[44:42] There's electrical through power lines. And probably the most important

[44:47] part is there's only one fire hydrant that was built

[44:50] in 1974 serving the entire 25 acre parcel. What we're

[44:57] proposing is, and one of the comments we heard from

[45:01] the community, one of the concerns was, you know, the,

[45:04] uh, the very important focus on fire protection. Um, so

[45:08] we've worked closely with a fire department, gone through several

[45:12] rounds of plans, uh, to make sure that the roads

[45:15] are compliant, that our hammerheads are turnouts. Everything is how

[45:19] they'd like to see it. We are providing six times

[45:23] a number of hydrants, uh, and they will all be

[45:25] hooked up to city water, a more reliable water source

[45:29] than these wells. And all structures are within 250 feet

[45:32] of the fire hydrant per, uh, fire department feedback. Uh,

[45:36] in addition, we will be improving the water system on

[45:41] site because the residents will have city water, the fire

[45:45] department will have city water serving those fire hydrants. And

[45:50] so they are no longer relying on the water system.

[45:53] Uh, that said, we're keeping one well on site to

[45:57] do the irrigation as it was recommended is environmentally friendly

[46:03] way to handle that versus potable water. Um, we're improving

[46:06] the sewer lines. We're replacing all the sewer lines and

[46:10] the new system will be connected to the, uh, West

[46:14] Glenwood sanitation district. And we are improving debris flow mitigation

[46:19] through these various basins and walls that we're building to

[46:22] protect I - 70 and highway six. So big picture,

[46:29] this is the proposed project. These are some representative images

[46:32] of some floor plans we really like and some various

[46:36] home types. We'll have 98 new four sale homes, approximately

[46:40] four units per acre. 10 of those will be deed

[46:43] restricted workforce housing. Ranging from 70 percent to 110 percent

[46:49] AI. The two existing single family homes on site will

[46:55] be retained. Um, and the average square footages is about

[46:59] 1500 square feet with unit sizes ranging from currently 1152

[47:04] square feet to 2607 square feet across five different unit

[47:08] types. And again, these are mostly three and four bedrooms.

[47:14] With indoor garages, two car garages. Only a few of

[47:19] the units based on the power lines, uh, needed to

[47:22] be parked under a sort of patio type, uh, system.

[47:29] So the other thing that we wanted to focus on

[47:32] is there's a lot of beautiful open space here up

[47:35] the hill. You can see there up the mountain. We

[47:38] focused our entire development and all the improvements on what

[47:42] is already disturbed by the RV park. Um, so you'll

[47:45] see the roads or the road system is change. There's

[47:48] all the fire department. I hammerheads at the end and

[47:51] the turnarounds. In addition to the lower right of the

[47:55] plan you see there be passive green space for the,

[47:58] for the residents to enjoy picnics, play with their kids,

[48:02] uh, those type of things. Your screen space at the

[48:05] lower right where the grade is sort of flat. Regarding

[48:10] access and circulation, we've obtained a new CDOP permits, no

[48:16] new curb cuts, uh, approximately 3, 000 feet from the

[48:20] I - 70 access line break, the new line break

[48:23] onto I - 70. As far as traffic, uh, the

[48:28] daily volume, uh, per the Kimley horn traffic study would

[48:32] be about, uh, six, um, the roads will be 24

[48:40] feet private roads with, uh, three foot walkway. And basically,

[48:46] we talked to the fire department and they were okay

[48:48] with the way we did our curves and the side

[48:52] roads being, um, 20 feet plus this curb that is,

[48:55] I forget to turn for, but it's a curb they

[48:57] can roll over. And we'll have an approximate half mile

[49:01] walking loop around the new homes. One thing I wanted

[49:04] to just mention is that it was mentioned these are

[49:07] townhomes, but these are actually single family. You don't share

[49:10] a wall with anybody. You have your own private space.

[49:15] So these are just the viewpoints of the existing conditions

[49:18] versus proposed. Existing on the left proposing the right. This

[49:26] is going down the highway eastbound. Existing versus proposed. And

[49:33] again, existing versus proposed. So that concludes our presentation. Uh,

[49:41] again, we're really excited and appreciate the feedback. And we're

[49:44] here for comments, questions and inspiration. Thank you so much.

[49:48] Can I make a comment? Sure. Yeah. I was going

[49:51] to comment too. So largely what this, we didn't divide

[49:53] out of presentation for sketch plan in a presentation for

[49:56] PUD. So a lot of what you saw were concepts

[49:59] that are probably more sketch plan related. But the PUD

[50:02] guide that we're actually seeking your recommendation for approval on

[50:06] really specified parameters by which a project like this can

[50:09] get developed. So the lot size, the building lot coverage,

[50:13] the setback, the height limits. So all of those things

[50:16] are in the PUD guide document. So that's, you know,

[50:19] the big piece that we're seeking approval. We didn't go

[50:21] through all those details in a presentation because we really

[50:24] wanted to illustrate the big picture of the project to

[50:27] you. Um, but if you have any questions about the

[50:30] PUV guide versus what you saw on the screen, we're

[50:33] happy to address any of those. What I would like

[50:36] to do with this is have us focus initially on

[50:39] the PUD application. And then we'll come back and we'll

[50:44] talk about the sketch plan. Does that make sense with

[50:46] everyone. John. Something both kind of overlap. Cause the PUD

[50:54] guy is part of the rezone. And that's some of

[50:57] my questions. Is how that's going to. Work, I guess,

[51:01] when they come back. So part items they can address.

[51:04] But yeah, that's fine. Together, I don't really object, but

[51:06] just try to make it as part of the rezone.

[51:11] Okay. Well, seems like that's what everyone prefers. Is that

[51:14] right? I'm okay either way. All right. John. You have

[51:19] the four if you wish you. So quick question. Are

[51:22] these going to be just be simple ownership? You're creating

[51:24] these lots. That's right. So they're all for sale units.

[51:27] Yes. Okay. So no land leases. Oh no blets or

[51:31] anything. The owner of the home alone, the land underneath.

[51:35] So all fee simple. And then the deed management deed

[51:43] restriction stuff. Okay. Very good. Um, and I see you've

[51:47] addressed the two Wall Street parking for the ADUs as

[51:51] well as a single family unit. That's a big deal.

[51:55] Um, one thing when coming, I would have is on

[51:57] the landscape. Um, I would like to see more zero

[52:00] escaping, especially with the drought situation we've been in keeping

[52:04] my end. Obviously the increased fire risk over there. Um,

[52:08] I know you kind of touched on the geotech and

[52:11] the debris flow analysis, um, just want to make sure

[52:13] you guys have aware of how, I guess, big of

[52:16] an issue. That debris flow analysis can be as far

[52:19] as an impact on your feature development. Absolutely. I mean,

[52:23] I know they show these little retention basins and stuff,

[52:26] but the reality is, is those rarely work. They're usually

[52:28] much larger and can affect your. So obviously make, make

[52:32] sure you pay attention to that. The geotech, I didn't

[52:35] get time to look at the jitta for, but obviously

[52:36] it's an alluvial fan. We've got the, you know, hydrocompactive

[52:40] soils in the area. Um, you type a foundation systems

[52:43] as far as kind of protecting the public. It'll be

[52:46] a big thing to pay attention to. And the big

[52:48] question is, is annexation. Um, I know it's in the

[52:51] area of influence in the urban growth. What were the

[52:55] talks with the city of Glenwood about potential annexation and,

[52:58] you know, and heaven utility agreements for sewer and water.

[53:02] His prayer. They let somebody tie on to sewer and

[53:04] water without wanting to annex. I mean, the city was

[53:10] very willing to work with the team regarding provisions for

[53:13] water to the property. I mean, they recognize that, um,

[53:17] the property next door, um, storage, um, has a waterline

[53:22] that's currently being routed to it. So the size of

[53:25] that water line was accommodated with the city to look

[53:28] at the accommodating these 100 units. And also all of

[53:33] the fire protection for both the sword facility and for

[53:37] this, um, redeveloped in these anchor site. So the city

[53:41] was very open. The city, these guys want to tell

[53:44] the council meeting and the city approved. So they're basically

[53:49] wanting to do an agreement to tie on without annex.

[53:52] Quite honestly. That's pretty rare. That's good. About annexation, you

[53:56] know, I mean, you know the situation in the city

[53:57] floodwood springs at any annexation requires a referendum. So, I

[54:01] mean, they were willing to work with us in Garfield

[54:03] County. That's good. I think it's great. I love the

[54:05] idea of content. Thanks. It's a huge improvement for the

[54:08] location. Very quick summary of a lot of work. Yeah.

[54:12] There you guys addressed it. Just wasn't in here. So

[54:14] I want to just do what it was. Okay. I

[54:18] think that's really it for me. Thank you. Ensure all

[54:22] of them. The offstreet parking, the Affordable Housing debris flows,

[54:26] definitely number one. Couple of the guys on this board

[54:29] know that very well that those, those events happen and

[54:33] they have to be mitigated at the beginning and not

[54:35] at the end. Because now we're dealing with the issues

[54:37] at the end. Yeah. A number of streets I almost

[54:43] thought that you could, you know, we're seeing those models

[54:46] more and more. Um, and this is the time where

[54:49] you could eliminate the street. You said, so you're fine

[54:53] with, uh, article seven street. Standards versus, versus your street

[55:02] standards, correct? Well, what, let me read what we wrote

[55:08] in the response. Because what we wrote was the comment

[55:10] was from Chris Hale, the applicant shall address the roadway

[55:15] standards in table seven - 107 of the LUDC at

[55:18] the Emperor Limary Plan. We committed the applicant agrees to

[55:22] address compliance with the applicable roadway standards and table seven

[55:25] - 107 of the LUDC as part of the preliminary

[55:28] finance. So we'll address them saying that we're going to

[55:30] comply with all of them. This is sketch plan. You

[55:33] know, we know standards are. We know they're there. We've

[55:35] been working with those standards. And we'll address them at

[55:39] preliminary plan. We haven't addressed them all right here at

[55:41] sketch plan, but that there is a commitment to address.

[55:45] Apply with all of them comes up to our engineering

[55:47] details as we move into preliminary plan for another day.

[55:51] Um, and then on landscape, I had that question too,

[55:53] but I was only seeing one tree per lot. And

[55:56] I was honestly going, why even put one tree in,

[55:58] especially with the new woofy codes. You probably can't even

[56:01] put them there. Yeah. I mean, uh, the resiliency code

[56:05] that's now adopted by Garfield County and the city. I

[56:09] mean, we'll take a look. I mean, if there is

[56:11] a tree, it's got to be 30 feet away and

[56:12] the crown can't, you know, the crowns have to be

[56:14] separated. So, I mean, the requirements for that. So we'll

[56:18] take a look. I think part of our issue was

[56:20] to have some landscape that helped it at least seem

[56:23] like it fit into the natural environment. Maybe along the

[56:26] road or something. Um, but we'll. I think that those

[56:29] are good. Those are good comments. We'll work with those

[56:31] as we move ahead. And that's where I was running

[56:34] the PUD guide's pretty slim on this. And that's where

[56:37] I was running. And I guess I'm used to seeing

[56:40] a 200 page PUD guide. And the beauty guy quite

[56:45] honestly is modeled after the coat. We didn't put a

[56:48] lot of stuff in. I like his short zone. I

[56:50] mean, we could have written our own definitions that we

[56:53] have one zone district creatively called R1 residential one. So,

[56:57] um, you know, it's, it's a one district, one zone

[57:01] district PV. It clearly states what elements are allowed within

[57:05] that zone district. I mean, besides the uses, um, I

[57:09] mean, we're also allowing landscape and irrigation improvements related to

[57:12] your landscape questions. So it doesn't dwell on what those

[57:15] are, but it does say that they're allowed in the

[57:19] R1 zone district. So, um, you know, if the does

[57:25] or doesn't belong there, um, you can let us know.

[57:28] But it's trying to utilize the terms that are in

[57:31] your code. It was very lean. Yeah. Keep it simple.

[57:33] Yeah. That's true. It's easy to follow then. And then

[57:36] every unit will have a garage. Every unit will have

[57:40] a garage except for a few units out front at

[57:44] the first row. And they'll have stored off street covered

[57:48] parking, but it won't be closed. Yeah. And usually, no,

[57:52] no one uses their garage to park it anymore. It's

[57:55] for the kayaks and everything else and just making sure

[57:58] that with this density that they have a voice for

[58:01] storage is a critical aspect. And kind of, if you

[58:03] will go back to the shot that shows the units,

[58:06] I mean, part of the reason for the garages and

[58:08] the 35 foot height limit is that on the units

[58:11] that tuck into the hillside, we really need a garage

[58:14] to boost the elevation of the living spaces up because

[58:17] that 10 feet at the garage is going to be

[58:20] tucked into the hillside. So the remaining two stories about

[58:22] that will both have daylight on each side. So, I

[58:26] mean, the great change. And so that, uh, the image

[58:30] that's on the far left there, I think is just

[58:32] kind of an illustration of kind of what we're anticipating

[58:35] when you're on the opposite side of the street and

[58:37] you're going downhill, which is kind of the circumstance that

[58:40] we just talked about on the other side. Um, you

[58:43] know, having a garage is a little more difficult. But

[58:46] the uphill units all have garages. Is the current owner

[58:49] going to build all the units then? That's the place.

[58:53] So you're doing it. It looks like a modular style.

[58:57] Not the amateurs. No, not the, not the current owner,

[59:00] but then developer is going to build all the units.

[59:03] So we're going to sell lots of individually. That's great.

[59:05] Okay. Good. That's better. Um, and you, are you, uh,

[59:10] as far as trail connection walkability and interconnection with the

[59:14] city, do you have a plan for that? No, this

[59:17] is the staff recommended that is separated by two properties

[59:21] that are controlled by various partnerships and some of the

[59:25] current owners partnerships are there, but they're different folks. So

[59:29] there's actually a big gap between that in the city,

[59:33] uh, trails. That said, we're going to do is have

[59:36] a walkable trail around this. If you walk their dogs

[59:40] to walk around the site and then in that one

[59:43] corner of the site, where it flattens out right there,

[59:47] kind of below the, like when you, maybe southeast side

[59:54] right there, you see the grade is much less than

[59:56] the other. Like this is where we plan on having

[59:58] just passive area to throw football or, you know, have

[1:00:01] a picnic. In that area. Plus it's far enough away

[1:00:05] that the people playing or doing things like that, uh,

[1:00:10] it's still the residents or had their quiet, enjoy. It.

[1:00:14] Thank you. Wes. Comments? Question like a broken record again,

[1:00:20] but on the, on the debris flow, 93 when we

[1:00:24] had the fire and the reflow after that, this, that

[1:00:27] entire parts of that area, a lot of that was

[1:00:30] under significant amounts of mud. It'll happen again. Guaranteed. So

[1:00:37] I would really take that into account. We're dealing with

[1:00:41] that down by silt. We see it happen about every

[1:00:44] 20 years. This one was, I mean, the one that

[1:00:46] was there was caused by mostly from the fire and

[1:00:49] nothing to hold it back. But it'll happen again at

[1:00:53] some point. So I don't want to see us push

[1:00:56] this down the road 40 years and have another fire.

[1:00:59] And the next thing we're seeing houses go by debris

[1:01:01] flow. We'll definitely focus on that. And frankly, we have

[1:01:06] focused when we've spent months looking at this with engineers

[1:01:10] and, you know, words that I don't understand. But at

[1:01:12] the same time, we totally understand the importance. And we're

[1:01:17] working with a neighbor to try to even work together

[1:01:20] on that and make it a more robust system. Yeah,

[1:01:23] it's tough. It's not an easy thing. It's not something

[1:01:25] you do now and forget about it. It's something that

[1:01:27] has to be maintained. And kept ready for the next

[1:01:31] one. Absolutely. So if you're, uh, like you said, you're

[1:01:34] surrounded by private land. How are you going to keep

[1:01:36] with your pathway people from just creating bandit trails and

[1:01:41] accessing your neighbors. Sorry. Can you repeat the question? How

[1:01:45] are you going to keep people basically on your land

[1:01:47] and not creating pathways under your neighbor's properties. Well, we,

[1:01:54] you know, we hope that one that doesn't happen. But

[1:01:56] two, we will have an HOA with CCNRs and all

[1:01:59] kinds of regulations, you know, that way it would provide

[1:02:02] some protection for the. CBC penalties and some consequences doing

[1:02:09] that. I do think defining trails on the site that

[1:02:14] are the ones that are meant to be used that

[1:02:16] doesn't keep people from creating bandit trails clearly. But we'll

[1:02:21] have to have some policies in place with the HOA

[1:02:24] to monitor if people are trespassing off - site and

[1:02:27] what the consequences will be. Steve questions. No, I see

[1:02:33] you. The appearance of the project looks remarkably similar to

[1:02:40] what they did there at that cerrow. Where you kind

[1:02:44] of gotten vertical. In order to, you know, achieve as

[1:02:48] much density as you can without spreading out too much.

[1:02:51] And quite frankly, it seems like it's a lesser expensive

[1:02:54] way to not only build, but buy, you know, as

[1:02:58] far as affordability for people. So we're always looking for

[1:03:02] that. Thank you. I think it's a great project for

[1:03:08] that spot. Everybody we need a horrible housing, you know,

[1:03:12] any replace is called parts and modular parts. And again,

[1:03:19] the mud flows a lot. Seeing if I come down

[1:03:23] slotted, goal is my lifetime. My last one was 25

[1:03:26] years ago. The raptors, the CPW. Are you guys within

[1:03:31] a half mile. Of? Currently we're not, but we absolutely

[1:03:36] will comply that condition. Well, I'm not sure if the

[1:03:40] interstate and a train there. That builds been doing over

[1:03:45] there. It's really. The player pound to flesh. Uh, no,

[1:03:50] I think it's a great project. And the weeeds. That's

[1:03:53] the biggest thing, you know, especially with mud flows and

[1:03:56] stuff. Getting natural. And worked down our CS or conservation

[1:04:01] districts here in a district there and getting some great

[1:04:05] ideas what to do. But I like it. Thank you.

[1:04:09] Thanks so much. So what are your thoughts on the

[1:04:13] speed limit and the whole renting situation. As far as

[1:04:19] the speed limit, that would be good from 40 to

[1:04:22] 30. Yeah, I think it's nothing you guys control. Yeah,

[1:04:25] I think that we would absolutely be happy to use

[1:04:28] our best efforts to try to get that done. It's

[1:04:31] not up to us at the end of the day,

[1:04:32] but I think that would be much further. So, I

[1:04:35] mean, you're going to have to slow down at some

[1:04:36] point. Exactly. That's true. Actually, they're almost a forced in

[1:04:41] there. And as far as the rentals, um, it's an

[1:04:44] interesting question. One, these are going to be for sale

[1:04:48] ownership opportunities. And we will have an HOA in place.

[1:04:53] And at the end of the day, someone buying and

[1:04:55] buying in that community, that will want to know, but

[1:04:59] we'll have the same concerns that it doesn't become a

[1:05:01] party place or, you know, Airbnb haven. And I think

[1:05:04] that we absolutely don't want it to become that. It's

[1:05:07] not meant to be a second home community at all.

[1:05:09] The whole concept here is to create. A true community

[1:05:14] at that location. We had said, I think the one

[1:05:18] thing that we take in consideration, as long as the

[1:05:22] rule, you know, the CCNRs are in place to make

[1:05:24] sure that that is controlled, you know, we see it,

[1:05:30] you know, there's a home, you know, the wonderful home,

[1:05:32] like a small house that we're Airbnb being right now.

[1:05:35] And the cloud of town and they need the income.

[1:05:37] So they do that. So we would, we wouldn't want

[1:05:39] to take that necessarily away from them. We will have

[1:05:42] rules in place so that it stays within control. Uh,

[1:05:46] and that's, I think that's, I think we're, you know,

[1:05:49] we're aligned with the end, the community to make sure

[1:05:55] that they're protected there. Because otherwise it makes it less

[1:05:58] desirable. This is good. We need lots of spaces. I

[1:06:02] get a little worried that it could become that Airbnb

[1:06:05] behavior. It's close to Lynnwood. So if the rules in

[1:06:10] place when it starts, that just helps. Not that I

[1:06:13] want to take anybody's rides away. But if the HOA

[1:06:16] is managing that, that means one Mustang, we've got to

[1:06:18] put in paper. Yeah. And I could commit right now

[1:06:21] that we will make sure that the CCNRs have rules

[1:06:25] and regulations that make the community comfortable because last seen

[1:06:29] we want to do is buy a house and have

[1:06:30] your extra neighbor, you know, using as a. I think

[1:06:33] the one challenge you've got, I'm not super familiar with

[1:06:37] the area, but it's, I suspect it will become a

[1:06:40] bit of a walkable community. And the certain percentage that

[1:06:44] are going to be walking to the mall and the

[1:06:46] assets that are near there, just nature of low income

[1:06:49] housing, not everybody had a car, those sorts of things.

[1:06:53] I shouldn't say low income, but. Single family, more starter

[1:06:58] home type styles. So just trying to figure out if

[1:07:01] the ways that we can make sure it's a good,

[1:07:03] safe walk along six and 24. Again, not something you

[1:07:07] guys typically control, but if there's any opportunities there, I'm

[1:07:11] sure that'd be well received to the community. Yeah. We're

[1:07:13] happy to look into it. We. Have a couple of

[1:07:18] things, one, the bus stop is almost three quarters of

[1:07:22] a mile away. And I think that the type of

[1:07:28] folks that will hopefully be buying there is the nurses,

[1:07:31] the people working to hospital, first responders, things like that.

[1:07:34] I think a lot of those folks do have a

[1:07:36] car. And at the end of the day, that walk,

[1:07:39] because of the way the hillside and the on one

[1:07:42] side comes down. I mean, there's maybe two foot gap

[1:07:46] with a cliff right there. So it, and the other

[1:07:49] side is owned by, well, they both are owned by

[1:07:52] C dot. So it's, it's almost infeasible to be able

[1:07:56] to create any sort of, uh, situation there. But that

[1:07:59] said, you know, one of the things we want to

[1:08:01] promote is, you know, providing electric bikes, for example, or

[1:08:05] things like that, or bicycles for the community that could

[1:08:08] be shared, um, I think that in the winter, a

[1:08:13] lot of people don't like to get on those bikes

[1:08:15] or even walk. But, uh, at the same time, the

[1:08:17] whole idea here is to create a healthy community that,

[1:08:20] you know, that people can walk around the site, um,

[1:08:23] they can have places to gather and, you know, have

[1:08:26] easy access to all the beautiful things in the city.

[1:08:31] I think it's a good opportunity. That's just the friction

[1:08:33] point that I see is that there's, I get more

[1:08:36] worried about it with kids if we get like middle

[1:08:38] schoolers, high schoolers that are going, Hey, the bus drop

[1:08:41] me off and I want to go to the mall

[1:08:44] or do something like that. S the natural friction point.

[1:08:49] Yeah. Understood. Thank you. Temple, do you have comments or

[1:08:55] questions? Yeah. Please proceed.

[1:09:05] Go ahead. If you have questions. You need to unmute.

[1:09:20] She has her hand up. We can't hear you. Does

[1:09:25] it work now? Sorry. That way again. Okay. There you

[1:09:28] go. I have to hit three different spots. Um, I

[1:09:31] agree with everything that said, um, the debris flows especially

[1:09:36] in the mud. We know what that's like. The biggest

[1:09:39] issue in this area is fire. So I agree with

[1:09:43] the zero landscaping and as little, um, trees and things

[1:09:48] like that as possible. But my biggest issue is three

[1:09:51] foot sidewalks. Um, especially if you're talking like electric bikes

[1:09:55] or anything like that, um, three foot sidewalks are very,

[1:09:59] very small. It's hard to even pass. So if two

[1:10:02] people are walking side by side, it's in someone's going

[1:10:05] the other direction someone is stepping off. So I would

[1:10:08] like to encourage some kind of thought process of perhaps

[1:10:13] wider sidewalks. Also sidewalks along, um, I know you said

[1:10:19] that the connects from over by four down to this

[1:10:23] area, the missing pieces in the sidewalk system, et cetera.

[1:10:28] But that's not really a reason to not do it

[1:10:31] here. Because then if there's ever a time that those

[1:10:33] other places do come to, you know, a development time

[1:10:40] or discussions. And then if there is some in place

[1:10:43] and there is, there is a possibility of getting that

[1:10:46] connection because there will be people that want to walk.

[1:10:49] There will be people that will want to go to

[1:10:51] town, that will want to need to get to the

[1:10:53] bus and that might be their only option. So, um,

[1:10:58] to start the fad, as I call it and make

[1:11:00] sure that it's in place so that they could, that

[1:11:04] would, I would encourage that. And, um, that's about it.

[1:11:08] Three foot side walks really need to be rethought though

[1:11:10] in my, in my mind. Thank you. My comment is

[1:11:15] about parking. I assume you will not allow street on

[1:11:19] street parking. That's correct. We also have guest parking stalls.

[1:11:24] Yeah. I saw that throughout the site and each unit

[1:11:27] has two parking spaces. But what I, what I heard,

[1:11:32] Eric say, and I think he's right is that the

[1:11:34] garage, if it's a one car garage, especially is not

[1:11:37] going to be available to park a car in. So

[1:11:42] if they have two vehicles. I don't know what they're

[1:11:44] going to do. So your absolute correct. So we would,

[1:11:48] we can absolutely write that into the CCNRs. Of no

[1:11:52] on street parking. Um. In the community. Unless they're designated

[1:11:57] parking spots. Okay. The other question I'll have is just

[1:12:01] about the construction. Is it stick built or is it

[1:12:05] partially marginal or how will that be? So very good

[1:12:10] question. Are we right now have we looked at units

[1:12:14] because we want to create fish at floor plans with

[1:12:16] most amount of bedrooms and things like that. Um, currently

[1:12:22] it's, you know, we have shown examples. It all depends

[1:12:26] where the market is as far as costs of lumber

[1:12:29] and things like that. Uh, we were just meeting with

[1:12:32] this morning specializes in both. And it just depends on

[1:12:36] the time of the market. We think there's incredible modular

[1:12:40] opportunities and incredible stick build opportunities. But some are not

[1:12:48] willing to come down here. So we're using that as

[1:12:51] a flexibility. There's also system called analyze system. In fact,

[1:12:56] one of the units that we showed you was a

[1:12:59] penalized example. It's really beautiful unit. Um, so right on

[1:13:06] the concept in today's market could very well be modular

[1:13:10] at the same time we're leaving that flexibility. In case

[1:13:15] the other type makes sense. By the time you actually

[1:13:18] start building. So I appreciate that and understand that. I

[1:13:22] don't have any other comments. I do appreciate your input.

[1:13:26] Seems like it's good plan. I've wondered for a long

[1:13:29] time why that was the way it was. And I'm

[1:13:32] glad it's changing. Thanks for so much, I did. So.

[1:13:35] Thank you. Any other final comments from any of us

[1:13:37] up here? And with that, uh, we'll go out and

[1:13:43] see if we have public comment. Is there anyone in

[1:13:46] public that would like to comment. To this chair? We

[1:13:54] have, we do have a hand on Zoom. Or you

[1:14:00] start. May I just kind of set some ground rules.

[1:14:02] Okay. Uh, we welcome public comment for sure. And were

[1:14:06] you sworn in earlier? No, I don't know. Okay. All

[1:14:09] right. We'll go back. We'll start with that. That's first

[1:14:13] thing. I want to get it right. So raise your

[1:14:16] right hand please. Yes, that's right. Do you swear or

[1:14:21] former independently of law that the statement or evidence that

[1:14:23] you are about to give before this commission shall be

[1:14:25] the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[1:14:29] If so, please indicate so by saying, I do. I

[1:14:31] do. All right. Now. The next thing I want to

[1:14:35] talk about is just not that we have a big

[1:14:37] crowd here tonight, but we still have to kind of

[1:14:39] go through the procedures. So normally we have people sign

[1:14:42] up, but we didn't have big crowds. We're going to

[1:14:44] do that. When you come here, the first thing we

[1:14:49] need you to do is identify yourself and if we've

[1:14:53] joined us by zoom, then we'll have to signal so

[1:14:57] we can. Know that you're waiting. And then we'll allow

[1:15:02] you three minutes to make your comments. And do we

[1:15:06] have the time? Oh, yep. So then, um, I don't

[1:15:13] think we're going to have to go the next thing,

[1:15:15] but the next thing says that you can't donate your

[1:15:18] time. Everyone can up to three to one person. So

[1:15:21] then you have 15 minutes total. And then all the

[1:15:25] comments need to come to the commission, not to the

[1:15:27] applicant, not the applicant's front and back. And. We'll try

[1:15:32] and capture your comments if you have questions. We'll try

[1:15:35] and answer them. So that's the rules that wrote. And

[1:15:38] you have the four. Okay. Well, my name is Jackie

[1:15:41] Parker and I live at 2315 Bennett Court. I was

[1:15:48] born in Aspen and have obviously slowly moved down valley.

[1:15:54] And I have to say without the Affordable housing that

[1:15:58] I've had two affordable housing units in the valley and

[1:16:02] then one free market. And I, I was looking at,

[1:16:07] after I got divorced, I was looking at trying to

[1:16:10] qualify for Aspen housing. I qualified for all the counties.

[1:16:16] And I was lucky to get, um, the one I

[1:16:18] got in Glumwood 11 years ago. Otherwise I would have

[1:16:21] been out of here. And I wouldn't have been able

[1:16:23] to raise my kids here. I wouldn't able to just

[1:16:27] my dad and my brother and my mom at the

[1:16:29] time, but my mom since passed are still in the

[1:16:32] valley. My dad lives in affordable housing in Aspen. And

[1:16:37] I'm very grateful that, you know, at first I didn't

[1:16:40] want my kids to be Glenn Demons. I'm hoping they'd

[1:16:43] be asking skiers. Because that's where I went to high

[1:16:47] school. But I'm really lucky that I have what I

[1:16:51] have. And this to me sounds like a beautiful improvement

[1:16:56] to the, to the project, to this valley. And anything

[1:16:59] not to have to go to, uh, into South Canyon

[1:17:04] and keep cars off the road. I mean, I've never

[1:17:07] seen so many accidents in my life. And growing up

[1:17:11] here until I moved to Glenwood. And, um, I just

[1:17:16] think it's a great project. Good, it's a huge improvement,

[1:17:20] beautification families. It's going to be great. And I heard,

[1:17:26] I think that the, the housing is going to be

[1:17:28] belt really well. It's not going to be where you

[1:17:30] can hear somebody else. Um, in my neighborhood, there's not

[1:17:35] enough parking. And parking really creates hatred among neighbors. And

[1:17:42] we also just got the eight foot sidewalks. I think

[1:17:45] that's a little too much because so many people just

[1:17:48] lost all the parking and now they're crowding our neighborhood.

[1:17:52] It's a real stress and it's a fight. And a

[1:17:55] lot of times you see people not even using the

[1:17:57] side blocks, which is really frustrating when you live in

[1:17:59] the neighborhood and they're walking down the street. And you

[1:18:02] have an eight foot sidewalk. But so I think bigger

[1:18:07] than three, but not necessarily have to be an eight

[1:18:10] foot sidewalk. You know, that's too much. And it's, it's

[1:18:13] created parking problems in my neighborhood. The other thing about

[1:18:17] like in my neighborhood, in our HOA, we're not allowed

[1:18:20] to do Airbnb. We are allowed. Renting six months and

[1:18:26] longer. Like you can't do anything less than six months.

[1:18:31] And we do have the flight for life nurses in

[1:18:35] a house. And we do have other neighbors that do

[1:18:38] rent long term to the hospital. People has like two

[1:18:42] blocks away. So I would just say that I think

[1:18:45] this is really great. And, um, I'm glad that it

[1:18:50] seems like everybody likes this. Perfect timing. Thank you for

[1:18:56] your comments. We appreciate the input. Anyone else in the

[1:19:00] audience here that would like to speak tonight. Is there

[1:19:04] anyone online that we can tell that has our hand

[1:19:07] up. Hello. All right. Is everyone able to hear me.

[1:19:16] Yes, I can hear you fine. We can hear you

[1:19:18] fine. Great. Thank you. Good evening commissioner staff and members

[1:19:22] of the public. My name is Nina Sawaya. I reside

[1:19:25] at 4109 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado. I'm going to

[1:19:29] turn in with the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber

[1:19:32] Shrek and I'm Landu's council representing 1541 Mitchell Creek LLC

[1:19:37] and Storm King Hunting Ranchelocy. My client owns a 19

[1:19:41] acre parcel directly to the north of the project site

[1:19:44] as well as a Storm King hunting ranch parcel located

[1:19:47] northwest of the project site, which consists of approximately 126

[1:19:51] acres. In addition to these two parcels, my client owns

[1:19:55] hundreds of acres up to the north bordering the BLM

[1:19:57] land. I'm here to learn more about that application and

[1:20:01] better understand if there are any potential impacts of the

[1:20:03] project, particularly concerning the proposed infrastructure improvements as it relates

[1:20:08] to my client's property, as well as the allocation of

[1:20:11] water and other water - related issues like water rights,

[1:20:15] water infrastructure and other utility usage. 1541 mitral creek has

[1:20:21] already contacted the applicant and requested a meeting to further

[1:20:24] discuss the project in any potential concerns. But for tonight,

[1:20:28] I'm just here to listen and learn. Thank you so

[1:20:29] much for the opportunity to speak and I look forward

[1:20:32] to learning more. Very. Good. Thank you. Thank you for

[1:20:35] your comments. Is there anyone else online that would like

[1:20:38] to speak. Make public comment tonight? Going once. Very good

[1:20:48] at this time. I'm going to close public comment. Do

[1:20:55] you have any feedback that you would like to offer

[1:20:57] on the public comments. Don't miss your name. Yeah. Um,

[1:21:04] I would just say that we're happy to speak to

[1:21:06] the neighbor that folks we actually, they reach out to

[1:21:09] us. And we've got to think that they email yesterday.

[1:21:13] We're happy to, I'll give them a call tomorrow. Um,

[1:21:17] and we appreciate the moments from the other public comment,

[1:21:22] uh. I appreciate the support. That's very nice. Okay. And

[1:21:27] then the last call for any sketch comments before we

[1:21:30] address the PUD issues. All right. With that then I

[1:21:37] will move into the evidentiary portion of the meeting. And.

[1:21:43] Looking for a motion if the one to be. Chair,

[1:21:45] I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move

[1:21:47] to recommend approval of the Mitchell Creek community plan union

[1:21:51] development located at 50235 highway six integro springs, Colorado to

[1:21:58] the board of county commissioners with findings one through six

[1:22:01] and conditions one through 13. Very good. Is there. Is

[1:22:07] there a second to the motion. Well, seven. Move moved

[1:22:12] in a second. Uh, and it is Russian on the

[1:22:15] motion. You recall boat, please. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[1:22:25] John Kirsten? Yes. Keith Lamby? Yes. Yes. Very good. Motion

[1:22:32] car. Is that. Glenn, do you have comments?

[1:22:42] Perhaps for the John, the observation of comments on sketch

[1:22:47] land. Because in a lot of really excellent. And I

[1:22:51] don't know if you, as a commissioner want to highlight

[1:22:54] any further, but in terms of the PVD, that was

[1:22:57] that motion passed and it was clear. Um, and the

[1:23:00] record of this meeting is going to be available to

[1:23:02] the applicant. Um, to review and assess any comments were

[1:23:06] made. You guys were really thorough. So, um, staff, I

[1:23:10] think we're comfortable. Yep. Any

[1:23:20] comments that you have about what's coming up there? Of

[1:23:24] the business. Yeah. Other business. Okay. If it serves in

[1:23:27] pause briefly and applicant kind of shift years. Thank you.

[1:23:34] Thank you.

[1:23:53] I can't play this mother. Thank. You.

[1:24:07] You have my front door. Thanks. No, we'll stain that

[1:24:11] wall. I'm sure that somebody will try. It on there.

[1:24:20] Was there any space between the sidewalk or is it

[1:24:22] sidewalk all the way to it. Space there? Take a

[1:24:27] bubble edge. Got a little bunch of

[1:24:36] wall. Yeah, it's kind of a weird setup, isn't it?

[1:24:46] Anything in a second. Wait, first part of September? I

[1:24:50] still have the rest of my. Plan. I remember

[1:25:00] real expensive. Unbeliever. Prices have to be aware of city.

[1:25:13] Oh yeah. Some, sometimes we just have a generic kind

[1:25:19] of list of what's coming. But today we wanted to

[1:25:22] take a couple minutes. We'll tag team a little bit

[1:25:24] between the three of us. On some, some statutory. We

[1:25:32] just dealt with a couple of them. We love them

[1:25:34] on the affordable housing fast track. That you guys saw.

[1:25:40] And we checked that one off and got that one

[1:25:42] done. And so the couple more coming. So, um, perhaps

[1:25:48] defer to john. I'll tag him a little bit, but

[1:25:51] how this is going to kind of talk a little

[1:25:52] bit about, um, the, um, both element requirement that the

[1:25:57] state has, um, required on these counties that are of

[1:26:00] a certain size to implement in their comp plants. If

[1:26:04] you want to talk about a little bit about that,

[1:26:05] maybe review that definition, which is great. So I think

[1:26:09] they've talked about the SB 24 174. Bill a couple

[1:26:13] of years ago that was passed. So we did the

[1:26:15] housing needs assessment. So in turn we have to do

[1:26:18] a housing action plan after that for all the municipalities

[1:26:21] that participate in the roof from one was approved the

[1:26:25] summer. And then a part of that was a comp

[1:26:28] plan section that had to be added a strategic growth

[1:26:31] section and a water supply element section. And in the

[1:26:35] strategic growing from Dola, it says a fiscally environmentally sustainable

[1:26:40] approach to land use planning, housing, community wellbeing infrastructure that

[1:26:45] can promote promotes the development or redevelopment of bacon or

[1:26:48] underutilized and fill parcels, mitigates the need for extensions of

[1:26:53] infrastructure and public services into natural and agricultural lands. So

[1:27:00] if that sounds like a planner out that and if

[1:27:02] it sounds like compliment, you obviously correct. So, but it's,

[1:27:06] it's a, it's a requirement. So mine is we're going

[1:27:09] to be coming back to you guys with some comp

[1:27:11] plan updates. Um, and so that's, that's the takeaway. There's

[1:27:17] a couple of different you might want to highlight a

[1:27:18] couple of different elements there. So the three key components,

[1:27:21] they talk about is the policy and tools. We can

[1:27:24] and underutilized sites and the undeveloped green field sites. And

[1:27:28] a lot of it is pertains to more cities and

[1:27:30] town and fill design. Um, I sat through the first

[1:27:35] work session that they had. They had like five of

[1:27:37] them doing that this fall. So they started last week.

[1:27:43] And what it sounded like the ones that were already

[1:27:45] participating father along. We had like town of lions was

[1:27:48] talking about just doing overlay of gross strategy layer on

[1:27:53] the GIS. Which is a possible thing that we could

[1:27:56] use. So an overlay is a good strategy to try

[1:28:01] and an efficient way manage this because, um, maybe bouncing

[1:28:05] around, John, this is due end of this year. Right?

[1:28:08] Correct, yes. And the, uh, a lot of the comparisons,

[1:28:12] because I sat in on a working group on this

[1:28:14] several months ago, a lot of comparisons especially to the

[1:28:18] vacant underutilized sites in Greenfield. I don't know how long

[1:28:23] ago you were involved with planning or anything, but way

[1:28:26] back in the day when I worked for the city

[1:28:28] of Lakewood, there was a citizen's growth initiative. And that

[1:28:31] required municipalities and counties to take an inventory of all

[1:28:35] the vacant sites within their jurisdictions. And basically take them

[1:28:40] out acreage, see how that they could be developed. This

[1:28:43] is very similar to that. Luckily at that time that

[1:28:46] citizen's growth initiative died. But this is similar to it,

[1:28:52] but it should be pretty easy to do. I hear

[1:28:55] the word intel to me. Sounds disliked. Exactly. Like all

[1:29:04] the public wants to. Oh yeah. So, so, um, we're

[1:29:12] going to, you know, look into schedule, you know, probably

[1:29:14] start off with some work session kind of agenda items.

[1:29:18] Um, to kind of get this out there and, and

[1:29:20] manage it in a fashion that, um, complies with the

[1:29:24] state sort of, they've got a rubric. They've got, they've

[1:29:26] got guidelines and some expectations. So it's not unlike what

[1:29:30] we just dealt with with the fast track for foreclosing.

[1:29:33] We get ahead of it. We get an efficient way

[1:29:36] of managing it not over and get something in place.

[1:29:40] Um, a lot of it really comes back to just,

[1:29:43] I think, you know, how the ear research is. They're

[1:29:45] looking to see that we're working on it. Even though

[1:29:49] happens if you don't. So when I was sitting in

[1:29:52] the work session last, uh, Wednesday, they talked about that

[1:29:56] some people have started as long as we go into

[1:29:59] their portal start of our own thing, um, again, and

[1:30:03] show that we're actively pursuing this. And even though we're

[1:30:07] not going to finish it by the end of the

[1:30:08] year, they said that we're good. But to be compliant

[1:30:11] is a long is when we adopt it with the

[1:30:13] planning commission. So and to your question, John, the way

[1:30:20] it ties in is with future grants with Dola. Because

[1:30:24] they'll go in and make sure that all these aspects

[1:30:26] are within the comprehensive plan. And we do have a

[1:30:28] lot of these aspects already in the comprehensive plan. But

[1:30:32] what the states look detail. It's just for Dola general

[1:30:35] or for one, two, three. It doesn't apply to one,

[1:30:39] two, three. This is just general grants, I believe. Yeah.

[1:30:43] Really. So we're going to, we're going to get ahead

[1:30:48] of it. Um, and with your assistance, we'll get, we'll

[1:30:52] get something over after. Well, can you just go to

[1:30:54] the realtors and tell them give me a list of

[1:30:55] all the vacant parts. I already have them. There's a

[1:30:58] lot of, they do out there. And our GS department

[1:31:02] is a great resource as well. Andrea Reckles. So we've

[1:31:06] got some tools. But you'll see that on upcoming agendas.

[1:31:11] And so. Other stuff I know housing action plan is

[1:31:15] a couple of years off. But how does that work

[1:31:17] even if you identify the vacant parcels? You can't force

[1:31:19] somebody to develop or sell their parcel. I mean, what

[1:31:22] a waste of money. What a completely pointless thing to

[1:31:24] do. You know, it's going to make sense for cities.

[1:31:31] But I mean, the county, it's all vacant. I mean,

[1:31:33] yeah. Especially county birth, huh? Yeah. Sounds like a great

[1:31:37] Denver project. So city of Glowood project. Yeah. It works

[1:31:43] fine in town. We'll figure out how to comply and

[1:31:46] come up with a great looking map that says we

[1:31:49] are happy. Well, just take a look at all the

[1:31:51] anti - lots that you have in Battle of Mesa.

[1:31:54] Oh, absolutely. It'll be a prime example right there. I'm

[1:31:56] sure that's going to come up. That's, that's probably a

[1:32:00] great segue into our work session item. That's, that's the

[1:32:03] example of you could see some stuff as far as

[1:32:06] like the commercial center. Um, maybe some stuff by the

[1:32:09] airport. Maybe some things, you know, approximate each municipality. There's

[1:32:18] a few, the few out there. We're not, you know,

[1:32:21] going to overthink this, but, um, we will, you know,

[1:32:24] probably get, you know, at some point, I'm pretty cool,

[1:32:28] you know, maybe refined some language that, as John indicates

[1:32:31] already in the comp plan, um, in there about unincorporated

[1:32:34] communities and that sort of thing. So, but yes, Balla

[1:32:37] Mesa, good example one. In order to start doing the

[1:32:41] infill on those, I mean, what's the grand supposed as

[1:32:47] to how that would work. Yeah. So, so we're going

[1:32:50] to, we're, we're, we're getting into it. Um, these guys

[1:32:53] are doing some good research. And so, you know, looking,

[1:32:58] looking ahead, um, now to shift gears a little bit,

[1:33:01] anything else we need to add. No. Good. So, so,

[1:33:04] so we're keeping track of all these state mandates that

[1:33:06] are out there. And we're not overthinking them, but we're

[1:33:08] going to comply. And with your help as a commission,

[1:33:11] we'll get it. We'll get there. Um, so timing and

[1:33:14] maybe some future agenda items. So in September, we have

[1:33:19] excellent energy queued up for the second meeting in September

[1:33:25] extent. It's a, you know, this is their, basalt to

[1:33:30] Hopkins line extension, which is in the Missouri heads area.

[1:33:34] So, but that's the only agenda item on that. And

[1:33:37] we're looking at perhaps including initial work session on this

[1:33:40] topic at that agenda. It seems like that's pretty. Second

[1:33:44] meeting in September is now first meeting nothing on the

[1:33:47] first meeting agenda. Um, at this point in time, unless

[1:33:50] you guys, we don't want to just hitch up with

[1:33:52] a meeting just to talk generically about, for example, a

[1:33:56] lot. Cause I imagine a few of us that aren't

[1:33:57] happy with Excel will let all of our neighbors and

[1:34:00] friends know that the Excel executives will be in down.

[1:34:03] Okay. So anyways. So that would be location extent, your

[1:34:08] second meeting September. And then we would probably include that

[1:34:12] give this a little bit of time to prep on

[1:34:14] the strategic, um, give, you know, maybe a work session

[1:34:18] discussion to follow up on this, this introduction tonight. So

[1:34:24] that's what today. What's going on with harvest. So, so

[1:34:28] then October then gets, gets really busy. We've got three

[1:34:31] big projects that are all competing for completeness referral timing.

[1:34:36] There's a lot of variables in there for all three

[1:34:38] of them. Um, and so the three are massiveless amendment.

[1:34:44] Um, Lake Springs Ranch and Harvest Illish. They're all looking

[1:34:48] for agenda time. Um, and so they're not all going

[1:34:52] to fit in October. So there probably will be some

[1:34:54] overlap into November 8. But that's those, those three are

[1:35:00] about three other, not quite as large projects that are

[1:35:03] all, you know, very close to being ready to go.

[1:35:05] Correct. Um, and those include projects hardwick bridges one that

[1:35:10] John's working on. Yeah. Hard bridge. And then the reserve

[1:35:12] Aspingland. And, uh, creed campground is also close to completeness.

[1:35:18] So there's, um, so there's expansions there, modifications of that

[1:35:22] campground. So just going to expand it. Not increasing the

[1:35:26] unit count not to get into details. Just yours. But,

[1:35:29] uh, acreage at acreage and reconfigure layout. So I will

[1:35:36] probably flip. On that one. I'll pull it, John. Just

[1:35:40] because I'm in the neighborhood. Gotcha. So, so that's too.

[1:35:44] Yeah. Well, I don't know. It impacts me a little

[1:35:46] more than you. But you see yourself on that one

[1:35:48] too. So. Can't make money off it. Well, I'm biased

[1:35:56] walking in. Yeah. So I feel like you can't make

[1:36:00] bearish decision. Well, I might be in the community, so

[1:36:02] I'm trying to say. Calling it out early. So it's

[1:36:07] not a surprise. So, um, wait till you see the

[1:36:11] application then. Yeah. Yeah. Just as an impacted person. We'll

[1:36:14] see the application. So plenty of, plenty of small projects

[1:36:21] that are directors. That these guys are all working on.

[1:36:27] We've got flood plan permits. We've got minor subdivisions. We've

[1:36:30] got, um, community meeting facilities. There's a little bit of

[1:36:34] everything going on. Those community meeting facilities, a lot of

[1:36:37] those referred up. So that's sort of the big picture.

[1:36:40] But a practical question for you. And this comes back

[1:36:42] to maybe your question as far as a big project.

[1:36:45] One of the discussion items is when we had multiple

[1:36:49] evenings, you know, reviewing a major project. Question for the

[1:36:54] commission is, would you prefer to have them on success

[1:36:57] of nights? In other words, the Board of County Commissioners

[1:37:00] typically does that sometimes for their big projects or they

[1:37:04] have their meeting on Monday. They continue with the Tuesday

[1:37:06] so that it's more continuity. And the big delay. That

[1:37:10] would be somewhat you unique and basically need to be

[1:37:13] coordinated and planned for, um, and the commission would need

[1:37:17] to basically be calling a special meeting date for that

[1:37:20] continuation. Um, the big project, the one that was mentioned,

[1:37:24] you know, we had that delay for continuation. Um, it

[1:37:27] worked, but it also creates some interesting dynamics for the

[1:37:31] public engagement. Do you have to hear everybody all over

[1:37:34] again? That was an issue. Mr. Chairman, that you dealt

[1:37:37] with. And so question is, if you have a major

[1:37:40] item on a Wednesday night, um, would this commission be

[1:37:44] interested in a continuation just to the next night. So

[1:37:49] you'd have a Wednesday night, Thursday night. I don't know.

[1:37:51] I could see the negative side. Sometimes people need a

[1:37:53] little bit of time to prepare. Right. Yeah. Oh. I

[1:37:59] like it. They don't under long on the first night.

[1:38:02] Well, then the whole like closing public comment or doing

[1:38:05] public comment later is easier because nothing effectively changes in

[1:38:08] a day. That's something that we're discussing. We're, you know,

[1:38:16] we're just wanting to, and you guys don't have to

[1:38:17] decide this evening necessarily, but, um, that's, that's a consideration.

[1:38:22] Um, that maybe adds on one hand some efficiency, but

[1:38:26] also it's a little different. And, uh, but the big

[1:38:29] projects that are coming away, several of them might be

[1:38:32] multiple nights. And the one in particular, um, harvest will

[1:38:35] moat meeting off premise probably the same venue. CMC does

[1:38:41] have availability to do multiple nights in a row. It's

[1:38:46] concerned that I, what's that looking at? Either, either, um,

[1:38:50] end of October or November meeting. So that has not

[1:38:56] been finalized based on, you know, current status of the

[1:39:00] referrals. Bills have a holiday. And we've got a haul

[1:39:06] at first meeting in November. And Wednesday, Thursday, probably won't

[1:39:10] work real good. I don't think it's getting someone. And

[1:39:12] so, so that's maybe another, another sort of, I'm sorry

[1:39:15] about throwing all these, you know, agenda timing questions, but

[1:39:18] in November, um, first meeting falls on veterans day. Um,

[1:39:24] not a great, you know, option. Um, and your second

[1:39:29] meeting falls on, as Steve indicated, that basically the night

[1:39:33] for one night before the Thanksgiving holiday. So, um, what

[1:39:37] we might look at there is call on a special

[1:39:39] meeting for the third Wednesday. We don't, we got enough

[1:39:42] application. We really need to number them. But that's a

[1:39:46] consideration if you call special meeting on the third Wednesday.

[1:39:49] That's the 18th. That week doesn't have any obvious conflicts.

[1:39:53] It's not, um, not constricted by either a holiday or

[1:39:57] other things. So that's something to think about. And maybe

[1:39:59] the commission's read on. We can change the date with

[1:40:01] public noticing, right? Yep. You can do that. Could you

[1:40:06] also like if we know that there's a meeting that

[1:40:08] has a really high potential of having a two night,

[1:40:11] could you not agenda? I mean, the day after and

[1:40:15] just say, this is a, this is a two day

[1:40:17] agenda for time so that everybody, I heard the comment.

[1:40:20] I can remember who said it, but you know, the

[1:40:22] public would need to plan too that then, Hey. You

[1:40:27] all, everybody would know that there's potential of it. For

[1:40:30] the public. Like if we could do that or not,

[1:40:33] well, that, it's a really good point. And, and we

[1:40:35] could, we could, we could communicate that. You know, CS.

[1:40:39] Two nights, then yay us. Yeah. So that's, that's something

[1:40:43] we can manage. It helps us not have this problem.

[1:40:46] The thing that gets hard is we have the, are

[1:40:48] we going to run to 11. Are we going to

[1:40:52] stop at a reasonable 930? Would that also help solve

[1:40:55] the issue that we had where you're going to listen

[1:40:59] to an hour of people and then those same people

[1:41:01] would be starting the next night? It would resolve that

[1:41:04] issue. Yes. That was my biggest problem with that. Continuation

[1:41:12] is that if we started, and if the 200 people,

[1:41:15] if you have 200 people the next time, then the

[1:41:18] first hour of people get to repeat exactly what they

[1:41:21] said the time before. You don't let them go again.

[1:41:23] Well, that's maybe where we can do some night if

[1:41:27] that helps solve that, I think. I mean, I'm fine

[1:41:28] with the two nights in a row. One, it's fresh

[1:41:31] on everybody's mind. You don't come back two weeks later.

[1:41:35] Everybody in the room knows, hopefully they remember what happened

[1:41:38] the night before. Let me go to public comment that

[1:41:43] we had no intention of. Repeating public comment the next

[1:41:48] day. Because we have that option, correct? Or do they

[1:41:51] have to have the ability to speak again? They should

[1:41:54] have the opportunity. Wouldn't that also help curtail new evidence.

[1:42:01] Another good point. Good or bad. They could. There's less

[1:42:05] chance of new evidence coming up. In 20 hours. I

[1:42:11] think we just got to rule that out. Like when

[1:42:13] it's a week, it's hard because things do change. Ernest

[1:42:16] two weeks, but the next day there shouldn't be an

[1:42:20] aha moment. It's also not really fair to the public

[1:42:24] because they don't get to hear all the information again.

[1:42:27] We have it in front of us. It's all documented

[1:42:30] unless they've printed it out or something. They wouldn't have

[1:42:32] it either. So everything's kind of still fresh and everybody's

[1:42:34] minds. So the option came to mind because it basically

[1:42:39] follows the format that the Board of County Commissioners utilize.

[1:42:45] Where if they have to roll over Monday to Tuesday

[1:42:49] and try to create some predictability in the process along

[1:42:53] the discussion. We can do a little more research. Double

[1:42:56] check a little bit with Kelly and make sure that

[1:42:59] all works on the attorney's side. But I thought we'd

[1:43:02] run it in front of you tonight to see what

[1:43:04] your thoughts were. One thought that I have is thinking

[1:43:09] about the harvest meeting. It seems to me if it

[1:43:17] was in the scope of the discussion, you just do

[1:43:21] the first part and even though you might not go

[1:43:24] very late that first night and after. We opened public,

[1:43:29] I just make public comments all the second night. So

[1:43:33] it even give, don't even give a chance to make

[1:43:35] public comment the first night. All kinds of options. And

[1:43:39] early. We don't have the pressure that let's not ask

[1:43:44] questions. Let's not have a real conversation with the applicant

[1:43:47] because we need to go home before midnight. So something

[1:43:52] to think about. We'll probably follow up with you on

[1:43:55] that one. But if the strong feelings, you know, to

[1:43:59] say, you know, don't go that route, this would be

[1:44:02] a good time to give us some guidance. One question

[1:44:05] about the state mandates. So once we get together, you

[1:44:12] do the gut work and we approve it and goes

[1:44:13] on, I guess, to the county commissioners, the SEC. Does

[1:44:20] someone actually need to review and approve these plans or

[1:44:24] can we make it pretty thin and just go through

[1:44:28] the steps? Put that we're pretty good at reading their

[1:44:34] guidelines and making sure that we fit their rubrics. So

[1:44:39] with the, with the, uh, the fast track affordable housing

[1:44:43] plan, we were efficient. They, they got to review it.

[1:44:48] They gave us feedback. We made a few tweaks. We

[1:44:52] got it just where it needed to be. And yet

[1:44:54] it was still as very much in line with our

[1:44:56] existing codes. So, um, the interesting have to approve it.

[1:45:01] They looked, yep. They did. They did. And okay. Yeah.

[1:45:06] And so we would expect that to be the same

[1:45:08] case this go around. However, this would be a compliment

[1:45:12] amendment. So it's all your deal. It's planning commission. You

[1:45:16] know, we keep the board. Obviously a prize of it,

[1:45:19] but, um, we feel pretty confident that we can, you

[1:45:23] know, meet the standards and have something of value added

[1:45:26] to our comp land so that it's not just an

[1:45:28] exercise and just compliance. I think there's some tools here.

[1:45:35] So, um, that's a little bit what we're looking at.

[1:45:38] So, first meeting in September, which I think falls like

[1:45:41] a day after Labor Day, something like that, we don't

[1:45:44] have a meeting. Um, the fourth Wednesday in September, we

[1:45:48] do. And we'll include a work session on, um, some

[1:45:51] of these mandates as the second agenda item after that

[1:45:54] location extent. When's the second meeting in October? It'll be

[1:46:00] the 28th. That would be the second meeting in October.

[1:46:03] It was the 28th. Yep. October of the 28th. September

[1:46:07] is the 23rd. How's the pulse for the municipalities. I'm

[1:46:15] sorry the. How's the pulse with the municipalities? I was

[1:46:18] like, I was not referencing the application, but it seemed

[1:46:20] like there might be a little bit of friction in

[1:46:22] the room. Well, I think with the application that we

[1:46:26] just reviewed tonight, like I pointed out in my presentation,

[1:46:29] you know, we do have the IgA with all the

[1:46:32] municipalities within the county. So if we get an application

[1:46:35] that's within two miles of them or the closest municipality,

[1:46:39] we give it to them before we actually do the

[1:46:41] technical review. I think in between their comments during that

[1:46:46] process and then re - referring it out to them

[1:46:49] after the technically complete. Process, I think there was a

[1:46:54] little bit of in their house. Oops, we lost that.

[1:46:58] Now it's a scramble. But it's working out pretty good.

[1:47:05] John's point was perfect. We have an IgA and we're

[1:47:08] very diligent about it. Um, some time ago there was

[1:47:12] some discussion of, are we seeing all the city projects?

[1:47:15] Not that we have extra time to spend on them.

[1:47:17] Um, we're really good about getting them our projects because

[1:47:20] obviously oftentimes it deals with infrastructure. Um, access city streets,

[1:47:25] that sort of thing. So, um, so we're in compliance

[1:47:29] with that IgA. And so the question like with Glenn

[1:47:32] would not want to making it hard to annex, but

[1:47:35] then kind of implying the, Hey, this is what we

[1:47:39] want the rules to be because these are our rules.

[1:47:42] Yeah. Once again, I think we can then, is that

[1:47:44] pretty good. But our workload is up because of their

[1:47:47] annexation issue. So more pre - apps for properties that

[1:47:52] would have been primed for annexation, um, and even in

[1:47:55] this case, you know, our first meetings, did you talk

[1:47:58] to the city? Did you discuss annexation with the city?

[1:48:01] Um, it's always an appropriate thing, especially when you got

[1:48:03] infrastructure issues. And there's, there's two or three other properties

[1:48:06] in the glow area that are falling in that same

[1:48:08] category. None of them have reached this point though. All

[1:48:11] of them are just pre - app and inquiries. That's

[1:48:13] always the first thing we point out to and it's

[1:48:15] like, well, have you considered annexation? Have you talked to

[1:48:18] the city yes or no? Well, we haven't yet. It's

[1:48:21] like, well, you need to reach out. That's a huge

[1:48:23] process. Oh yeah. Now. So there's, and there's other jurisdictions

[1:48:29] that are pretty active with annexations as well. So it's

[1:48:34] something that's one of the few that we'll annex and

[1:48:37] give you sewer and water then. And that I think

[1:48:40] they're living with that. Fallout. Nobody else will, but good

[1:48:45] for them. Well, appreciate your opportunity to brainstorm a little

[1:48:50] bit with you. A little more other business item for

[1:48:52] tonight. And thank you for your comments tonight on John's

[1:48:56] agenda item. Really valuable. And I think the applicant has

[1:48:59] a lot of good takeaways from this meeting. So thank

[1:49:02] you. Thank you all. Thank you for the work that

[1:49:05] you do. Thank you. Our job is much easier. All

[1:49:08] right. Thank you. Next year.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript