[1:02] Start early.

[1:11] I know I do.

[1:15] Oh, really, you are on these kind of things. Counting

[1:21] Yeah. I think, OK, it is, uh, 9:59 and I'm gonna call

[1:29] the orders. Recording in progress interview board meeting. Town of Mountain Village.

[1:35] It is October 1st, 2026. And with that, uh, Amy, you would like to start with the

[1:44] review of board voting procedures.

[1:48] Yeah, so, um, there's been a couple of cases where we're reviewing the recording

[1:53] after a meeting and it's difficult to tell, especially when we have members online,

[1:57] um, who's voting what so I would like to, um, just suggest that when we have folks

[2:04] that are online voting that they do a roll roll call vote. A roll call vote so that

[2:11] we have the folks that are here that we can see and verify in person who's voting

[2:15] yay or nay but then online that they state their name and then their vote for individual

[2:21] items.

[2:35] August 6, 2026, the design review board meeting. And this item was continued to the

[2:42] October 1, 2026 Design Review Award meeting, so. Make a motion to approve the minutes

[2:50] of 60. DOB meeting. Thanks for the changes. Maybe we can also clarify

[2:58] about, about the alternative alternative, uh, voting procedure. So if everybody is

[3:05] what is it um oh yeah sorry there was one extra yeah yeah. Yeah, so, um, I think

[3:12] at the beginning of the meeting, Banks, if I could ask the chair to verify who are

[3:16] voting members and who are not voting members for that meeting, that would also be

[3:19] appreciated. And if it changes through the meeting. Exactly, yeah, yeah, to note

[3:25] those changes. And so is it 5 people who are here that that's the quorum that meets

[3:30] the threshold for a quorum and voting, or how does that work? No, the quorum is 4,

[3:35] and then the board in the voting members in the board are 7. OK, so we have 7 regular

[3:40] members. We have 2 alternates for a total board of 9. if there's 7 regular members

[3:45] here, then the alternates don't vote. If there's 6 members here, then the first alternate

[3:50] votes, and if they're, you know, they're, they're on so. Um, so maybe while we're,

[3:55] we're, while we're on this agenda item, can we establish the voting, uh, for today?

[4:01] And as I said, we have 5 regular members here. And we have Alternates online by chance?

[4:09] Who's online? Um, member Kramer is online as well as member Austin.

[4:15] Member Kramer is online as well as member Austin. So who is our first alternate on

[4:20] the line and Jim is the first alternate, so Jim would be voting.

[4:26] Ellen's present. So Jim will be voting. Yep, present.

[4:31] Congratulations, Jim. And, and, and if Adam does show up, then we'll need to just

[4:35] pause for a second and note a change in the voting if, if.

[4:42] With that. We actually had emotion on the floor. There's your

[4:49] 2nd. Any discussion on that item? Not all ask for the vote. Would

[4:57] you like a roll call on each of these since Jim's online? Um, we could just, we can

[5:02] do the in-house vote and then, and thanks, when we call for the vote, if you could

[5:06] then call for the online vote and do a roll. OK. Great, I'll ask for a vote then

[5:12] I'll and.

[5:15] Did you, yes or no?

[5:20] And Mr. Austin. Bye. Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Doesn't Ellen get a vote?

[5:28] Yeah, Ellen. Oh, I'm sorry, and Ellen and Ellen. Hi. OK.

[5:36] Great. Uh, our next agenda item, this is a reading approval summary of motions of

[5:40] the September 3, 2026 designer review board meeting. I might get a notion.

[5:59] I'll make a motion to approve the DRB minutes for September 3, 2026 meeting.

[6:07] Great, thank you. Is there, you got a second. Is there any further discussion?

[6:13] If not ask for a vote all in-house. Hi. Ellen

[6:24] Jim Uh Ellen

[6:32] You're muted. You're muted, but you're waving. I'll take the waviness. You're so

[6:39] actually I I eyed twice, but that's OK. Thank you. Can a non-voting member make a

[6:46] motion?

[6:52] Um, I, you typically, yeah, in Robert's rules that, yup, they just can't vote on

[6:57] it. Just to, just to clarify.

[7:02] So, Toby, feel free. OK. All right. Our next agenda item is consideration

[7:10] of design review. This is final architectural review for a multi-family building

[7:14] containing 15 employee apartments at Lot 640A 306 Adams Ranch Road pursuant to CDC

[7:21] Section 17411. This item was continued from the September 3rd Design Review Board

[7:29] meeting.

[7:32] And Amy, your, your pleasure.

[7:37] I'll be uh taking the presentation today.

[7:55] OK.

[8:01] All right, thank you, chair. So this will be the final architecture review for Lot

[8:05] 640A 306 Adams Ranch Road, AKA the Mountain View Apartments.

[8:12] I think everybody's familiar with this project by now. Um, but, um, the, the applicant

[8:16] is John Miller from Hondrosa Planning and, um, on behalf of Telski, TSG Ski and Golf.

[8:23] Uh, the zoning is multi-family. It's an existing parcel with, uh, 30 units on it,

[8:29] um, with, uh, the proposed use being uh 15 more units for a total of 45 units.

[8:38] Um, so, uh, obviously this case has been around for a few months now. Um, there's

[8:42] lots of background on it, so I'll run through that first. Um, the, as I just mentioned,

[8:47] it's a multi-family, uh, zoning with the existing 30 unit employee apartment complex

[8:53] owned by Telski. It also includes a, uh, service parking lot and open space that

[8:59] is, uh, used as a park. It's also owned by Telski. Um, in 2019 there was an entitlement

[9:05] for 19 density units that entitlement has expired. Since then there's been several

[9:09] work sessions to work out this, uh, site plan. Um, also there was a citizen initiated

[9:15] ordinance that limits the overall density on the lot to 45 units, so that equals

[9:19] 15 additional. Including, sorry, cut out there for a second, including uh the um

[9:27] existing. Or 45 total of 15 additional. Anyway. Um So, the applicant has

[9:34] supplied three applications as part of this project, a density transfer and rezone

[9:40] that was approved by council at the July 16th town council meeting, a minor subdivision

[9:46] that would be heard by the town council subsequent to the results of this, um, class

[9:50] three design review, and then the class three design review which is before you today.

[9:56] The initial architecture review was, uh, initially heard in I believe May and then,

[10:00] um, approved unanimously in July. Um, see, and so as part of the density transfer

[10:07] and rezone that was approved by council, they did include a condition that the final

[10:12] design, site plan, parking plan match the concept that was, um, that was presented

[10:17] at the density transfer and rezone hearing. So, as you'll see that, uh, that design

[10:22] has been carried forward into this final architecture review. So, the proposal itself

[10:28] includes a 3-story, 11,148 square square foot structure including 15 two-bedroom

[10:35] apartments. They are proposing 65 total parking spaces, an expanded graded field

[10:40] area, landscape area, relocated trash, and uh the uh the minor subdivision to redraw

[10:47] the lot lines.

[10:51] These are the existing conditions, the existing survey showing uh the basketball

[10:55] court, the existing lot line which cuts kind of curves across the property here that

[11:01] would be relocated for this proposal. There's also a uh previous wetland delineation

[11:06] that has now been relocated based on the newly provided wetland delineation.

[11:17] So, there's been some significant changes since the July initial architecture review.

[11:22] If you were following the density transfer hearing, a lot of this was reflected in

[11:26] that, uh, most recent proposal as part of the density transfer, um, but I'll go through

[11:31] the significant changes since the pre uh most recent design review. Um, they've removed

[11:37] the entire parking area in front of the building that was directly to the south of

[11:43] the building, um, and, um, they've reduced the overall parking to 65 spaces that

[11:48] will require design variation for an alternative parking requirement. We'll get into

[11:52] that later, um, but that is, um, dramatically changing the site plan, uh, removing

[11:58] that additional parking area and reducing the overall footprint of the parking, um,

[12:03] at the request of town council. Um, they've also subsequently relocated the trash

[12:08] enclosures, uh, associated with that reduction in parking. Um, they've relocated

[12:15] or they've added a gravel path on the western side of the building. We have a condition

[12:19] of approval associated with that. They've also added a photometric study for the

[12:23] lighting plan, updated the wetland delineation, um, they're depicting snow storage

[12:29] for the parking area. They're, and then they've updated the landscape and wildfire

[12:33] mitigation plans. Uh, revise their high calculations and remove, remove some of the

[12:38] G encroachments.

[12:43] So going over the um Top-level zoning requirements, um, things that have changed

[12:49] since the initial architecture review, the height calculations have been revised.

[12:54] Um, they're well under the maximum height for a multi-family unit with gables. Um,

[13:01] I also, the stone percentage I believe was increased slightly, but it still requires

[13:05] a design variation and the parking, excuse me, has been reduced to below the required

[13:12] 68 spaces. Which requires the alternative parking requirement, design variation as

[13:18] well. Um, otherwise, there were some general easement encroachments approved as part

[13:23] of the initial architecture review. Um, some of these have been minimized or removed,

[13:29] uh, but, uh, but those approvals are still in place. There's also a, uh, design variation

[13:36] for the hardy board siding that's, that was also approved at the initial architecture

[13:39] review and has not changed. They've updated their renderings. I believe this is the

[13:46] same design that you saw at the July hearing. It's just looking a little brighter,

[13:51] look, and including some landscaping. Um, so, that's updated. The floor plans are

[13:57] not updated. Those, those remain the same two-bedroom apartments. They have provided

[14:03] their elevations, uh, height elevations to depict the proposed and, uh, existing

[14:09] grade, um, showing here that they're well below that proposed grade, um, height limitation

[14:15] that was a request as a condition of approval at the initial review, so it's been

[14:20] met with these revised calculations and diagrams, also providing the roof diagram

[14:26] showing all of the height calculation points for the average roof height.

[14:31] Um, they provided a revised roof plan. Uh, there was a public comment with concerns

[14:37] regarding drainage, especially around the, um, building itself and in the courtyard.

[14:44] I, I just want to point out with the roof plan, it does show the, the snow fencing

[14:48] around the courtyard as required by code as well as down sprouts and gutters. Um,

[14:54] however, if, if there's still concerns about drainage around the building. The DRB

[14:59] may request that a revised plan be provided with additional details for drainage.

[15:05] Uh, in and around the building.

[15:11] The overall building form materiality hasn't changed, uh, significantly. They still

[15:17] need to provide a specification for the soccer materials. Otherwise, the materials

[15:23] are meant to match the existing Mountain View apartments, and I believe they have

[15:27] provided a, a, um, aerials board which I'm sure John will bring up during his presentation.

[15:37] OK. So, getting into the updated site plan, um, this is where you'll see the most

[15:42] significant changes since the initial review as, as I mentioned, uh, the big changes

[15:47] they removed this additional parking area here in the middle, uh, in front of the

[15:52] building, uh, that was to accommodate the preservation of as much open space as possible,

[16:00] which achieves uh request from town council, um, to, to preserve this recreational

[16:05] space. Um, and they've also removed any parking from this area here, which, uh, had

[16:12] previously been shown to go all the way to the road to preserve these three trees

[16:17] again at the request of council. So, um, in order to achieve this parking plan, they

[16:22] did have to reduce the parking to 65 spaces, which is below the CDC required 68 spaces,

[16:28] which is why they're requesting the alternative parking requirement. Um, um, I have

[16:33] a slide about that specifically, uh, in a sec. Just want to point out this is where

[16:38] the basketball court was or is, and in the future, uh, there would be um new parking

[16:45] here, so there's, that's also additional parking um that would be new. Um, other

[16:52] things that are new is with the site plan, they've, this is the gravel path that

[16:55] they've proposed, uh, which connects to the parking lot through a crosswalk. This,

[17:01] uh, we have a slide about this, but, um, staff is requesting that this be paved.

[17:07] Uh, otherwise, as you can see, instead of the parking lot, they provided this kind

[17:11] of pavilion area which seems nice, and then also relocated the trash enclosures to

[17:17] be closer to the road and just has this little drive-in.

[17:24] OK, yeah, so as I mentioned, there is uh this gravel path here and Uh, staff is requesting

[17:30] that this be upgraded to a paved path to, uh, to match with the proposed or the future

[17:37] sidewalk that is going to be built along Adams Ranch Road. Um, that's just for improved

[17:43] accessibility and, and, uh, maintenance of that path. Um, as you can see, both planning,

[17:51] public works, and transit have all requested that this, uh, path be be provided,

[17:57] um, and we've confirmed with public works that a future sidewalk would, would connect

[18:01] and they have requested that it be paved because connecting to a paved path would

[18:06] be easier than a gravel path.

[18:12] OK, so now looking at the alternative parking requirement in more detail, as you

[18:16] can see from this uh parking civil drawing here, um, the blue parking or the shaded

[18:23] parking is the new parking as part of this project. Uh, as you can see where the

[18:29] where the basketball court was, as well as over here in the corner and the new path.

[18:34] Um They're also showing snow storage on the field. However, this does seem to possibly

[18:41] conflict with the landscape plan which shows landscaping all along the parking here,

[18:46] so we did ask as a condition of approval that that conflict be um resolved. As for

[18:53] the uh parking requirement request itself, um, as I've mentioned, um, To achieve

[19:00] their 65 spaces, they would need to meet the criteria for the alternative parking

[19:04] requirement, which are these alternative parking requirements shall shall be uh sufficient

[19:09] to meet the parking demand of the proposed uses and shall not be detrimental to the

[19:13] public health, safety and welfare. It also requires a parking demand study from a

[19:19] parking expert. That study was provided uh and through a memo and essentially it,

[19:25] it conducted a study where it Um, counted the existing demand of Mountain View at

[19:32] different times of the day, uh, finding a, um, parking per unit ratio that, um,

[19:40] that calculated out would equal approximately 60 parking spaces for all 45 units.

[19:48] Um, so their finding was that 65 spaces would be sufficient to, uh, support the proposed

[19:55] use and. Um, staff reviewed the memo and concurs with the findings. We also believe

[19:59] that 65 spaces should be sufficient.

[20:06] OK, moving to the landscape and fire mitigation plan. This was updated since initial

[20:10] review. Um, there's 38 trees, 15 total trees removed, um, as you can see with the

[20:17] red dots there. Um, as I mentioned, there are these trees along the, uh, parking

[20:24] area that will probably need to be revised to allow for some sort of access for snow

[20:29] storage or just at least showing that there's enough space there to, uh, push a plow

[20:34] through. Um, but as you can see, they're providing shade along the, um, picnic area

[20:40] and, and throughout this, um, Kind of recreational area. Um, in terms of fire mitigation,

[20:47] they're showing a 15 ft buffer outside of um the trees that are adjacent to the building.

[20:55] This does likely meet the exemption. Uh, criteria in the fire mitigation plan. However,

[21:03] we do want the town. Forester to review this plan and he's been out on leave for

[21:06] a couple of weeks. So we just added condition here that the uh fire mitigation get

[21:11] final approval by the town forester for prior to building permit, but as far as I

[21:15] understand, this plan was worked out between the applicant and the forester, so I

[21:20] believe it um should meet our new code.

[21:25] And then, uh, their irrigation plan is not something we typically talk about at DRB

[21:29] but because there is

[21:34] Hello. OK. Um, Yeah, uh, because there's this recreation component, we wanted to

[21:40] flag this. Um, so, in this, in this irrigation plan, the red is a temporary drip

[21:45] line for establishing, uh, landscaping and the blue would be permanent. As you can

[21:50] see, neither of those lines extend out into the field, which is here. Um The applicant

[21:58] has proposed to partially regrade the field and make it flatter and expand it, which

[22:02] is great. However, without irrigation, staff is concerned that, you know, it will

[22:07] be dry as it has been this summer. Um, there is apparently towns owned irrigation

[22:13] in that field. However, with the regrading, it probably would need to be relocated

[22:18] or removed. So, this is just something we wanted to flag in case DRB feels that um

[22:25] this should be part of the approval for irrigation of the field or otherwise maintaining

[22:29] that field as a um recreational asset. Mm OK, and then I believe this is the last

[22:37] slide. Um, looking briefly at the lighting, it's pretty straightforward. There's

[22:40] only two fixtures, um, recessed cans and some, uh, wall-mounted sconces for 26 total

[22:47] fixtures throughout the, um, complex. Um, the recessed cans are on the balconies

[22:55] and stairwell areas while the Excuse me, the sconces are, um, mounted outside the

[23:02] main entrance of the, uh, facility. All the fixtures meet code in terms of lumens,

[23:08] uh, temperature, um, that sort of thing, mounting height, so staff has no concerns

[23:13] about the lighting plan.

[23:16] OK. So, with that staff um does recommend approval of the final architecture review

[23:21] for this project, including the previously approved general easement encroachments,

[23:25] as well as the design variations for hardy board siding and fascia, the alternative

[23:29] parking requirement, and the reduced stone percentage of 28%. Um, and with the following

[23:36] conditions, some of these are a little more meaty and different than our typical.

[23:41] So, just to review, the final parking plan needs to be a not, not a draft. Um, we

[23:48] need to see the updated wetland delineation, uh, specify this, um, software material,

[23:55] provide a paved connection to the road. All gravel paths, um, shall meet TMV standards,

[24:02] um. Fire mitigation plan shall be approved by town forester. Install compliant lighting

[24:09] and existing dress monument, and I believe those are all of them that are different

[24:14] than normal. OK. Thank you.

[24:20] Great, thank you. Uh, Ward questions for staff.

[24:27] Here, please. Uh, yeah, and this may already have But I did see it

[24:35] mentioned in the material. Um, is this apartment only for Telsky and Yes,

[24:44] it's owned by Telski. It'll be deed restricted. Um, I'm not sure if that deed restriction

[24:49] will have any requirement that they're Telski employees, but seeing that it's owned

[24:54] by Telski, I don't see why they would rent it to anybody else. OK, uh.

[25:01] Um

[25:05] The roof material was that finalized because there was kind of a question in the

[25:10] materials we got about it said silver at one point and another. Yeah, I believe they

[25:17] did update the uh roof material to be dark charcoal staining seam so the yeah, in

[25:23] the initial review there was a question of It was specified as metallic, which could

[25:28] be shiny, which is not allowed. So, um, I, I think we'll see in the materials board

[25:33] it is not shiny. OK, great, thank you. That's all I have.

[25:39] David, uh, Daniel, thank you for the presentation and thoroughness of that. Um, one

[25:45] thing that I was hoping to pick up on was, uh, loading unloading zones and requirements

[25:51] on a multi-family. Has that been resolved in this application and or addressed?

[26:00] Do, do you have any comments on that? Cause I, I don't think that's something we,

[26:03] we addressed in this last review. So

[26:08] Um So multi-family is, I, I'd have to check. So I, I believe it's just in

[26:16] the code where it says you have to have a loading zone that's like within your parking

[26:20] garage and that's why for Little Rose we had to do a uh specific approval for relocating

[26:26] that, but I don't believe that's for all loading zones, so I'd have, we'd have to

[26:29] check. I guess the other thing to consider is that this is um. Other nonconforming

[26:35] because the property existed before that requirement was likely put into the CDC,

[26:41] um, and this is in addition to that property whether or not DRB wanted to require

[26:46] that, um, I think that this, you know, there. Really primarily relates to the village

[26:51] center and delivery trucks for retail, uh, you know, for uh, sorry, restaurant, commercial,

[26:57] etc. um, in this case a loading zone there's certainly plenty of area for a FedEx

[27:04] or you. UPS truck to be able to deliver here this property would not, it doesn't

[27:08] have a restaurant, it doesn't have any of those retail serving things that would

[27:11] require that type of loading zone. Um, I'm, I feel fairly comfortable just leaving

[27:16] it as grandfathered nonconforming if DRB wants to discuss that they can take that

[27:21] up during their deliberations.

[27:24] Thank you. Let's move down the, the line here. Daniel, can you go show your uh slide

[27:30] again with the irrigation? Yes.

[28:00] Um And my question is gonna be about irrigating the field. OK.

[28:08] And I'm gonna wait to hear. I didn't quite understand the third point there. The

[28:12] regrade of the field likely means removing, relocating existing town-owned irrigation.

[28:18] Right. So, My understanding is that there, the town owns irrigation lines in that

[28:24] field, however, we've been asked to not use them. Um And seeing as they're regrading

[28:31] that entire field. Likely those irrigation lines would have to be removed to achieve

[28:36] the regrading because they're gonna be in there with site work machines. So it's,

[28:42] it's unresolved at this point. What if it's unresolved at this point whether or not

[28:47] um the town would irrigate, Telski would irrigate, nobody irrigates. That's, that's

[28:54] where we're at. Well, that's, that's a rub for me. I know in our initial review.

[29:00] There's lip service paid to maintain in the field is local play area, and there's

[29:07] nothing in this, and I think the same thing happened to town council, but there's

[29:11] nothing in this. Yeah, I, I that says anything about it. Yeah, there was discussion,

[29:18] uh, I'll just say that there was no condition or anything binding, uh, at council

[29:23] saying that they have to irrigate this field. However, the DRB may find that to be

[29:28] necessary. OK. Uh, and could you also clarify that one of the walkways is gonna be

[29:35] paved, and that's from the, the. The crosswalk in the parking area to Adams Ranch.

[29:43] So, my understanding is both of these paths are currently specified as gravel. Both

[29:50] this one here, which is kind of replacing the existing path up to Mountain View from

[29:55] the road, and then this smaller path is also specified as gravel. Staff is asking

[30:01] that this particular path be Upgraded to paved. Interior, the parking lot itself.

[30:09] Yeah. OK. And that is one of our conditions. Baby Nevada. Yes, staff has added that

[30:16] condition, yes. Great. And to clarify, there's no deed restriction with this property.

[30:21] No, there is. There will be, yeah, they'll be using the, I believe it's the 1997

[30:27] deed restriction that we use, uh, for, for all deed restriction units in Mountain

[30:32] Village. OK, great. Thank you so much. Scott anything?

[30:39] I'm just looking at the uh lighting fixtures, um, do they Um, there's a couple of

[30:46] different lumen specifications. Do they have one, picked out and does that meet our

[30:52] new code? Yes, um, so first of all, because this was submitted prior to the adoption

[31:00] of the new code, the new new code, um, it would be under the code as of prior to

[31:06] July. Um, secondly, yes, they have specifications in their, um, plan set. These,

[31:14] these spec sheets don't show, but they're in their plan set they do, um, specify

[31:18] the lumen count, the temperature for each of these, um. Fixtures and they they do

[31:24] meet the code. Yeah Yeah, and so the, um, so although this was submitted prior,

[31:32] there was a, a little dilemma on my part about.

[31:37] Required to be retrofitted, um, but with the edits that council has made to. This

[31:43] would be considered, um, the, there was an exception basically for, for, uh, for

[31:50] soffit and, and, um, recessed lighting that existed under a certain lumen and this

[31:55] would meet that, so there would be no need for a retrofit in the future.

[32:00] OK, thank you. Liz, anything OK. Uh, Ellen

[32:08] Questions, comments? Actually, no comments. Jim, questions. Yeah, uh,

[32:17] Daniel, thank you very much for this complete presentation, um, and, and I hope this

[32:21] doesn't duplicate what Banks just asked, but could you pull up again that picture

[32:25] of the irrigation plan, because I was a little confused as to what is the open space

[32:32] to be used as a park, and was there prior, any prior commitment to how that was to

[32:38] be maintained.

[32:42] One sec.

[32:51] I was wondering if they could make me look less.

[32:56] What's up? OK. You're, you're, yeah, we've got a very large screen here and

[33:05] Um Uh, remember Austin, uh, so this, this is the diagram showing the irrigation lines.

[33:12] Um, if you see these kind of hatched areas or lighter hatched areas out here, that's

[33:18] meant to be like, I don't know if it's turf grass, but certainly not like a long

[33:22] grass for a recreation field. Um, you may be familiar, there's been About a lot of

[33:29] back and forth about the management of this space and um Telski wants to maintain

[33:36] ownership of it and has not indicated that they're willing to convey any sort of

[33:41] easement um or and we haven't had a management agreement or anything like that put

[33:46] in place. So as I mentioned, as it stands now, it's it's essentially gonna be unmanaged,

[33:52] uh, maybe the applicant can. Indicate any plans they have for management, uh, but

[33:58] clearly there's no irrigation which would keep it green. OK, so, and that could be

[34:04] a condition that that we add on to this application, is that right, Daniel? That's

[34:10] what, that's what we're saying, yes. Good, thank you.

[34:15] Thanks, Jim. Any other questions for staff?

[34:20] Uh, if not, I'll ask for presentation by the applicant. You'd be kind enough to come

[34:25] forward, introduce yourself, and Walk us through

[34:37] Oh

[34:39] Good day.

[34:42] Just gonna share my screen quickly.

[34:50] Right. So I think, you know, I was kind of thinking about what the best way to approach

[34:54] this meeting would be today.

[34:58] Might just be better to kind of go over the things that have changed since the last

[35:01] meeting, recognizing staff just went into a lot of detail about those things and

[35:05] then talk about some of the conditions because I feel like we have accomplished some

[35:08] of those things since we've submitted the packet. So I'd just like to show you that,

[35:12] show you guys those items. Um, In terms of where we were at last time we discussed

[35:19] this, we went to town council and there were some items that town council, uh, felt

[35:24] like were important as it relates to not just livability for the residents in this

[35:30] complex, but the neighborhood in general, right? And those things really related

[35:34] to the park, mainly that was the big conversation. But also some things around how

[35:39] we screen the building correctly with the existing vegetation that's in place now

[35:43] versus what we're proposing. And so what we're seeing today with the site plan that's

[35:48] On the screen is really a reflection of that. Um, things like the parking reduction

[35:54] was a direct correlation from town council saying we want to keep these 3 trees on

[36:00] the corner of the lot. That necessitated those three spaces being removed. And I

[36:04] can go through that parking study in a little bit more detail now that I have the

[36:07] final draft, and we can discuss if we need to. Um, Dave, your comment at the last

[36:14] meeting was related to the trail. We had talked about the general easement and the

[36:18] location of the trail in general. Um, town council had a different view. Town council

[36:24] wanted us to put the trail back by the building in the general easement. So we were

[36:28] kind of trying to balance multiple different, I guess, perspectives on Not just the

[36:34] use of the space, but also how it's seen from the right of way and from the rest

[36:39] of the community. Um, I will say some of the big changes that staff went over really

[36:44] related to the parking. We shifted that entire parking away from the open space.

[36:49] We felt like it was a better design, but it allowed us to keep more of that green

[36:52] space intact. Um, some of the other comments town council had related to parking,

[36:58] they wanted us to shift that parking closer to the building so that we were able

[37:01] to preserve some clusters of trees that were on site. Um, and then the build, the,

[37:07] the, the fire mitigation plan itself, again, is a really a function of town council

[37:13] saying we want to keep these trees along the street. We want to have as much screening

[37:17] as possible. So, I guess what I'm trying to just really push is that we were balancing

[37:21] a lot of different, um, I guess perspectives on what this site should look like,

[37:27] and we do truly feel like this resulted in a better design. So we appreciate the

[37:32] reiterative steps through the process. Um, The access path, so we do have the two

[37:39] paths, right? We have one that staff recommended be paved, and I discussed that with

[37:44] Alex and Telski, and I think we're OK with that. That does add a little bit of cost,

[37:48] but it really is minimal and it will create that connection. So we're good with that

[37:52] condition. As it relates to the path on the top, the the gravel path that would go

[37:57] from the building down. When I worked with our landscape designer, that path was

[38:02] intended to be created in a way that somebody could push a stroller up that path.

[38:07] Right? So we wanted to keep good grades, we didn't want it to be too steep, we didn't

[38:11] want it to have too sharp, too sharp of a turn as it comes around. So the way this

[38:16] is designed right now, it's not ADA accessible, but again, somebody with a stroller

[38:21] could push their stroller up this hill and access the green space and that was really

[38:25] the goal. How do we get people into the park? Um, snow storage. I think you guys

[38:32] know how snow storage goes around here, right? Like you put it where you can put

[38:35] it, and when it gets too much, you take it somewhere else. And I think that was our

[38:39] perspective. We wanted to recognize that we do have a lot of space that we could

[38:43] put snow and if we need to revise the landscape plan or demonstrate it in a different

[38:48] way, we're happy to do that. But I think the reality of how it works here is when

[38:53] the snow gets too deep, A truck comes and it gets removed and takes, it gets taken

[38:57] somewhere else. And so that's really how it's gonna probably work. Um, again, we

[39:04] moved the trash. When I looked at the trash rates and how much trash would be generated,

[39:09] I addressed those things in the narrative, so I hope that got that condition resolved.

[39:13] Um, the parking study, I'm just gonna switch tabs real quick. I hope I can do it

[39:18] without stop sharing.

[39:23] So again, the parking study. It was a result of town council wanting to keep 3 trees.

[39:29] And when I reached out to the parking study, um, engineer, what he basically asked

[39:34] me to do, I'm just gonna quickly explain how this all works. He said, I need to see

[39:38] how many cars are there. At a time that would generally have full occupancy of the

[39:44] units, right? So that's either 6:30 in the morning or like 9:30 at night. Right?

[39:49] So 3 nights we had somebody go out and count the cars in the parking lot. That information

[39:55] was conveyed to the engineer. And that was based on the total number of occupied

[40:00] units in Mountain View, which is 100%, it's fully occupied, right? So we got Whatever

[40:06] the numbers were for each night, I don't have them on the top of my head. And he

[40:09] basically looked at it compared to this parking study and how parking is generated,

[40:14] and the result was Essentially agreeing with a reduction of the space count that

[40:20] it would be minimal and it wouldn't cause any negative impacts in terms of. So again,

[40:25] we felt like from the beginning, the nature of the location, given how close it is

[40:29] to the gondola, how our parking is managed currently, we didn't think that it would

[40:33] be a problem, but this is something that we just wanted to document as part of the

[40:37] requirements. Um. We also worked with a wetland engineer. So we did our wetland study,

[40:43] which is a requirement that's come up a number of times throughout the process. But

[40:49] Staff had asked for some additional information about the weapons, right? And really

[40:54] the goal of this, I guess we could call it a supplement was To address how the construction

[41:00] is gonna work, right? We have this construction that's happening, we have wetlands

[41:05] that are close by, you know, we're not impacting the wetlands, but they're close

[41:09] by. And the goal is to say, OK, if we're gonna do this, what is the impact to the

[41:13] wetlands through the construction project. So, Terra firm came out, they worked with

[41:18] our engineer, um, and I'm just gonna switch to this first. You can see the wetlands

[41:24] in the red dash on the screen. So there's the wetland. That's where the beavers are

[41:30] at here. And then there's also a small wetland between the parking area and

[41:37] Timberview. Um, so, Fisher worked with David Balo. Essentially, what their

[41:45] job was, was to beef up the construction mitigation, the CMPs for the wetland area.

[41:51] And so, when you go down, I'm just gonna kind of paraphrase here, but this is kind

[41:56] of the Cliff Notes of this document. I'm just gonna read it abbreviated. Parking

[42:04] lot drainage from Mountain View appears to coalesce in the northwest corner of the

[42:07] parking lot, enter a storm invert, and drain into the wetland community west of the

[42:10] project area. No direct wetland impacts from construction or installation of the.

[42:17] Nor shown on the plant set. Indirect impacts may include the following. This one's

[42:23] interesting, increased hydraulic input resulting in a net benefit to wetland function

[42:27] and values. So what this is saying is that by capturing that water, putting it through

[42:32] the right processing before it goes into the wetland, you're going to have more water

[42:36] available for the wetland community, especially in dry years. So you're going to

[42:40] see a net function increase of that wetland. Potential increased sedimentation and

[42:47] salt introduction. So that's just given, you know, when you, when you have snow that

[42:51] melts, you have cars that drive on roads, they get a little salt. I think that's

[42:54] pretty typical what you see that around here. And then potential trash introduction

[42:58] just because of how trash moves when it rains. So, at the end of the day, it says

[43:03] the opinion of the project will not negatively impact either wetland community adjacent

[43:07] or Excuse me, it will not negatively impact either wetland community adjacent to

[43:13] the site. So I hope that kind of settles that conversation, but really again, like

[43:19] our goal was never to impact the site, the wetlands on the site. We wanted to keep

[43:23] enough space. We wanted to always be respectful of those communities given the long

[43:28] history. In the town of Mountain Village. And we think We get there with this plan,

[43:35] um.

[43:38] Lighting considerations, um, I think Jim brought up lighting. I wanted to mention

[43:44] the way these soft, regardless of the lighting change code, right? Let's think about

[43:48] this practically. You have soffit lights on the interior courtyard of this building,

[43:53] and then on the stair, excuse me, on the outside of this walkway, you have slatted

[43:59] wood, right? Like It would be different, I think, if the building was turned and

[44:03] there were no slats and the soffits were up 30 ft in the air, but they're not. They're

[44:08] really shielded in this courtyard already and then you have this additional layer

[44:12] of slatted wood keeping the light from spilling. So, we really tried to go with the

[44:17] most basic lighting plan that we could go with. I think really you could do more,

[44:22] but we were just trying to be sensitive of everything. Um.

[44:29] And then there were some public comments. I think Kath commented on some of the drainage

[44:33] stuff, and I just really quickly wanted to Well, uh

[44:41] The plan set and I'm just gonna go to the roof plan. And

[44:50] You can see on the roof plan how the roof is proposed to drain. Right, the roof is

[44:55] draining to the rear. This is Adam's ranch on this side. And the arrows kind of indicate

[45:02] which way it's gonna drain. This is the courtyard. You have the snow fencing here.

[45:09] So really the goal of this was anywhere where you have water. Coming this direction,

[45:14] so really these roof planes. I'm moving my mouse. All drains into an interior gutter

[45:21] system and down into that courtyard, there's some planting boxes and we're trying

[45:25] to augment some of the water used through the drainage. Obviously, in the wintertime,

[45:30] you're probably gonna have to heat tape those drains, right? That's how you have

[45:34] to do it. Um I wanna switch over just so we can see an aerial view. I think that

[45:40] might be more helpful for this next part of this discussion.

[45:53] So, obviously drainage is a concern in the mountains in the wintertime, you have

[45:58] water that comes down and it melts, and then it goes somewhere and it freezes again,

[46:02] potentially. Um. I think given the setbacks of this building to the road.

[46:10] I mean, are you going to see ice dams building up all the way down to the road? I,

[46:15] I don't know if that's an answer that I, or question I can really truly answer 100%.

[46:21] But I think given that the building is over 16 ft away from the pathway, the sidewalk,

[46:26] that you're not gonna see ice dams that are going that far. And if you are, what

[46:31] would you do anywhere else in the mountain village? You would go out and you would

[46:33] chip it away and you'd remove it. It's just part of regular maintenance in the wintertime.

[46:37] Um. I was a little confused about the drainage coming from off-site, from downhill.

[46:44] I know that there have been in the past some drainage issues with Timberview and

[46:48] how the water drains down this hillside into here. But by the time you get to our

[46:54] entrance, you're, you're pretty flat. The ground is flattened out and so I'm not

[46:59] sure how water would migrate onto the site from off-site. Um, And generally speaking,

[47:06] the site's pretty flat, right? So the water from the parking lot is going to go through

[47:11] the drains. The water from the building is going to be directed. Away from the building

[47:16] as it's supposed to be. So, I think we've addressed all of the criteria for grading

[47:21] and drainage. If there are additional things around that, that the town would want

[47:26] to see, we'd be happy to provide those, but I don't think from a CDC perspective

[47:29] that we're out of compliance with how our drainage is proposed. Um, the engineer

[47:37] that designed the drainage works in this region and does a lot of projects here.

[47:42] So I would assume he would be able to address Ice buildup and drainage in a way that's

[47:48] adequate. Um, I think the last thing I wanna touch on. Relates to the irrigation.

[47:54] And I wanna just remind everybody that when this gets regraded, it's gonna have to

[48:00] be revegetated and the town requires. At least temporary irrigation for I think 2

[48:07] years after you reestablish that vegetation. So The question is how is it gonna look

[48:14] in 5 years, right? I understand that's the question. And I think

[48:21] Given the history of this site, given kind of the Maybe, maybe the differing opinions

[48:28] on how it should be used or what it's called. I think the goal for everybody is for

[48:34] this to be maintained as a field, but the question is who is maintaining the irrigation,

[48:39] who's doing it? If you guys want to put a condition that says we're gonna do those

[48:43] things and then Tulski can work with the town to figure out if there's some opportunity

[48:47] to work together to make it better, we could do that. I just want to recognize that

[48:51] like it's gonna be irrigated for 2 years, whether it's temporary or not because that's

[48:54] a requirement of the code. You have to establish the irrigation. You're not just,

[48:58] we're not just gonna be able to leave it as a dirt mound. Right, it has to be revedged.

[49:02] So I think we're OK with that concept of, of irrigation. Recognizing that ultimately

[49:09] I think Chelsea is gonna end up working with the town to figure out what's the best

[49:12] use of this space long term. Um, So Just really quickly, I want

[49:20] to. Just make sure I touched on all the staff's conditions.

[49:29] So the parking study signed by an engineer, not in draft. I just went over that,

[49:33] that's been emailed to staff. We're good on that piece, I think. Um, the document

[49:38] I just showed relates to the CMP and the wetland delineation, the document from Fisher

[49:43] and David. So I can provide that to staff. I don't believe they have that yet because

[49:47] I just received it, but we're OK with that condition, we believe it's been met. Um,

[49:52] I do think the software material was specified. It, it might have been skipped on

[49:57] the final plan set, but I believe it was specified in the, the initial review, and

[50:01] I do think Richard's on the call, the architect, so maybe maybe after I go through

[50:06] these conditions.

[50:10] But we can call that out in the building permit plan set if it's not been called

[50:14] out yet, we're good on that. Um, again, the, the gravel path was designed, I think

[50:19] with TS with, with town specifications and sta standards in mind. We want it to be

[50:25] a really nice path. We're good with that. Um, we'll work with the town to figure

[50:30] out which way to resolve this snow, snowmaking, or excuse me, the, the snow storage

[50:34] issue. And then We believe that we're meeting the, um, the fire mitigation plan as

[50:40] shown, but we're happy to continue to work with the forester to make sure that carries

[50:44] through to building growth. So I think, I think that's everything. I'm happy to pause

[50:48] for questions, um, and thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Much appreciated.

[50:56] Uh, board questions for the applicant. I have a question Um, you,

[51:04] you do not show enough parking for ADA in this lot. You have 65 spaces. You need

[51:10] 3. Um, parking for handicapped and the one, I mean, if it's delineated by

[51:18] those. Lines, the one between 41 and 42 is too narrow. You

[51:26] need, you know, there are certain specifications for the size required, so you need

[51:30] another space. You need one for every 25 spaces. Is there a way to switch back to

[51:36] my screen from the agenda? I don't know why I switched. Um, thank you. I, I appreciate

[51:41] that. I Maybe we can discuss this a little bit more. I, on this site plan that I'm

[51:47] looking at, it does show 3. 88 spaces and there may be.

[51:54] Let's get this fixed so I can pull, we can go through it cause this was the one that

[51:57] was in the packet for the. What I'm looking at. Yeah, maybe we, I could have specified

[52:03] there's 3 ADA spaces that are included in the total 65. So,

[52:11] There you go.

[52:15] Oh, OK. The one there is not very wide. And if you, if you look, we do push up against

[52:22] the building here slightly. Um, with this little walkway where it says 46, but

[52:30] Theoretically, if this is too small and you'd like to see this a little bigger, this

[52:34] could shift, you know, a foot. It looks like there's a little bit.

[52:40] Yeah, but we're happy if, if we're not meeting any kind of parking dimension for

[52:43] 80. I think we have the space to do it.

[52:49] Great. Is there anything else? No. Scott.

[52:56] David

[52:58] John, thanks, uh, very much for bringing this back before us. Um, I was looking at

[53:03] your lighting plan and I was trying to, um, Understand a few aspects of it. Uh, as

[53:09] I looked at it, I was, I had the question, is your, are your balconies, uh, drip-through

[53:14] decking or are they a solid, a solid structure? The reason I ask is we have Can

[53:22] lights proposed on those uh 2nd and 3rd levels. You, we call them out at 10 ft. Um,

[53:28] on the 3rd level, it looks like you do have some vaulted ceilings. So, I think we

[53:32] may be getting If we're looking at the elevation, you know, I'm not sure that you're

[53:38] still maintaining that 10 ft. Um, because you have that sloped roof element, you're,

[53:44] you're saying that this soffit lighting under the 312 dimension could be out of compliance

[53:50] because of the could be, yeah, exactly, I'm wondering. And I was wondering if they're

[53:54] also, if they're being constructed as drip-through. Typically for cost-effective

[53:59] approach, they might be that as opposed to a um waterproof decking system. You know,

[54:05] I honestly don't know the answer to the second question. Richard is on the call.

[54:09] He might be able to answer that. The architect, I don't know if he wants to. Richard,

[54:12] do you want to chime in and see? Yeah, I can, I can chime in. Thank you. Um, these

[54:18] were not designed to be dripped through, um, for purposes of dripping from one patio

[54:24] down to the next, uh, so they would have some type of drainage off, um. The edge

[54:31] of the drip edge of the of the balconies and then John about your comment about the

[54:36] facial material that was that's called out on the roof plan.

[54:41] The sofa

[54:45] Right, but there's a comment about the fascia material, I believe, that's called

[54:49] out on the roof plane. OK, do you know what the software material is? Oh, soften

[54:54] material, yeah, it's the um same hardy board. OK, perfect. I have to go back and

[55:00] look at it. I have to go back and look, we either call the hardy border or tongue

[55:05] and groove. Um, Richard, when you get onto your L3 level with that, uh, roof

[55:13] structure becoming your soffit, um, your lighting will no longer be at a 10-foot

[55:18] elevation. Do you know what elevation that would be at? And, uh, part two of my question

[55:23] is, is there a reason why we, or could we consider, um, wall sconces on these decks

[55:30] just to Minimize the elevation of that light fixture so that from a public right

[55:35] away you're not looking up at a light fixture while it's being set back and recessed

[55:41] into the structure a little bit more. The angle repose may may cut off that direct

[55:46] view. Before he answers that question, a point of clarification, David, this application

[55:51] was received prior to the new lighting ordinance, and so we do not currently have

[55:56] a restriction on heights for soffit lighting. But I, I will say though that like.

[56:04] OK, we're not. Intrinsically opposed to not having soffit lighting, right? Like the

[56:10] point of us not wanting to change it mid-design review was because it was gonna take

[56:14] a lot of time to change it, but we're gonna have a little bit of time between this

[56:17] and building permit. And if you guys don't want to see, especially on that third

[56:21] level, soffit lighting, That's not a big change and we're fine accommodating you

[56:25] even if we are grandfathered under the time that we submitted the document. It was

[56:29] purely like a timing issue for us and to go through and revise the whole lighting

[56:33] plan while we're trying to also revise other pieces was too much. All right. Thanks

[56:38] for that clarification, John. That's all I have. Appreciate it. It's a great career

[56:43] or anything?

[56:45] Ellen, sorry, Toby. No, no questions. Dan

[56:56] Not a OK, unfortunately, I do. Uh, and this is, uh, back to the

[57:03] water. So in the courtyard area, you have gutters and down spouts. Which means there's

[57:10] a fair amount of water coming down the downspouts, and that's just going where? Richard,

[57:17] do you wanna, do you wanna speak on the, the drainage in the courtyard? I know you

[57:21] guys worked on that.

[57:29] Sorry, I couldn't get my mic unmuted. Um, John, we never actually did address that.

[57:34] I was taking it to the site and was hoping I was gonna get coordinated into the drainage

[57:39] and landscaping. We had, we had internally discussed. We had

[57:47] internally discussed either. Interior or exterior guttering, whether it's uh I'll

[57:53] jump in there. We definitely steered away from interior, um, drainage. It's all exterior,

[57:57] um, gutter and down spouts just where it when it hits the site, um. I don't believe

[58:02] has been Completely figured out, yeah. We had discussed, we had talked about this

[58:09] with our landscape architect. I'm gonna switch back over to the site plan. Um, and

[58:14] initially when we had been planning this with the landscaper, these are going to

[58:19] be landscaped boxes and so really the goal was like how can we take some of the water

[58:23] coming out of these drains and put them into these spaces. And so I still believe

[58:28] that is the intent. Um, rather than having to irrigate and do these things, do these

[58:33] as more of like stormwater capture, natural planter boxes with native plantings.

[58:40] Um, and so if that's something that we're still kind of hung up on, it sounds like

[58:44] we have to figure it out internally as well. We're fine with that being an added

[58:49] condition that it gets resolved for building permit. It's not a problem. Thanks,

[58:54] uh. And the uh irrigation and the the play area open space if you will. I appreciate

[59:01] that 2 years is required. But I'd like to hope that we have a little bit longer vision

[59:08] than 2 years about community use and everything so we can condition it that you.

[59:16] However you do it with what other entities can preserve that, that would be great.

[59:21] We don't have an issue with that either. OK. Uh, then on the trash, which by the

[59:26] way, I, I liked your studies on trash and parking, by the way. Good, um, but it was

[59:33] referenced to TSG will, if it needs removed more often, can accommodate that. That's

[59:39] strictly a TSG. It's just the management. It's like any other complex. If you look

[59:43] around the mountain village, certain complex, especially ones that you see a lot

[59:47] of Airbnbs. Um, I served on HOA boards for a number of different buildings around

[59:54] here, and each trash management plan is different in terms of the frequency. So when

[59:58] you have a lot of units that are turning over a lot and a lot of short-term guests,

[1:00:02] you tend to produce a lot more trash, and those buildings are seeing 3 pickups a

[1:00:05] week. Yeah, so it's really we'll, we'll manage it, but obviously if we need more

[1:00:10] trash pickups then we we all love HOAs. That's good. Um Like

[1:00:18] I said, I really appreciate the car, the, uh, the parking study and the car count.

[1:00:23] I did have one question when you went out and car counted cars. What time of year

[1:00:27] was that? It was, let me look, I actually have the email. I can, um, I can tell you

[1:00:32] when we did it thereabouts, well, just so it wasn't offseason. No, it was, it was,

[1:00:37] um, counts to him on August 15th. So we did it on the 14th,

[1:00:45] the 13th, and the 12th. OK, great, of August. OK, good deal. Um, those are included

[1:00:52] in the memo, by the way, the parking memo, and they were taken in the record.

[1:00:59] Yeah, no, that makes good sense. Uh, I'm glad you're willing to pave that one pathway.

[1:01:06] I think it'd be great if you would pave both pathways. I was sitting here with a

[1:01:10] little. Disconnect strollers on a gravel pathway and going like. We have to specify

[1:01:16] the size of the wheels on the strollers or what kind of gravel's in there. Uh, it

[1:01:23] seems to me it'd be great if both of those could be paved. I, I appreciate there's

[1:01:29] an expense, but expense isn't our issue. Yeah, no, I, I totally understand that's

[1:01:33] not in your guys' purview. I think, um. You know, our goal, again, our goal was to

[1:01:37] build something that didn't, that wasn't too steep and that was surfaced in a way

[1:01:42] where you could, I mean, you, you see the strollers that people have around here.

[1:01:45] They're, they're like the off-roads. They have to build. Yeah, so I, it was planned

[1:01:50] for crusher finds. I think like really what we're talking about, whether it's irrigation

[1:01:54] or the connection path or the signage for the park or the amenities of the park,

[1:01:59] it's, it's still, we're still like trying to negotiate. I'm just being frank with

[1:02:04] you guys of like how this park is going to be used, what is it gonna look like, what

[1:02:09] are the amenities in the park going to be? And I think there is opportunity to work

[1:02:14] together with the town and with TMVOA. They've told Telski that. What it looks like

[1:02:19] right now, I'm not sure. I, I think it would be hard for me to say, thanks, I can

[1:02:24] commit 100% to paving this access path coming up when there's already the paved connection.

[1:02:30] People, if they wanted to walk on a paved surface, especially with this new condition,

[1:02:35] would be able to walk the whole way on a paved surface to this part. So, it does

[1:02:39] seem like an extra expense, but we're not opposed to it, but we, we want to figure

[1:02:43] out the best way, I think, to work with council. And the town, the, you know, the

[1:02:48] town in general and TMBOA on what works best for the space. I appreciate it. Thanks,

[1:02:54] thank you, John. Uh, if there's no other questions from the board, I'd like to open

[1:02:59] this up to public comment. We have received public comment in our packets, which

[1:03:05] were distributed. Uh, a lot of it very, very thoughtful. Uh, so if anybody would

[1:03:10] like to make public comment, the microphone is yours. Uh, keep in mind there will

[1:03:14] be a time limit, which I know is tough.

[1:03:20] So when the thing starts beeping. You're done. So.

[1:03:29] Thanks. Um, I'll try and keep this brief. Um, I've been taking notes, so it's gonna

[1:03:32] be a little bit jumbled. Um, I have two related concerns about this architectural

[1:03:37] review. The first is the public comment record. So, you guys saw on May 2nd some

[1:03:42] public comment during the rezoning and density transfer. That public comment was

[1:03:47] not carried into this architectural application, and a lot of it was relevant to

[1:03:52] the application, so it's kind of been forgotten. It's included in this packet now,

[1:03:56] but I think it may have affected your decisions for your, you know, for the initial.

[1:04:00] Um, I understand that these are separate applications, but typically, in my experience

[1:04:06] as a town councilor and also as a DRB member, they're all talked about at the same

[1:04:10] time, right? Because they're all relevant to each other. And again, that, that disjointedness

[1:04:15] may have changed. How you approved your, your initial architecture. The other thing

[1:04:20] I want to remind everybody is having to go back through the record, please speak

[1:04:23] into your microphones. I couldn't hear about a third of the recording, so it's really

[1:04:28] difficult for me to do research and, and sound like I know what I'm talking about

[1:04:32] here. Um, my second concern really is the winter shade and snow melt. I'm out in

[1:04:37] that area at 5 o'clock in the morning in the winter, in the summer, and a building

[1:04:41] of this size is gonna create issues with snow melt and ice on the road and on the

[1:04:46] pathways. Um, this is a 3-story building, 44 ft 9 inches high, located close to the

[1:04:51] road. Um, This isn't simply whether drainage is is proper. A sunny roof, snow bank,

[1:04:59] or heated surface can produce meltwater while pavement in the building's shadow remains

[1:05:04] cold. This creates ice. This creates slippery conditions. This creates dangerous

[1:05:08] position. Even Mountain Village's own regulations recognize snow and ice as safety

[1:05:14] issues and there's stuff in the, in the CDC about how to manage that. So I have three

[1:05:18] requests that I would appreciate to be considered or added as conditions. One, review

[1:05:23] the earlier public comment and see if that would affect your first initial decision.

[1:05:29] Ask the applicant to specifically evaluate the interaction between the building's

[1:05:33] winter shadows and snow melt freezing. On adjacent pedestrian and vehicular surfaces,

[1:05:38] not simply whether the site drains properly. 3, consider whether deed restricted

[1:05:43] workforce housing is receiving a different standard of review for building mass,

[1:05:48] scale, pedestrian impacts, and winter safety. Um, I understand that this is deed

[1:05:54] restricted workforce housing and I do support it. I was on the council when this

[1:05:58] was voted on and I, I, I, I agree with it, but what I think we need to separate density

[1:06:02] and affordability incentives from design and safety incentives. If this were a private

[1:06:08] residence, I believe the DRB would look. Very carefully at a 3 story 44 ft building

[1:06:15] this close to a neighborhood road. So my question is whether deed restrictions should

[1:06:19] result in a lower standard for mass scale pedestrian impacts, drainage, snow, and

[1:06:24] ice safety. I don't think those are affordability issues. I think those are design

[1:06:29] review issues. Thanks. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Other public comment please.

[1:06:37] That would be you right now. What's that? That's you right now. OK. Um, can we put

[1:06:43] up the um The drawing that has the green around it, please.

[1:06:55] I don't see it up there, so. This one?

[1:07:00] OK. You're welcome. Um, OK. Um, I'm still

[1:07:08] Jonathan Greenspan, 103 Spring Creek. I am in the Meadows. So, I have, um, a lot

[1:07:13] of concerns about this driving past it every time I leave or come to the Meadows.

[1:07:19] So, I am a resident down there. Johnny, I know how difficult it is to draw something

[1:07:24] nice and fit in when you have a difficult client. OK? So, um, nevertheless, I am

[1:07:31] very much stuck on the fact that I would rather see this building turned so it's

[1:07:37] parallel with the existing building and actually have 4 to 6 more units inside of

[1:07:43] it and because of the quality of the uh impact on the open space is not a

[1:07:50] public benefit and I'm gonna get to that in a second here. Um, but you don't really

[1:07:56] want people walking by your window. How many of you like people walking by your window

[1:08:02] as you're trying to get to another location? There's nobody in this room that likes

[1:08:06] that. Furthermore, they're gonna think it's a trespasser of some sort or worse, OK?

[1:08:13] The trees that are right there along the boulevard and the sidewalk, they're all

[1:08:17] gonna die. There's too much concrete in between the two zones for them to survive.

[1:08:23] All right, so the building, as far as vegetation goes, is gonna have to be backed

[1:08:29] up a little bit, OK, backed up towards, um. The um North Star side of things.

[1:08:37] Let's see here. I just got some hockey scores at the same time. Um, the, uh, affordable

[1:08:42] housing aspect of it is not a public benefit. It's benefiting one group and one group

[1:08:49] only. Let's, let's be honest. If that person takes multiple jobs, which a lot of

[1:08:54] people do, they take multiple jobs and they lose their job at Telski, they're gonna

[1:09:01] lose their housing. It doesn't matter where else they work, OK? That's not gonna

[1:09:05] happen here. You might as well put a revolving door in the front of this building

[1:09:08] because that's the way it works over there. Oops. Lastly, the, the park. Here is

[1:09:13] also not a public benefit because people are gonna be walking by. You don't have

[1:09:18] a ADA access with all due respect, ADA and pushing a buggy are similar. Not all of

[1:09:25] those units have big wheels out there. And lastly, there's a sign out there that

[1:09:31] says Welcome to Meadows. We invested a lot of money there to put that sign up. Where's

[1:09:38] it going? It's gonna have to be taken out. OK, so the irrigation plan, if nobody

[1:09:44] maintains it, it's not a park. Thank you very much. Thank you, much appreciated.

[1:09:50] Any other public comments? Do we have anybody online? OK. Uh, applicant, if you'd

[1:09:56] like to rebut it all, please feel free. I, I appreciate the comments, um.

[1:10:05] I think the reality is that through this process, this board, town council has asked

[1:10:10] a number of things from Tuskegee. You've seen the mass change. You've seen the scale

[1:10:15] change. You've seen the building be analyzed for different locations. We looked across

[1:10:20] the street. We did a sitewalk with town council after we surveyed the entire site

[1:10:25] for the corners of the buildings to see how it would feel in the location that it's

[1:10:29] in right now.

[1:10:32] What I have noticed is that the public comments have shifted from one issue to another,

[1:10:37] and each issue that we address, another issue comes up. Um, we do feel like we have

[1:10:43] met the requirements of the code, and we feel like we've done it in a way that's

[1:10:47] been, um, reiterative with the different bodies and the public, and we feel like

[1:10:54] the net result is going to We're gonna still have the space that people have used

[1:11:00] traditionally in the past to throw a football or do whatever. Um, so, respectfully,

[1:11:06] we do ask for your approval and we feel like the comments have been addressed through

[1:11:11] our submitted documents. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Uh, I'll close that section

[1:11:18] and I ask for board deliberation.

[1:11:23] Talk to each other, please. I'll start. Um, I, I feel like this project's had a lot

[1:11:27] of eyes on it and a lot of different, um, different types of eyes on it. Um, and

[1:11:33] I'm, I'm generally comfortable. I do think the irrigation thing is a big deal. I

[1:11:37] went down there today and I recognize that this building is gonna have a significant

[1:11:42] impact in the area and yet that the remaining open space there is pretty valuable

[1:11:47] one way or the other, uh, it's probably the last remaining open green space down

[1:11:52] there, so. Um, I think that it should be irrigated in perpetuity going forward, not

[1:11:57] just on a temporary basis, and that the property owner should be responsible for

[1:12:01] that, which is Telski. Um, and so I don't understand that conflict, but I don't know

[1:12:06] the history with the town stuff, but I would make that a condition in terms of the

[1:12:10] pathway to the east. I, I disagree with um. With banks on that, I mean if it's compacted

[1:12:17] to me it blends in better with the open space nature and the adjacency of the wetlands

[1:12:23] than a hard scape going cutting through there, but I wouldn't die on that. So those

[1:12:28] are my two comments. Thanks. Hey, thanks.

[1:12:37] I

[1:12:39] Surgery with Jonathan, I think. I think it's limited, it's not a benefit to. Choir

[1:12:47] for Chelsky enclosed. Chelsea has, you know, an opportunity to invite him to.

[1:12:56] Housing shortage

[1:13:00] It's 32.

[1:13:04] Chair I've, I've, I found it a challenge to navigate and I can't imagine even having

[1:13:12] a stroller, you know, a, a portable stroller going on that gravel. I think you could,

[1:13:17] you could pave it tastefully and not make it look like extreme hardscape. I mean,

[1:13:22] not talking asphalt, maybe a, a green tint to the cement or something, but that's

[1:13:27] my, my thoughts there. Great. Thanks, Scott. Um, thank you for all the changes you've

[1:13:35] made. I think it's a good plan to definitely.

[1:13:42] Irrigation.

[1:13:46] OK, Cath, let me start over. I forgot to push the button, um. By the way, we did

[1:13:52] get new um audio, so that should help in future meetings. Doesn't?

[1:14:00] When they're not, um, thank you for all the changes that you've made in addressing

[1:14:05] items that we've just. Uh, prior meetings, um, I totally agree with Toby on, uh,

[1:14:11] revising the, um, irrigation plan for the, the park or field area that that needs

[1:14:18] to be, um, irrigated and a, an agreement with TSG and the town needs to. Uh, part

[1:14:26] of this, um, uh, condition of the approval for long-term maintenance of that park

[1:14:32] area. Um, the pathway on the, um, that north section, um, I've

[1:14:40] seen a lot of paths in, in town and different, even the uh new path along Mountain

[1:14:45] Village Boulevard, um, that's got a uh surface of like a crushed granite that seems

[1:14:51] to be pretty good even for um wheelchair and handicap access. So I think that should

[1:14:57] be. Um, used, uh, the soffits are OK. Like Banks was saying, I think that the

[1:15:05] drainage from the courtyard downspouts needs to be addressed. Um, and I think that

[1:15:11] could be dealt with, with With staff and definitely it's gonna be a part of the building

[1:15:18] permit. Um Other issues, you know, I I understand the

[1:15:26] uh challenges of the shade that's created and, and privacy and whatnot, but I think

[1:15:32] this is the Best location on this site for the um density that, that is allowed

[1:15:39] and, and from that uh citizens initiative makes sense. Um that's all I have for now.

[1:15:47] Thank you. All right, thank you, Scott, David.

[1:15:52] All right, share with us.

[1:15:56] There you go. Um Appreciate everybody's uh working together to get a better product

[1:16:03] down here um regarding the. Benefit of, of housing, you know, I think that regardless

[1:16:10] of the ownership, if we have employees in the region, they're gonna have impacts

[1:16:15] to the resources, whether it's owned and operated by Telski or if it's just a deed

[1:16:21] restricted unit that otherwise we still have a person to put into the housing piece

[1:16:26] and so to bring more housing to, to the community, I think is, is beneficial either

[1:16:34] which way you look at it. Um, I did wanna be sensitive about the relationship of

[1:16:41] the structure to Um, to the public right away, and I think that some good effort's

[1:16:48] been here. I do believe that, you know, vegetation is gonna grow here. We got not

[1:16:54] only the 16 ft GE well preserved on that elevation, we have the structure even offset

[1:17:00] even farther and just the same, that property does not, what the alignment of Adams

[1:17:06] Ranch Road, the Uh, walkway is not immediately adjacent to that property line, so

[1:17:13] I think we do have a fair bit of buffer, more, um, more than you initially would

[1:17:17] anticipate. Um, I would love to see the applicant reevaluate the, um,

[1:17:25] Socket lighting and maybe take a sconce approach because pulling them from the center

[1:17:29] of a of a deck. Um, and pulling them back to the face of the structure in that, in

[1:17:36] little alcove could reduce. The visible light from down on the sidewalks as you pass

[1:17:43] by when you drive down through. So I think there's some concessions that could be

[1:17:47] made and I appreciate their consideration on that. Um, I'm a big advocate of decomposed

[1:17:53] granite, uh, paths. I can't, I can't pass up not jumping on the path that it wasn't

[1:17:58] on my radar, but if everybody wants to talk about it, what's that, um. Well, when,

[1:18:04] when put in place, they do soften, soften the overall texture of the landscape and,

[1:18:09] and I think uh the flexible aspect of them, yet the density provides a good Use for

[1:18:15] the end user so um. I'm really much in favor of moving this forward. I think that

[1:18:21] we've had some good public comments and um But I think this strikes a, a fine balance

[1:18:28] between the needs and rights of the applicant and, and also the, the community at

[1:18:35] a large. So, thank you.

[1:18:39] Career if you would. OK, uh, I'm in agreement with most. What they said, I

[1:18:47] find myself agreeing, uh.

[1:18:52] I like the idea that the town wanted to preserve some trees. Whether that could actually

[1:18:59] happen after construction, I'm not sure, but even if it didn't, wouldn't it be great

[1:19:06] if trees were planted, if they didn't survive, so I just wanna throw that out there.

[1:19:12] That's always an issue with all properties we look at. Uh. The gravel

[1:19:19] walkway. Actually, I like the idea of a gravel walkway, but there is no way you would

[1:19:25] push a stroller on that. I can verify that. I can't imagine how that would work.

[1:19:31] It looks attractive, I agree, but, uh, you know, as Liz said with the wheelchair,

[1:19:38] I mean, it, it might not work for every scenario. It's, there's kind of a, I think

[1:19:46] something needs to be looked at. Maybe you could take the gravel and pound it down

[1:19:50] so much that you could push something with wheels on it, so just something to think

[1:19:56] about. Um, I'm not sure, I, I realized this is a Telski property

[1:20:04] and I'd never thought about the fact that if somebody lost a job that was living

[1:20:10] there, Would they have to move out? I mean, I guess that, you know, I'm like,

[1:20:18] how does that work? I, I wanna remind you guys the town of Mountain Village has the

[1:20:22] same standard for their employees at Village Court Apartment. So you the people have

[1:20:26] to move out immediately. OK, well, it gives one pause. OK,

[1:20:34] uh, otherwise I'm comfortable with it. Uh, I like the materials. I'm glad to see

[1:20:41] that, um. And I can't, I'm not, there's nothing else with the lighting. I think comments

[1:20:48] by the board were good, so I'm in agreement with that and uh Uh, otherwise, anyway

[1:20:55] to increase trees or the greenery would be greatly appreciated by me anyway. Thanks,

[1:21:03] that's all. OK, Greer, thanks. Can we see our members online, please? As much as

[1:21:09] I love the agenda up there, can we see people? Here we go, Ellen. Share with us,

[1:21:16] please. You're muted on.

[1:21:22] You're still muted. How about now? That's good. OK, great, and everybody can hear

[1:21:29] me, yes. Um, so I agree that I'd like to see that field be irrigated, um,

[1:21:37] into the future, um, and I think that the, um, drainage issue in the interior courtyard

[1:21:45] is significant and should be a condition of approval with staff that they address

[1:21:51] that. They don't even draw gutters on, on their elevation, so I, I, I think that

[1:21:57] really needs to be addressed or it will become a problem. Um, I, I also agree with

[1:22:03] David about the sconces on the balconies versus, um, recess lighting, and one more

[1:22:10] thing that nobody's brought up, uh, I am in favor of them increasing the amount of

[1:22:14] stone to 35%. There are many places on this building where they can, um, go vertically,

[1:22:23] symmetrically about the courtyard on those two rock holes. Symmetrical pieces right

[1:22:29] against that or on any of the elevations, there is a symmetrical ability to add more

[1:22:34] stone, and I think it would actually be attractive on the building, so I'm in favor

[1:22:39] of adding more stone to increase and then meeting that percentage or getting much

[1:22:45] closer.

[1:22:48] And that's all I have. Great, I'm so glad you brought those things up, Jim.

[1:22:57] No, I, I support all the earlier comments, particularly Alan's last comments on the

[1:23:01] percent of stone. I think there should be more opportunity for that. I also want

[1:23:06] to come back to David's comment about we all need, I think we would all agree we

[1:23:10] need employee housing. And finally, the open space, I think there should be an agreement

[1:23:17] right now. I worry about just where all of us will be 2 years from now, not much

[1:23:23] less where Telski will be 2 years from now. And so, let's, let's agree it today,

[1:23:29] who's responsible for that irrigation and make sure it is irrigated and so the open

[1:23:34] space really functions as a. So thank you. Great. Thanks, Jim. Uh, my two cents,

[1:23:40] uh, I'll reiterate what Jim just said, uh. I do think that irrigation in that area

[1:23:47] is Really, really important. It's part of the Meadows community for sure, always

[1:23:53] has been, and I would make it a TSG responsibility if they can partner with people

[1:23:59] down the road. That's great, but I think our condition has to be that the responsibility

[1:24:04] is for TSG. It's not, oh, maybe if they can make a deal. Do you, are you looking

[1:24:11] for a suggestion? Uh, yeah, I would just suggest that irrigation of that opens. Fired

[1:24:17] and then it would put the onus on the applicant if they can get an agreement in place

[1:24:21] that that meets that um but if it's you know just keep it simple you can't you got

[1:24:27] the the the DRB can't really compel town council to agree to something I I I I appreciate

[1:24:33] that but uh since we get to talk to each other that's my public record comment if

[1:24:37] you will uh. And I'm thrilled that Ellen brought up the stone since you're not gonna

[1:24:45] pave that. Pathway now you can put that money into increasing the stone capacity

[1:24:53] and I do have I would have one. Request with that as well. The stone to me

[1:25:01] is more important along an Adams Ranch road to break up. The the mass of the building,

[1:25:08] uh, I think the courtyard on the other side already does that nicely, but if I could

[1:25:13] see once a couple of those elements on the branchway increased in stone, I think

[1:25:19] that would be great, uh, and I am absolutely in favor of conditioning. The lighting

[1:25:26] to get rid of the socket lighting and disconces, such as it.

[1:25:33] It's a community benefit driving down or looking across. Directive light when it's

[1:25:40] needed, not just on all the time. So, uh, that would be my other thing. Uh, and so

[1:25:47] that's uh And where I'd like to be with stuff. Mr. Chairman, before the motion, can

[1:25:54] I ask a clarifying question? Uh, do you guys wanna, you wanna see the full 35% stone,

[1:25:59] is that what I'm hearing? Or?

[1:26:04] You know, for me, forever wild, um, can I, can I offer a counterpoint to if you guys

[1:26:09] are interested, I mean, the, the base of the building is wrapped completely and to

[1:26:15] me that's where sort of stone makes sense and belongs and it comes out at 28%. I

[1:26:21] mean we could randomly have some stone creeping up somewhere and that sometimes to

[1:26:26] me that looks sort of like out of kilter with the foundational aspect of stone. So

[1:26:32] you were saying, you know, if they don't have to pave the eastern walkway they save

[1:26:36] some money. I'm like maybe they can, you know, save that 7% of. Put it toward, um,

[1:26:44] you know, a robust irrigation system for the open space. So I, I, I don't really

[1:26:49] care about the stone being just under, to me, it looks good the way they've drawn

[1:26:54] it and happens to come out at 28 28%, but that's just another point. But it's unfortunately

[1:27:01] I put my designer hat on. If I were an architect, I would grade more stone elements,

[1:27:07] quite frankly, so I'm, I'm OK. Like at the end of the day it's a little bit of stone.

[1:27:10] It's not that I don't care about the percentage if, if, if you could go over, that's

[1:27:14] fine too. OK, we'll mess with it, right? We can. And I think, I, I think that going

[1:27:18] vertical on some of the face of that building will, will help to ground that building

[1:27:25] more because when you just do a little like arbitrary line around the base, it, it

[1:27:30] doesn't always do what we intended to do. I, I agree with you, Ellen. I think given

[1:27:36] the, the roof form.

[1:27:43] The structure together vertical with the horizontal nature of the decks and the wind.

[1:27:48] Exactly. And I do believe there's already some vertical stone elements in the area.

[1:27:53] We can figure that out anyhow. Anything else anybody wants to, yeah, just to play

[1:27:59] devil's advocate instead of. Devil's advocate, uh, as opposed to talking about irrigation

[1:28:05] all the, all these days our droughts that we endure, you know, should, should we

[1:28:10] be thinking about artificial turf out there and look at the benefits that the school

[1:28:14] has where the extended usage, uh, comes out, but you remember what you remember what

[1:28:20] a fight that was,

[1:28:24] but, uh, anybody, anything else, uh, if not, I will ask. Somebody to formulate a

[1:28:31] motion, uh, if you'll accept help from the rest of the members. If I can make a small

[1:28:37] recommendation, if we are gonna ask for an increased stone, specify a percentage

[1:28:41] or a benchmark that they need to meet other than just increased stone, 35%, 35% if

[1:28:49] that's what you want, then that's what we'll do.

[1:28:54] Right.

[1:29:02] We're such an outspoken group.

[1:29:07] Can we have a motion, please?

[1:29:11] Thanks for

[1:29:30] Ellen, do you feel like making a motion? Sure, hold on, I just threw my paper on

[1:29:36] the floor already.

[1:29:39] I'm gonna step away. Thank you guys.

[1:29:43] OK. Uh, I moved to I move to approve the final architecture review for a new multi-family

[1:29:50] building consisting of 150 employee apartments located at Lot 640A 306 Adams Ranch

[1:29:57] Road based on the evidence provided within the staff report of record dated September

[1:30:02] 21, 2026 with the following design variations and specific approvals. DRB

[1:30:10] specific approvals, 1, A, B, and C. Design variations, 1 and 2.

[1:30:18] With the addition and the condi the table 3, which is 1 through

[1:30:26] 14, and with the additional conditions of uh increasing the stone percentage to

[1:30:34] meet our 35% requirement. And changing the recess lights to

[1:30:41] sconces on the balconies.

[1:30:46] Did I miss anything? Irrigation. On staff staff approval

[1:30:54] for the irrigation of, oh no, the irrigation, continued irrigation in what we're

[1:31:01] calling the park or the field, um.

[1:31:07] If we want to address the drainage issue, was that a recommended condition or no?

[1:31:13] And the Yeah, the drainage issue in the courtyard to be reviewed by staff.

[1:31:22] Great, thank you. Um, and wait, just one point of clarity with the design variations

[1:31:27] because you're requiring condition of the stone we can remove that design she specified

[1:31:33] she removed it, yeah, I did it. I removed that.

[1:31:38] I'll second that. Great. Uh, we have a second. Uh, any further discussion changes?

[1:31:43] I've, I've, uh, just to clarify because it felt a little garbled from, on the, on,

[1:31:49] on the, that the, that the, uh, that the applicant will ensure, um, you know.

[1:31:57] Um Permanent um irrigation of the open space areas, you know, of all the green space

[1:32:04] areas, not, yeah. Another clarification, um, for the

[1:32:11] sconces instead of the recessed lighting, are you talking about just the third floor

[1:32:17] or all three floors? I would like to see all 3.

[1:32:24] Ellen Yes, agreed. All three. I said balconies, all of them, yes. And are you comfortable

[1:32:30] with Kobe's changes to the irrigation language? Uh, yes, if the rest of the board

[1:32:35] is. OK, great. Uh, with those changes, Toby, does your second stay in effect? Yes,

[1:32:43] great. Uh, with that, I'll ask for a vote. All in favor? Hi hi

[1:32:51] Mr. Austin represented I and Elena represented the as well. Motion carries. Thank

[1:32:58] you guys. And John, thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:33:14] Next agenda item. Consideration design review. This is final architectural review.

[1:33:21] For new multi-family units at Lot 726-R1100 Pennington Place pursuant to

[1:33:28] CDC Section 17.4.11. And can I ask the board, is there any

[1:33:37] Ex parte communication or conflict of interest. With this application

[1:33:45] Not great, thank you.

[1:33:50] And Daniel had to run to the restroom. We'll just give it 2 minutes. Daniel ran to

[1:33:54] the restroom. He'll be back here ahead of anybody else like to go.

[1:34:03] Yeah, that's probably good.

[1:34:31] With turf

[1:35:01] You have to do drainage and all that. You have to do some specific drainage and yeah.

[1:35:10] I'm sure you did. Yeah.

[1:35:26] Yeah.

[1:35:31] Oh.

[1:35:37] Thank you for putting up with our break. Much appreciated. Uh, and Daniel, if he

[1:35:43] will. Present please.

[1:36:08] All right. Is everybody ready? Looks like it. Thank you, Chair. This will be the

[1:36:15] final architecture review for lot 726R-1 TPD Pennington Place.

[1:36:23] The applicant is here, Chris Hawkins, um, for a proposed additional 4 multi-family

[1:36:29] condominiums on a lot with 6 existing condominiums for a total of 10 condominiums.

[1:36:36] Uh, the lot's 1.92 acres. The gross score footage of the proposed addition is 18,843.

[1:36:44] Um, this is located on Pennington Drive, adjacent to the golf course and other, um,

[1:36:49] single-family homes. So, it's uh been a minute since we talked about this one and

[1:36:54] there's some background on it, so I'll go through that quickly. Uh, so, as I mentioned,

[1:36:58] there's the existing Pendington lodge with 6 units inside. The proposal is for 3,

[1:37:04] uh, 3-level, 4 unit additional development that's separated from the existing lot.

[1:37:10] Um, in 2023 there was a subdivision or a, uh, platte supplement recorded with San

[1:37:16] Miguel County that subdivided a lot 789, and 10 as well as an LCE. However, it was

[1:37:21] not approved by Mountain Village, so that, sorry. That's a single family home at

[1:37:28] the end of Pennington. Oh, my apologies. Yeah, that's not the, uh, Pennington Lodge.

[1:37:34] OK, my, my apologies. I think it was hard to find a Pennington Lodge photo, so there's

[1:37:38] a, there's a mistake there anyway, um. It threw me off here. Let's see. Um, so,

[1:37:45] the condo is not valid, um, however, the, um, and the applicant will be required

[1:37:53] to, uh, submit a, uh, a, a condo map amendment subsequent to the approval of the

[1:38:00] initial review. Um, the DRB voted unanimously to approve the initial architecture

[1:38:05] and site review at the August 6th hearing. Uh OK. So, the existing conditions.

[1:38:14] Um, as you can see, there is the Pennington Lodge to the south, uh, and then Steve

[1:38:19] Madden made slopes to the west and, uh, of the property line here, so it's kind of

[1:38:23] a triangular shaped lot.

[1:38:28] Um, the specific approvals that, uh, has not, the DRB specific approval for, for

[1:38:34] the secondary curb cut is still in place, um, and they've secondary, uh, specific

[1:38:40] approval for the lighting associated with the outdoor living space. Uh, we'll get

[1:38:44] into the lighting slide later on in the presentation. Otherwise, their overall zoning,

[1:38:49] um, hasn't changed, um, significantly. I believe there was some small changes to

[1:38:54] the lot coverage. Um, they're still meeting their materials requirements and parking

[1:39:00] requirements, etc.

[1:39:03] Um, OK. So, This is a photo of the proposal

[1:39:11] viewed from the north looking south um towards the existing lodge and showing in

[1:39:18] context uh with the new proposal. Surrendering, I believe this is Same rendering

[1:39:24] from the initial review.

[1:39:27] Siteplane remains unchanged. Um, there was not a, um, we decided as part of, as

[1:39:35] part of the initial review that a fire truck turnaround is not necessary. They updated

[1:39:39] the It's very disorienting when I, when I cut out like that, sorry. Um, they, um,

[1:39:47] updated the driveway plan to show, uh, turn movements and that sort of thing that

[1:39:52] are in compliance. Um, as I mentioned, uh, there was a secondary curb cut approved

[1:39:58] at the initial architecture inside. Um, because this is technically one development,

[1:40:04] typically there's one curb cut per development for multi-family, however, because

[1:40:08] this is a funky lot with a separate, separated development, this seems reasonable.

[1:40:17] Elevations haven't changed.

[1:40:21] Building form and materiality also remains the same. It's generally matching the

[1:40:26] existing. Building, but obviously with an updated contemporary architectural form,

[1:40:32] um, using some corrugated metal, standing same roof matching the existing building,

[1:40:37] telluride, golden stone, etc.

[1:40:42] Uh, the landscape and fire mitigation plan has been updated as part of the final

[1:40:46] architecture review. This is a, uh, condition of approval of the initial review.

[1:40:53] The updated plan is depicting 27 new trees, uh, along with 4 removed. Uh, the applicant,

[1:41:00] uh, does show shrubs and grass in zone one, which is allowed as long as there's another

[1:41:06] 5 ft vegetation-free buffer zone outside of that. Um, zone, uh, those shrubs and,

[1:41:13] um, grasses that appears to be in met. Um, the only area of concern that we have

[1:41:19] is this little section here, uh, which is directly adjacent to the building. Uh,

[1:41:26] another criteria of the exemption is that it's not planted directly beneath windows

[1:41:31] or under vents, uh, or, or deck, um, or under decks. It wasn't immediately clear

[1:41:37] from the elevations if there were any vents or windows directly adjacent to that.

[1:41:42] So, just clarifying that small point, it's part of the, um, building permit, uh,

[1:41:48] application is a condition of approval. Moving to the lighting plan, there are 4

[1:41:54] fixture types and 77 total fixtures. Uh, the recess, there's recessed cans around

[1:42:00] the front entry entries, step lights around the exterior of the building, um, it's

[1:42:05] just the predominant fixture type. Uh, and then an LED strip light at the address

[1:42:10] monument for illumination. All the fixtures need the code. Um, again, this does,

[1:42:17] uh, have, uh, it would be under the previous, uh, lighting code, although any, um,

[1:42:24] Certain, certain elements may have to be brought into compliance. Uh, however, I

[1:42:29] believe all of the fixtures meet the current new code as well. Um, maybe the applicants

[1:42:36] can specify on that. Um, the one, the one specific approval here is that the the

[1:42:43] limited common element terrace and the unit 7 deck qualify as outdoor living space

[1:42:49] because they have like an outdoor dining and some kitchen, uh, appliances. Therefore,

[1:42:54] they would need a specific approval for the lighting. Um, one, maybe small clarification,

[1:43:01] uh, about the, the, the outdoor deck is specified as a limited common element. Um,

[1:43:07] typically we see limited common elements for individual units. However, in this case,

[1:43:12] it's limited for the use of all four units, just want to clarify that. Um, so, it's

[1:43:17] not a general common common element that would be for the use of the residents at

[1:43:22] the existing complexes would be for the use of the Residents at these 4 units here.

[1:43:33] OK. Uh, so with that in mind, um, uh, I recommend, the staff recommends approval

[1:43:41] of the Uh, proposal with the specific approval for secondary curb cut and lighting

[1:43:47] associated with outdoor living space. I'll take any questions.

[1:43:56] Questions for staff. I just have one quick question. Um, I see you included the previous

[1:44:02] some public comments and um by seeing this we haven't had any come in since that,

[1:44:08] I think August 5th or something was the last one. No, we did not have any new public

[1:44:14] comment. Right.

[1:44:20] Do you have cut sheets for the lighting that we can look at? We'll present those

[1:44:25] with ours. Yeah, I believe they're in the packet. Um, we don't usually print them

[1:44:30] out because they expand the packet by a lot, but they should be on the online, uh,

[1:44:34] version. OK.

[1:44:37] Can I ask, was there A driveway plan. I didn't see it. Yeah, again, it, it should

[1:44:43] be in the packet and should be printed out as well, um. It's the same driveway plan

[1:44:48] as the initial, um, they just added some of the training, uh, calculations. It's

[1:44:55] part of the final architecture review just to clarify any access issues, but it is

[1:44:59] in there. I had no access issues. I was my my question was materials. Materials for

[1:45:06] like a retaining wall. There was a retaining wall indicated. Um, never saw anything

[1:45:14] about it.

[1:45:17] Believe, yeah, I believe it was specified as stone, but maybe the applicant can clarify.

[1:45:23] What that retaining. All material is Says concrete retaining wall with guard rail

[1:45:30] faced with DRB approved material, so that would be stone, right? So maybe we can

[1:45:37] ask them to specify that rather than just saying DR me Daniel, I like pictures. I

[1:45:42] don't pictures, so. OK. Uh, other questions for you for staff, please.

[1:45:51] All good? Great, uh, well, if the applicant would introduce themselves and, uh, present,

[1:45:59] please. Sure, sorry, Zoom disappeared.

[1:46:06] Hi, uh, Chris Hawkins with Alpine Planning.

[1:46:13] Shane Jordan, Jordan Architects.

[1:46:18] Katie Sapp and wedding design.

[1:46:22] Laura Jordan, Jordan Architects. And Natalie Petty John Planterra Landscape architecture

[1:46:28] online.

[1:46:33] I got bumped out of the meeting, so I'm rejoining.

[1:46:38] While he's reconnecting, I just wanna give a big thank you to Katie for doing a really

[1:46:42] thorough review. And she made some really great suggestions that we did incorporate

[1:46:46] into the final, um, and I'll go over those later today. Daniel, can you let me in

[1:46:51] the meeting please? Um, to answer your question, is the stone face wall. Um, I also

[1:46:59] just wanted to clarify, let me share my screen.

[1:47:06] A

[1:47:14] Um, just a point of clarification on the

[1:47:19] The new Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code.

[1:47:25] But, um, and it is encroaching into the G. Um, quite frankly, the code should be

[1:47:32] amended to just allow those by right, so you're not having to ask for an encroachment

[1:47:35] every time. We, we, we do, OK, yeah, so there's, there is an exception for fire,

[1:47:41] uh, hard escape for fire mitigation, and that's why we didn't call it out as something

[1:47:45] that I just wanted to make clear, thank you for that clarification, um, with that,

[1:47:50] um, the main, our main presentation is.

[1:47:55] Um, first up is landscaping and Online if you wanna hop on. Wonderful. Thank you

[1:48:02] guys um for your time today. Um, so just uh from a design perspective, a quick recap

[1:48:07] of what we're trying to do here, um, you know, most of this property, uh, is called

[1:48:13] out as, you know, native seed mix that's, you know, clearly written out in your code.

[1:48:17] It's a great mix, um, and so we wanted to use that at all of our revegetation areas

[1:48:22] and bring that, um, in towards the. 5 ft um pardon zone buffer um and then use a

[1:48:30] handful of tree clusters in that zone too to help soften that building elevation

[1:48:35] um a good majority of those are single stem or multi-stem aspens um and then a few

[1:48:42] key areas that we really wanna pull some focus to um and have a little bit more seasonality,

[1:48:47] uh, are there's a crab apple, so slight different, um. Slight variation in the tree,

[1:48:53] but both are approved on your um approved tree and shrub list. And Natalie, if you

[1:48:59] introduce yourself for the record. Oh yes, absolutely. uh Natalie Pettijon, Plantera

[1:49:04] Landscape architecture, um, phoning in online. Um, thank you for that. So, again,

[1:49:11] we have the approved seed mix as our revegetation mix, bringing that closer to our

[1:49:16] 5 ft hardened zone. Um, using trees in the allowable clusters with the required 30

[1:49:22] ft tree canopy distance, um, between those, uh, to make sure we're meeting that requirement

[1:49:28] and then specific areas, you know, at the entry of this, um, and, and specific spaces

[1:49:34] even just outside of the units that we want to soften those and make those a little

[1:49:38] bit more special, bringing in. Um, some, some grasses that are either, uh, variety

[1:49:45] adjacent to what is already approved or are on your approved list, um, and approved

[1:49:50] list also includes Colorado Firewise, um, low flammability planting, and some handful

[1:49:56] of native wildflowers, um, so we wanna just concentrate those a little bit closer

[1:50:00] to some of your building entry and exit points, um. Nice visual here to show you,

[1:50:07] um, again, trees and shrubs are all from your approved list. Um, any wildflowers

[1:50:13] or grasses that you see here are from that Firewise plant list here. Uh, the goal

[1:50:18] is that this feels really native and natural and blends into the surrounding neighborhood,

[1:50:23] the surrounding landscape. Um, and then if you go back to that slide real quick.

[1:50:29] At the bottom left there are two photos there that kind of show the difference of

[1:50:34] what we're imagining that mode versus unmowed native grass space, um, you know, not

[1:50:40] wanting to introduce an excessive amount of hardscape here, um, but give people an

[1:50:46] opportunity to have some. Mode path that could potentially change over time depending

[1:50:50] on where mowing happens and doesn't, um, and then using boulders, landscape boulders

[1:50:55] to kind of punctuate that that 5 ft hardened zone, um, and also just provide some,

[1:51:00] some nice verticality in the landscape around some of the planting. We're imagining

[1:51:06] any of the plants that are in that 5 ft hardened zone are irrigated, um, you know,

[1:51:11] you guys have great standards on what irrigation systems need to be like out here.

[1:51:15] Um, I know that the, the vegetation zone needs to be irrigated for a year for establishments

[1:51:21] and anything a little bit closer to the building, um, should be something that's

[1:51:26] more. Permanently irrigated, keep things a little bit greener, um, and, and just

[1:51:31] more established.

[1:51:38] OK. Great. Now we'll move on to the exciting lighting discussion.

[1:51:49] Um, just as a general overview, we wanted, um, the design intent was to meet the

[1:51:55] code we're under, which is the one before the last revision, um, but also be able

[1:52:00] to transition in 31 when we need to. Um, this is the lighting schedule. You'll notice

[1:52:07] that the color temperature is 2700 Kelvin, so that meets the code, the The recess

[1:52:14] slide, I wanted to point out that um It's a lower lumen level than you, it's much

[1:52:21] lower than what you allow, but you'll see on the plans we wanted to at the entryways

[1:52:26] is where we use these and a lot of them we use 2 and we wanted to just create a soft,

[1:52:33] more even light. So that's why we went with a lower lumen output light so that we

[1:52:39] could use 2 and create that aesthetic that we wanted. Um, the XM is a step light

[1:52:45] that we're using. It's

[1:52:50] This isn't quite very well. It's that one, yeah, and we're using that on the metal

[1:52:55] surfaces and it's, um, it meets the lumen limit and then the other step light we're

[1:53:03] using is actually a Uh It's a mounted in stone like, like

[1:53:11] you see, and we're doing a couple, I'll expound on that, but it's meets the lumen

[1:53:16] limit also. And then the other light is the address monument light.

[1:53:24] Um, this, um, this is more about the hardscape masonry mounted step light, um.

[1:53:33] The main thing I want to point out here is sometimes we're gonna mount it under the

[1:53:39] cap, like you see here. Um, and sometimes we're mounting it just on the stone wall

[1:53:45] like this one because the stone goes all the way up. Um Here, this picture

[1:53:53] depicts it very well. These are, these are mounted under the cap. Ours are typically

[1:53:58] at 26 inches. It kind of depends on, sometimes grade is moving away and it's a little

[1:54:03] higher, but, and then on the other side of the stone wall, the point is how black

[1:54:10] it is, how dark it is. And our detail on a lot of our decks, this one, this picture

[1:54:17] demonstrates that really well. There's actually a railing above the cap and then

[1:54:24] our light is below that on the inside. Of the decks.

[1:54:33] OK. Um,

[1:54:36] Let me just make sure everything.

[1:54:47] OK. So then our plans, we show, um, I don't want to spend too much time on this because

[1:54:53] I think we're going to hit it harder when we get to the photometrics page, but Each

[1:54:57] entryway has a couple of recess cans, um, and then mostly step lights around the

[1:55:03] perimeter and the garages and at some of the exterior doors, we have step lights.

[1:55:10] This is the first level. And depending on the material, if it's stone, the step light

[1:55:17] is the masonry mounted one, and then if it's metal, it's the XM which is just the

[1:55:22] regular step light. And then we have the LCE on now we're on the 2nd level.

[1:55:32] Asking for the variants for outdoor living. Um, and this is lit mostly with step

[1:55:38] light, all with step lights. But it's just kind of a perimeter. Way of finding, you

[1:55:45] know, safety kind of situation.

[1:55:50] And then we have other decks on that level that are lit also with the interior step

[1:55:56] light. And then this is the 3rd level and we have some It wasn't outlined

[1:56:04] exactly on the um brief, but on this level, we also have some outdoor living areas,

[1:56:09] realistically, cause there's Barbecue, hot tub situation. So there we have step

[1:56:17] lights. We're, we're using step lights which The reason for that is also to, you

[1:56:24] know, come 31, we wanna kind of be in line with. What you guys allow on upper levels,

[1:56:30] but also create some wayfinding to, for the outdoor living areas and the hot tubs

[1:56:36] and that sort of thing. And this is the elevations, um.

[1:56:44] Here we have 8 and 77 is, so where you see the, I don't know, I think it's pretty

[1:56:51] visible, but where you see the aqua. That is on the interior side of that deck. So,

[1:56:58] on the other side of that stone is where that step light is. And out here on the

[1:57:04] left where we have uh the 7 outdoor living area, those are also on the other side

[1:57:10] of the stone. And then, Here we have, this is the, this is 10 which um the lower

[1:57:18] ones that were the windows marked 4, those are on the inside of that terrace and

[1:57:24] I want to point out something here, that's the 2nd level. But it's still below grade

[1:57:30] where those shine at the door that comes out. And then at the sec at the 3rd level,

[1:57:36] which looks like the 2nd on this elevation, those are on the Outdoor living area

[1:57:41] of 8.

[1:57:44] Um

[1:57:47] And this is

[1:57:54] Yeah, so then this is the um Well, that's, is that 10, Laura?

[1:58:02] Yeah, 10. And so that'll be the upper level of 10. And then the LCE, which is the

[1:58:09] sort of communal terrace, um, We have the stone, you know,

[1:58:17] stone-mounted, um, Lights on the inside, but then from this view, the yellow

[1:58:24] ones, you'll, um, those are facing the golf course, but, you know, there's gonna

[1:58:31] be furniture and stuff in there too. But those are, you know, shining down, still

[1:58:35] very shield, but those are step lights out there at that um terrace. And then over

[1:58:42] on the far side here, um Well, I, I think we could explain it real quick.

[1:58:52] And then on the far side, um, Again, in Aqua at some of the other units. Um, even

[1:58:59] this door that comes out from the lower bedroom, um, of 8, there's a step light on

[1:59:07] the other side of that stone, so you don't see it, but it's there. And then at the

[1:59:13] 7 deck out here where the 2 is. Those are on the inside. That's a metal, um.

[1:59:20] railing wall. Um, so it's totally solid, but on the inside of that, we have our step

[1:59:25] lights. That was the XM, um, designation. And then on the lower level

[1:59:33] here, we, you can see those step lights, they're at the cap of that stone wall, but

[1:59:38] they're outside of a door leading to the grave there. It, there's gonna be a little

[1:59:44] step, but Probably. OK. Yeah. And this one

[1:59:51] has um. Just the one at 7 on the side of that.

[2:00:00] So that's another part of that uh outdoor living space. And then this one is um 7

[2:00:07] and 8. The lower step lights outside the garage, that's an example of them mounted

[2:00:14] on the stone wall. Um, as step lights just At the garages and then

[2:00:22] at the upper decks on the inside in the aqua color.

[2:00:31] That's just a And that's the LCE from the driveway. So at the communal, like storage

[2:00:39] garage, we have them low and then On the inside of that stone wall from the driveway

[2:00:46] where where we have the furniture and stuff.

[2:00:52] And then, um

[2:00:56] So this is uh 9 and 10 and um

[2:01:04] We have them at the garages. This first garage at 9 is metal, so it gets the step

[2:01:08] bites on the metal and then.

[2:01:12] And these are, these step lights are also kind of to create a path to that public

[2:01:17] area being LC. And um On the inside of this first little

[2:01:25] door at 9, there's just a little terrace in there on the inside of that terrace,

[2:01:32] and then at the upper level on the inside of that one outdoor, one of the outdoor

[2:01:37] living areas. And then, um, at 10, there's one at that patio up

[2:01:45] there. And then or deck I guess, and then the other deck at 10. I guess

[2:01:53] one thing I should point out is the one place where some things are higher, the excess

[2:01:59] at the bottom of the steps going up to the LCE we wanted to keep those at the cap,

[2:02:04] so they're a little bit higher. Most of them are at 20%. 6 inches, but these specific

[2:02:09] ones, we just kind of wanted to keep that look at the cap and also have a little

[2:02:15] bit more of a pool of light there because also we have the door to the storage and

[2:02:19] the beginning of the stairs, kind of something to lead people that direction.

[2:02:26] And then, um, this is the address monument light. It's really quite shielded. It's

[2:02:30] only gonna shine through. This is hard to model in the photometrics, but, um, it's

[2:02:35] only gonna shine through the cutout numbers in the metal. And it does have, what's

[2:02:41] not shown here is it does sit in an extrusion, which is something you guys like.

[2:02:47] Um. And then on the next page we have the. The phototrics, um.

[2:02:56] We have a couple of things going on here. One is it feels.

[2:03:02] The one is or.

[2:03:05] Um, one is that the, uh, at each light fixture we have the isometric lines that you

[2:03:11] guys are used to. Um, the internal line that's red is where you're at the edge of

[2:03:18] 2 ft candles. The orange line is where you're at the edge of 1 ft candle, and then

[2:03:23] the aqua line shows where we have a half foot candle. Um Then the other thing we

[2:03:29] have going on. I, um, I've gone ahead and done, um,

[2:03:36] Like an AGI lighting calculation, so that's every 3 ft, it's giving you what the

[2:03:43] light level is at that point. One thing to be aware of is, um, you know, I can't

[2:03:49] choose like where that lands. Sometimes it lands like right under a light and it's,

[2:03:53] you know, gonna be nine-foot candles or something. Um If you want, like if there's

[2:04:01] a particular area of concern or something like that, I could give you an average

[2:04:05] of that area, let's say for a living space or something like that. But here, it's

[2:04:10] just a point in a moment in time of how much light is reading on the ground.

[2:04:19] Um, and then, so there at 9 at the entryway is an example of where we have, you know,

[2:04:26] two recessed cans of the lowest lumen we could get to just kind of softly, evenly

[2:04:33] light that area. At an entryway, you typically want 10 to 15-foot candles and we're

[2:04:39] kind of landing at that mark um in some of those areas. I think at 9, we have like

[2:04:46] Couple of spots that there's 13 or something. And then um same at 10. We're,

[2:04:54] we're getting, you know, one spot right under reading about 12, um. And then um we

[2:05:01] have also 2 at 8 and then we have a longer entryway at 7, so we kind of just wanted

[2:05:08] that soft. Even lighting there. So we'd spread them out a bit. Um, that's the key

[2:05:15] thing I think for that level, and then moving.

[2:05:21] Yeah, yeah.

[2:05:25] I'm gonna jump in really quick. I think you might have said this, but the big picture

[2:05:29] concept here was we wanted to show the four entryways, nice, like safe. That's the

[2:05:35] door I'm going to with a little bit of low lighting pathway to the LCE. Make sure

[2:05:41] we can see our way through, but not a ton of bright light everywhere in this entry

[2:05:46] level. Let's focus the book. Yeah. And around and for kind of general lighting around

[2:05:54] the motor cord.

[2:05:59] On the second level, um, I think the key thing is, you know, here's an example at

[2:06:05] 9 of the, of the exterior deck, um, Where we have two of the masonry mounted

[2:06:13] step lights. Just general lighting out there, inviting safe lighting, but outside

[2:06:20] of that, where you see the gray, those are all zeros. So you're getting 0 ft candles

[2:06:26] outside of that deck. And that's true. For all the decks, whereas, um, and then like

[2:06:33] over at 10, um, that's actually that below grade terrace, but again, um, those are

[2:06:41] just pooling right inside that terrace. And the LC maybe we should look at that real

[2:06:47] quick just to Um, showed, you know, in the middle of that terrace, we're at 0.1

[2:06:55] and really important when we're at, when we get to that setback line, we're at At

[2:07:01] a 10 of a foot candle. So we're meeting that. You know, we're not getting a lot of

[2:07:07] light lead, but we're getting some good safe path lighting around that.

[2:07:19] And then I guess um We should look at 7 since that was specified, but I think we

[2:07:25] have other outdoor living areas where we need approval, but 7 was specified, um.

[2:07:31] We just have the interior step lights um for the sort of outdoor living space and

[2:07:37] path to the hot tub and then um the ones on the Um, top part are, uh, the XM

[2:07:45] that are going in a metal railing as I showed on the elevation and then the other

[2:07:49] ones are on the stone.

[2:07:52] And I think

[2:08:00] I mean this is kind of uh more of the same we're using those side mounted um step

[2:08:05] lights at the stone and we are getting zeros outside of all those decks. Mhm. Except

[2:08:13] for at 8, we have metal walls and those are the XM.

[2:08:18] Um

[2:08:22] So. It's just the upper level, same thing, it's already been repeated, so we're glad

[2:08:26] to answer any questions you might have at this time. Thank you.

[2:08:43] Any questions to the app? Yeah, that's what they just said. I had a I

[2:08:51] have a question to be asking.

[2:08:55] Uh, all of the live pictures, you're showing. Will they always be on at the same

[2:09:03] time, all of them? Or is it variable? Yeah, a lot of what you saw will be controlled

[2:09:11] inside each unit. Um, so in other words, if some units were empty, some

[2:09:19] of that light would not be on. Is that what? OK, yeah, OK, thank you.

[2:09:26] Um, Katie, I appreciate you taking the time to go over that pretty thoroughly. Um,

[2:09:31] looking at the, I think when I fall back and I look at our regulations, it talks

[2:09:35] about two-foot candles as a threshold, maximum average threshold on On an entry and

[2:09:41] stairway. Um, and I appreciate you providing that clarification where the isoput

[2:09:48] candle, uh, red circle represents a two-foot. Uh, we got a lot of those overlapping

[2:09:54] and it seems like we got some elevated levels at Uh, particularly, uh, 7 where we

[2:10:01] get some higher point, point, uh, calcs at 1513, 12. I mean, 7 seems

[2:10:09] like it's gonna be fairly bright with those 4, Or luminaires um up

[2:10:16] there. And I think by, you know, by and large, We do get a fair overlap on your 2-foot

[2:10:23] ISO on both, all 4 of the units. I'm just wondering if there's a, a strategy that

[2:10:29] can bring it.

[2:10:35] Yeah, we could. I mean, I did look at using 3 recess camps, for example, at that

[2:10:40] entryway, um. It was a little low, but I mean, and, and like I said, it had an

[2:10:48] entryway where we wanted to like sort of Show people where the entryways were, we're

[2:10:55] going for like 1510 to 15 ft candles. I think on your, on the pathway lighting, which

[2:11:01] was more for like um Like a landscape kind of pathway. I think you guys said

[2:11:09] average no more than 2 ft candles. But that, I feel like an entryway might not be

[2:11:18] Under the pathway, but, uh, but I guess that's a question.

[2:11:25] And they actually say exterior door shall be eliminated out of back. A minimum, well,

[2:11:30] minimum 1 ft candle. Um, OK. Um, that's all I have.

[2:11:38] Other questions do we have?

[2:11:42] Jim, Ellen, all good.

[2:11:48] Have you guys sprayed the thistle yet? It's come up. We haven't, but the neighbors

[2:11:54] have requested it multiple times. And speaking of which, Uh, you know, you have to

[2:12:01] have a special application to more than the 30%. Slope disruption, but this was man-made.

[2:12:08] This was man-made. Can you give us a little history of how that got man-made?

[2:12:15] Yeah, I, I wasn't here, but elaborate, please. Yeah, it was, it's, I mean, we're

[2:12:22] associating it with the road grading cause it's on that side.

[2:12:27] Going lower down to the cul-de-sac. So that's, you know, I wasn't here either, but,

[2:12:32] you know, when you see those kind of cuts in the village, it's mostly attributable

[2:12:35] to the roadway. Thanks.

[2:12:39] Uh, were there any other questions for the? Uh, if not, I'll close this section.

[2:12:46] Uh, we did definitely receive some public comment. Uh, a couple of those questions

[2:12:49] have been addressed. Uh, I'm assuming you've seen those. Comments

[2:12:58] We saw what was submitted at initial, but I haven't seen anything for final. OK.

[2:13:03] I won't ask you to rebut then. We rebutted at the initial review meeting um on those

[2:13:08] comments so.

[2:13:11] Uh, with that, let's move on to board discussion.

[2:13:19] I'll be happy to start. I think, uh, I think they've done an amazing job of marrying.

[2:13:25] Uh, architecture that bridges both the, some of the existing palette as well as,

[2:13:32] uh, introducing some new forms. So, pretty excited about what they're doing here.

[2:13:37] Um, The only, the only thing I was really focusing on. Uh, looking at that,

[2:13:46] what, what are we gonna see from afar? And that entrance to 7 is kind of the, the

[2:13:51] one piece that seems to be exposed when you look, when you're looking up into there,

[2:13:57] and I'm just wondering if we focus a little bit on that, but I thought the light

[2:14:00] levels in all the other areas were really soft and subdued, even those public outdoor

[2:14:05] areas. And so, I thought she did, they did an amazing job and very Good use of the

[2:14:11] site. So I'd love to see this thing move forward and maybe they can just take a second

[2:14:16] look at the.

[2:14:20] Bright spot. I agree with that. I like how they. Take the materials, the original

[2:14:27] lodge, modified them some, and I actually think the architectural forms actually

[2:14:33] helped transition. The entry to Pennington Boulevard, and we have some pretty contemporary

[2:14:40] houses at the entrance, and this helps, I think, blend things together nicely, so.

[2:14:46] I like it.

[2:14:49] I like your point of blending. I think it, it, it fits nicely into the neighborhood

[2:14:54] and it softens some of the other houses that are around. And I think, I think the

[2:15:00] design, I like the design. I'm a little concerned about the number of lights. We've

[2:15:04] got 77 for 4 units where we just approved 26 for 15 units. So even though there's

[2:15:11] outdoor kitchens, I think we could maybe, well, they're not gonna turn them on all

[2:15:15] the time either, but I'd like to see them softened. That that's less than 20 lights

[2:15:20] per unit. Come on.

[2:15:24] That I, I share with you on that. I, I took a hard look at that. And it's It's amazing

[2:15:30] how low the the level of light is for the amount of fixtures that they put there.

[2:15:36] So it's gonna be very even keel and kind of the outer like band of that even better

[2:15:42] it's not even gonna be that glowing. So yeah, I agree with Liz. Uh, I was concerned

[2:15:47] and that's why I asked about. With all the lights be on at the same time, which that

[2:15:53] seemed a bit overpowering, but they won't all be on, but they're reasonably at a

[2:16:00] low level, so it won't look like something large lit up. I like the structure.

[2:16:08] I liked it the first time I saw it. I think it's well done. I think care has been

[2:16:14] given to try to look at the lighting and not have it feel too overwhelming. And so

[2:16:21] I appreciate that. Thanks.

[2:16:27] Dan, Ellen, could you put the people back on the screen, please?

[2:16:32] Sorry, what do you wanna see? Our our members, oh, that would be here we go.

[2:16:41] Uh, any comments? And emotions. Um, I would, I would, I have one comment.

[2:16:49] First of all, beautiful design, Shane. Thank you. We miss you on the board. And um

[2:16:55] Unless we've changed our requirements, I, I heard them mention that the Address monument

[2:17:01] was cut out and lit from behind and We still do not allow that. Is that correct,

[2:17:08] or have we changed that in the new lighting?

[2:17:13] Anybody? Katie, is that detail that the LED is down, down or is it behind? Yeah,

[2:17:21] so it's downlit, not backlit, Ellen. OK, great. All right, I thought she said backlit.

[2:17:27] All right, so that, yeah, that's all I have. Oh, wait, one other thing, I, I know

[2:17:32] that everybody who lives on that street is In construction for so many years. I don't

[2:17:40] know if there's any way to try to expedite this building, but if the contractor could

[2:17:47] have a fire lit under him, that would be great.

[2:17:54] Um, thank you, Shane and team. Um, great design. I really like it. Um, love the materials.

[2:18:02] Uh, the biggest concern I have is lighting. Um, number one, number of fixtures, even

[2:18:09] on the inside of the, uh, patios and decks, but especially in the LCE, uh, deck area

[2:18:16] which is And walks out to it, um, and then the deck on 6, or sorry,

[2:18:24] unit 7, and the entry on unit 7, especially because of the uh How visible it

[2:18:31] is from the um from Pennington Place Drive. Um, I think that one could be reduced

[2:18:37] to 3 easily and still have good lighting at the entrance. Otherwise, I think it's

[2:18:43] good. Thank you. That's on unit 7.

[2:18:48] Unit 7, is that? Yeah, OK.

[2:18:59] Anybody else? I'd like to make a motion.

[2:19:06] You guys are tough today.

[2:19:14] Great, thank you.

[2:19:19] I move to approve the final architecture review for multi-family development located

[2:19:26] at lot 726R-1. Uh, TBD Pennington Place

[2:19:33] based on the evidence provided within the staff report of record dated September

[2:19:39] 21, 2026 with the following specific approvals as listed, uh,

[2:19:47] the secondary curb cut and the lighting associated with outdoor living spaces and

[2:19:55] with the following conditions. 1 through 6.

[2:20:05] Great. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second, uh, any discussion, any changes,

[2:20:12] any, can I ask for the, um, outdoor lighting to, for unit 7 entry to be

[2:20:20] reduced to 3? Um, fixtures and the LCE terrace to be reduced to

[2:20:28] 7 fixtures

[2:20:33] We all have to agree to that. Well, I can, OK, OK, and amending the

[2:20:41] motion, uh, as Scott has suggested. OK, and I'll second that. Any further

[2:20:49] discussion about this.

[2:20:52] No. Great. I'll ask your vote. All in favor. All right, bye. Both of our voters

[2:21:00] online have assented as well. Much appreciated. Thank you guys. Thank you all. Great

[2:21:05] looking, great looking project. Thank you.

[2:21:17] OK, before lunch, our next Mhm What's that?

[2:21:25] Quick break. 2 minute break. OK. You better run No.

[2:21:34] Nothing like a little.

[2:21:40] Such a big deal. We're gonna start the stopwatch for you. I will be.

[2:22:16] And I'd like to next agenda item. This is a review and recommendation to town council

[2:22:22] regarding the renewal of a conditional use permit for the Walk of Joy food trailer

[2:22:28] on Lot OS-3-XRR-1 Conference Center Plaza. This is

[2:22:35] pursuant to CDC Section 17.4.14. Uh, does anybody have any conflict of interest or

[2:22:42] ex parte discussions? If not, let's proceed.

[2:22:54] Thank you, Chair. I'm gonna go ahead and present this one as well on behalf of Elise

[2:22:57] who's out, but she did present, prepare the memo and presentation. So, this is a

[2:23:02] conditional use permit uh renewal for lot OS 3XRR-1 Conference Center Plaza

[2:23:09] for the Walk of Joy Food Truck. Um, the applicant is Jason Smith of the Walk of Joy.

[2:23:16] I think everybody's familiar with the location here in the Village Center. Um, it's

[2:23:20] it's on Village Center open space. Um, it's a food truck which is already existing.

[2:23:26] This would just be a renewal of the existing conditional use permit. Um, and it's

[2:23:30] in the conference Center Plaza, adjacent to the Pond Plaza, adjacent to the conference

[2:23:34] Center, etc. Um, the location would remain the same, uh, over by

[2:23:41] Communion Wine Bar with the option of moving it for special events, um, kind of in

[2:23:48] the center of the conference center plaza.

[2:23:52] Again, I think everybody's familiar with the Walk of Joy. It's been there for, I

[2:23:57] guess, 3 years now and um it's successful once it continues, so it would be the same

[2:24:04] setup. The only change is that uh staff is asking for a condition of approval to

[2:24:09] install skirting around the base of the trailer to cover uh any visual impact of

[2:24:16] storage underneath. That was a request from Uh, town staff just to clean up the area,

[2:24:21] make it look a little um neater. And I believe the applicant is fine with this.

[2:24:30] Um Yeah, not much to it. So, with that, um, we recommend approval for, uh, we recommend

[2:24:36] that the uh DRB recommend to town council the approval of the conditional use permit

[2:24:41] renewal for food truck, uh, on MOTOS 3XRR1, um, for 3 years expiring upon the

[2:24:49] seasonal closure date of the gondola in fall 2029. That was specifically requested

[2:24:54] by The applicant and the um I think it was Malian economic development so that they're

[2:25:02] not coming in the middle of the season like they are now um based on the staff report

[2:25:07] and with the following conditions and with with conditions, um, there's a few new

[2:25:13] ones in here. Um, so, scheduling a building permit for all of the electrical, installing

[2:25:20] the skirting which I discussed, um, compliance with fire code, renewal of the plaza

[2:25:25] license which would be required regardless. Um, the other thing I want to point out

[2:25:30] is, uh, future, uh, reapplications will be renewed at a staff level. Um, that's something

[2:25:36] that, uh, we're introducing for this application just because, um, you know, after

[2:25:41] two approvals of the condition use permit, assuming they want to come back in 2029,

[2:25:46] we feel confident that staff can approve this. However, if there are new issues,

[2:25:52] staff can always elevate it to DRB or be requested to elevate it by town council

[2:25:56] or whomever, um, who has the jurisdiction to elevate that to, um, to review by DRB

[2:26:02] and town council. Um, so with that, I'll take any questions. Thanks, Daniel. Questions.

[2:26:13] If not, we will ask the applicant to make any presentation he'd like.

[2:26:22] I think Daniel summed it up pretty well. Um, we wanna continue. As it is For at least

[2:26:30] another 3 years. Um, yeah, it's been successful and the locals and tourists seem

[2:26:37] to enjoy it, so I think it fulfills a role. Great, thank you. Uh, board, any question

[2:26:43] for the applicant?

[2:26:47] Nada, we don't have any public comment in our packets. Nobody online Great. I will,

[2:26:54] uh, That's for emotion.

[2:27:01] You want any, do you want any board deliberation or thoughts? Mr. Chairman, oh yeah,

[2:27:08] I'm sorry.

[2:27:11] Yeah, thoughts. I, I can tell you it's some of the best food in the Mountain Village

[2:27:16] core and it's a critical, critical, it plays a critical role, uh, when we don't have

[2:27:21] a lot of restaurant choices. So, um, so I think it's like a, a staple. I mean, I

[2:27:27] will make a motion, um, I move to recommend approval to town council for the. Conditional

[2:27:32] use permit renewal for a food truck at Lot OS 3XRR-1 owned by the town of Mountain

[2:27:40] Village for a period of 3 years expiring upon the seasonal closure date of the gondola

[2:27:45] in fall 2029 based on the evidence provided within the staff report of record dated

[2:27:51] September 9, 2026 with the following conditions 1 through 5. 2nd, we have a second.

[2:27:59] Any further discussion? Um, yes, a couple of thoughts. One, I want to go back to

[2:28:07] something Toby said back in the August discussion when this issue came up of Telsky

[2:28:12] wanting to use, wanting to put some administrative offices in some of the buildings,

[2:28:17] and Toby made the very strong point, Wait a minute, we want to be using these buildings.

[2:28:21] So when I first listened to the, uh, when I first reviewed this, I thought, why should

[2:28:25] we allow a food truck? Why don't we have the Activity inside one of the buildings.

[2:28:31] Well, now I understand, uh, there's some personal issues, there's some economic issues,

[2:28:37] so I absolutely support a 3 year extension at the same time I have two qualifications.

[2:28:43] Qualification number 1, I think at the end of 3 years, let's hope the Four Seasons

[2:28:48] development is functional. And we should have a broader review of that conference

[2:28:54] center area, which to me is still a dead area and it and it really could be upgraded.

[2:29:00] 0.1. 0.2 I don't agree with the idea of putting skirting around what's clearly

[2:29:08] a, a trailer. I mean, so why are we forcing them to do that now if we want to say.

[2:29:14] Please don't have any trash, immediately obvious. That's another thing, but it just

[2:29:19] seems to me you're putting lipstick on a pig to say, we want skirting on the thing.

[2:29:24] So those are my two comments. Thank you.

[2:29:28] And I would uh differ on both points. I think the skirting actually is good and it's

[2:29:32] uh nice for the community not to see what's under the trailer and I think it brings

[2:29:39] so much vitality being outside, not in some hole in some building that has been really,

[2:29:46] really important to the community. Uh, to have things going on outside that you can

[2:29:52] see and interact with. I, I think I appreciate Jim's forceful, um, opinion issue.

[2:30:01] I would counter with it's, um, I know that they have an incredibly constrained operating

[2:30:06] space and so storing some stuff under their trailer is really, you know, that's their

[2:30:11] storage area and I do think it's probably better to see the the uniform skirting

[2:30:17] than, you know. Detris and junk underneath the trailer. So unless it's a real burden

[2:30:23] to the applicant, I think we should just go for it. Does anybody want to like specify

[2:30:28] what color it is? Like it should be reggae colors or just black or?

[2:30:38] Owner's discretion. OK. Uh, any other comments? Conditions changes. If not, I'll

[2:30:46] ask for a vote. All in favor. A pose Great motion carries. Thank you. Good luck.

[2:30:54] Thanks for being there. You didn't get Ellen in, no. I did. Yeah, but I acknowledged

[2:31:00] video wise. Yeah

[2:31:06] So we can follow. OK. Uh, our next agenda item is lunch. So Ellen and Jim.

[2:31:18] Right.

[2:31:24] Again, again.

[2:31:28] Um

[2:31:31] And I encourage you to just go to that recording that you can capture and listen

[2:31:36] to one of our meetings one time at a vote to see that to see why some of the work.

[2:31:44] Yeah. We all think we're gonna be doing Yeah

[2:31:53] OK, ready? Are we gonna keep going? Yeah, so, so, um, Soren is coming back with lunch.

[2:32:01] But she's also presenting the next case, so why don't we just, can we, I think she

[2:32:05] should be here soon. She said she was on her way 15 minutes ago, so it's should only

[2:32:10] take 15 minutes even from town. Um, what do you think? Take a break for lunch. Yeah,

[2:32:16] let's take a break for lunch. Hopefully she's here in a few minutes and then we'll

[2:32:19] do lunch and she's presenting the next case. Or do we wanna go to the uh Um

[2:32:28] Announcements and um oh yeah GRB schedule.

[2:32:35] We don't have food yet. Give you guys.

[2:32:40] We can do that.

[2:32:44] Let me just pull it up. Sorry, I wasn't prepared.

[2:32:54] I'm not even in the zoom, am I?

[2:32:57] I was gonna do all this at lunch, you guys.

[2:33:05] I've gotten a, you know, I have all these amazing planners to do all the presentations

[2:33:08] and I've gotten a little lazy, um.

[2:33:14] Wait, before you start. Then we go to item number 10. And I would make a motion to

[2:33:22] continue this, uh, that final architectural review for, uh, single-family home at

[2:33:28] Lot 224B TBD Snowdrift. Swift Lane to the December 3,

[2:33:35] 2026 DOV meeting. A second.

[2:33:41] The spot in the December. Yep. Yes, we do. OK. We have the motion we have to

[2:33:49] second any further discussion. Um, and I'll just mention also on that I believe because

[2:33:54] that case has been around for a while, they actually have to have a decision by December

[2:33:59] in order to meet their, um, the code requirement that it's approved within a year

[2:34:03] or not approved, but, uh, um, there's a decision within a year. Is that our issue?

[2:34:09] It's, I'm just saying that there's, there's really no choice if in terms of when

[2:34:13] it can go. OK, so they will be, they will be here on that agenda today. All right,

[2:34:19] I wave motion. All in favor. Aye, aye, aye, can I see the people online, please?

[2:34:28] Online folks, can you please say affirmatively thumbs up and Ellen thumbs up not

[2:34:33] just because we don't always see you. Please don't interrupt. Yes, sorry.

[2:34:39] Yes, we, I affirm it. I support it. Thank you guys

[2:34:47] The number 11

[2:34:54] So, that one is actually being requested to be tabled. Um, because it's several months

[2:35:00] in the future, uh, we felt that a continuance wasn't, uh, maybe the best choice here

[2:35:06] and we, they would actually table it and re-notice. Because, um, again, because it's

[2:35:12] so far in the future. Would you differentiate tabling versus continuing? Of course,

[2:35:17] um, so, uh, continuing is, uh, the, the main difference is for tabling you have to

[2:35:22] re-notice. So a continuance is just saying, um, this notice applies to whatever feature.

[2:35:29] Uh, version of, of feature hearing of that item, uh, versus the tabling is, uh, they,

[2:35:36] they would have to re-notice, so it's kind of like putting it away, taking. OK, great,

[2:35:40] thank you for that. OK, uh, need a motion on that? I'd like to make a motion to for.

[2:35:48] The single-family home on lot 1171R. Uh, TBD San Joaquin Road are sent to

[2:35:56] CDC section 174.11 that this is, uh, tabled.

[2:36:04] To the February 4th, 2027 design review board meeting. Great, thank you. This is

[2:36:10] her second. I'll, I'll 2nd. We're with a 2nd. Any further discussion? Uh, if not,

[2:36:18] I'll also vote. All in favor.

[2:36:22] Let me acknowledge that Ellen Kramer and Jim Osniff both voted online in the

[2:36:29] affirmative.

[2:36:33] Now we can do the lighting All right, are you guys ready? Ready.

[2:37:00] Why isn't it letting me click share?

[2:37:13] OK. OK. So, um, I just wanted to kind of do a broad overview of the code, the,

[2:37:21] the final lighting code as adopted. Um, You know, we obviously worked on it for a

[2:37:28] really long time and I appreciate all of your diligence on that work. And, um, I

[2:37:34] also understand the position of council where they were hearing from residents that

[2:37:38] they felt like the code as, you know, as recommended by the design review board was

[2:37:44] Going to be a burden on our applicants and so I just wanted to kind of go through,

[2:37:49] you know, some wins that we had with this code and then some some other things that

[2:37:53] you know that may have changed um and and not have come through the way DRB originally

[2:38:00] intended for it to um. I'm happy to go through certain sections of the code if you

[2:38:07] know if you guys have questions on that or we can schedule another work session to

[2:38:10] do so but um overall I do think that for new construction this code really represents

[2:38:17] a a big step forward for the town we've cleaned up a lot of things um we've, you

[2:38:22] know, brought lighting down levels we've put some sort of restrictions on that soffit

[2:38:26] lighting, etc. um, the changes that the council made generally related to. The compliance

[2:38:33] on existing structures um and so I'll just kind of run through but basically for

[2:38:40] you know for new construction we've cleaned up you know the definition of architectural

[2:38:44] lighting um a definition of outdoor living spaces and the the very specific requirement

[2:38:50] that DRB review those outdoor light living spaces um we did this is a little different

[2:38:56] from the way it went through um DRB but we did allow for. Motion activated lighting

[2:39:03] in um primary entrance pathways and primary entrances and previously the code was

[2:39:09] silent so I still consider this a win. I think it's a safety issue. People can have

[2:39:13] a light to their front door, but they can't have motion activated lighting all around

[2:39:17] their property, um. Um, clarity, you know, just sort of clarity on the prohibition

[2:39:23] and the definition of landscape lighting, um, that uplighting in trees, the, um,

[2:39:30] Prohibition of the illumination of glass. Balustrades which again the code previously

[2:39:34] was silent on but we have prohibited in in a number of cases um so now we have that

[2:39:39] in in writing um and then this is this is a big one and this is the one that we are

[2:39:45] focusing on right now which is the seasonal lighting restrictions so um so this is

[2:39:50] a huge change in our code. And just to let the board know, you know, I'm not, I'm

[2:39:56] not asking staff to go out there and do a huge compliance on this right now. I think

[2:40:01] we need to do a lot of education with our community around this. Um, we're starting,

[2:40:06] we're gonna send, uh, you know, we're starting with newsletters, flyers, etc. and

[2:40:10] then come spring, you know, come, you know, February, March, um, when people still

[2:40:16] have their seasonal lighting up is when we're gonna start kind of lightly doing some

[2:40:20] compliance work on that. Um, but that feels like a big win to me. I think that the

[2:40:24] timers from 10:00 p.m. to 6 a.m. is just gonna be unbelievably, um, obvious and,

[2:40:30] and different from the way that we've traditionally lit. Um, just as a reminder,

[2:40:35] the seasonal lighting does not apply to the town installed lighting on our road right

[2:40:39] of ways and in our plazas, and partially that's because we don't have a comprehensive

[2:40:45] lighting plan outside of that. So if we removed that, there would be some safety

[2:40:49] issues in terms of. Uh, finding street lights, you know, etc. So, um, you know, when

[2:40:55] we have talked about doing upgrades to the town of Mountain Village entrance and

[2:41:01] those kinds of things, we will make sure that lighting is part of that discussion,

[2:41:04] but for now, it does feel important to me that we keep that lighting scenario. Um.

[2:41:10] We added a table which kind of is a nice resource for our applicants to find, uh,

[2:41:16] you know, one stop shop at different fixture types and the a level the um. The various

[2:41:21] limits on those, um, we have prohibited dimming control as a means to control lumen

[2:41:27] output. Obviously this is just a new construction. There are gonna be a number of

[2:41:31] old, you know, uh, previous installations of those prior to when it was easy to find

[2:41:38] those fixtures that met our lumen capacities, um, but those ultimately as they get

[2:41:42] replaced would have to come into compliance with the new code, um. We did clarify

[2:41:48] in the old code, the uh parking area lighting was only discussed as it related to

[2:41:54] parking garages, which doesn't make sense. So we did actually add some language in

[2:41:58] there that does require some level of parking area lighting on multi-family um parking

[2:42:04] surface parking lots. Um, uh, allows wall-mounted fixtures above the garage in

[2:42:12] a little greater height than the previous allowed 7 ft. Um, and this is just, you

[2:42:16] know, used primarily in cases where it's, there is not a great location for, uh,

[2:42:21] wall-mounted sconce next to a garage, and if you can put it over the garage door,

[2:42:26] in some cases, that's a more elegant solution. Um. The soffit lighting, the restriction,

[2:42:32] I think when we left from DRB it might have been at that 10 ft level and based on

[2:42:38] some comments from lighting designers as well as kind of the um The desire of town

[2:42:44] council, we did up that limit a little bit to 12 ft. Um, it better defines what a

[2:42:50] qualified lighting designer is. Um, we had just clarifying that we need that, uh,

[2:42:56] the submittal of full size specification sheets for fixtures so we can, so we don't

[2:43:01] have to continually go back to applicants and ask for that. Um, we've got some other

[2:43:06] clarifications regarding the submittal requirements and, um, and I think another

[2:43:11] really big win here is to show fixtures on those exterior elevations. It was interesting

[2:43:16] the. Presentation that we just saw Katie actually, you know, she wasn't a um a picture

[2:43:21] of the fixture itself which doesn't need to be, but I think for the board to be able

[2:43:24] to to understand in an elevation view where fixtures are located and she went above

[2:43:30] and beyond because she showed the interior fixtures on those decks. So, um, that

[2:43:35] was a great, you know, sort of exercise in getting ahead of the code there, um. The,

[2:43:42] the, uh, let's see where are we at, um, AGI studies, so we're, we're gonna be requiring

[2:43:47] AGI studies for projects anything that has 25 or more fixtures, anything that exceeds

[2:43:53] 5000 square feet, and any commercial application. Lighting is gonna require that

[2:43:57] AGI study. There is kind of a carve out there obviously that um that I can make a

[2:44:03] decision that that AGI study isn't required. Let's say a commercial project is just,

[2:44:07] you know, replacing a fixture or two. We're not gonna require an AGI study on that,

[2:44:12] um. And then this is something that we had missed actually when it went through the

[2:44:17] DRB but uh realized that it wasn't clear that someone might be able to make a case

[2:44:22] that because they had the lights in the trees before this ordinance went into effect

[2:44:26] that they didn't have to come into compliance for 5 years so we added a section around

[2:44:30] that um. I was, I, I, I've, I've been through so many arguments with, with, with,

[2:44:37] um, some owners around, you know, gray area that I started to get really clear on

[2:44:42] some things, um, and then we did make some informed edits, uh, some of those were

[2:44:47] just sort of cleaning up language because in my mind the language made perfect sense,

[2:44:52] but maybe to some of our lighting designers, Katie being an example, um, she said,

[2:44:56] I don't know, you know, I don't exactly understand what this means, so we just made

[2:44:59] some sort of clerical and it's there, um. But then we did go ahead and we did increase

[2:45:04] the lumen allowed on that uh lighting fixture with the glass element below a 90 degree

[2:45:10] and um I can explain that a little bit. So Katie sent me a whole book full of, of

[2:45:16] lighting um fixtures that are typical that, you know, that. You know, from typical

[2:45:21] companies, etc. and they were just above that 350 lumen mark and so since we're already

[2:45:27] restricting it just to the primary entrance, um, it felt like that was a reasonable

[2:45:32] give on that fixture so that did get bumped up, um. And We cleaned up the language

[2:45:38] again around the height above grade and then this was an additional edit about surface

[2:45:44] mounted step lights um for new construction requires specific approval and for existing

[2:45:50] contract construction are approvable by staff and so the the reason for this is that

[2:45:56] I. I think the intent with these, you know, kind of step lights is in, in a lot of

[2:46:01] cases we would prefer that recessed, um, fixture and, and or not, but there's, there's

[2:46:08] some really bad surface mounted fixtures out there, so I shouldn't say bad, maybe

[2:46:12] not, not aesthetically pleasing. So, so, um, I wanted to

[2:46:20] basically say that, hey, if we're looking at a surface-mounted fixture, let's make

[2:46:24] sure that the board takes a good look at it and it's, and it's a decent fixture and

[2:46:28] it's high quality. Um, in a, in a, um, compliance issue where we're retrofitting,

[2:46:34] it's a little more difficult to, you know, to, to replace fixtures. If they're interior

[2:46:42] mounted, etc. when you're, you know, a 20 year old project and the wiring's gone

[2:46:47] bad, etc. it might be a case where we want to look at an exterior mounted fixture

[2:46:51] and giving staff the authority to do so, um. So then there was some compromise at

[2:46:57] the very last hearing where, um, you know, the, the biggest Issues seem to

[2:47:05] be the financial burden on homeowners who have extensive soffit lighting and

[2:47:12] extensive wall-mounted fixtures that would need to be replaced and so the council

[2:47:18] did um want to exclude existing recess soffit lighting where it was

[2:47:26] under a deck or under a roof, um. And then the wall mounted fixtures,

[2:47:34] they did not want those to have to be replaced if they were under 850 lumens, and

[2:47:40] if they did not, um,

[2:47:44] It might, I, I have to check the language on that. It might have been if it's under

[2:47:47] 850 women and doesn't cross the property boundaries. Um, and then I just wanted to

[2:47:53] review a little bit because I can't remember if this was in your version or not.

[2:47:59] Uh, maybe someone can correct me. We, did we have the lighting, the lighting variants

[2:48:04] as part of it when you, when you all reviewed it?

[2:48:09] So, I think we did, I think we did at the end because I think it was a requirement

[2:48:12] of the town attorney, um, but that also got tweaked a little bit as well where, um,

[2:48:20] the, the council did not want, you know, 20 applications a year to come to

[2:48:28] council for lighting variants. They wanted to give the ability for staff to approve

[2:48:32] some of these lighting variances at a staff level. Um, I had suggested. 3 fixtures

[2:48:37] or less they bumped it up to 10 so that's the way it is now and I guess there is

[2:48:43] an out on staff and that if we can't determine that the following criteria has been

[2:48:48] met we can then elevate it but at least it gives us an opportunity to work with the

[2:48:53] homeowner and we will, we will work with them we're not gonna just. Give blanket

[2:48:58] variances. Did you try to the best of your ability to meet this code? You know, here

[2:49:03] are some solutions. What, you know, can you do this? Can you do this? Can you do

[2:49:06] this? Can you do this? When we get to a point where they say we can't do anymore

[2:49:10] and there's still existing pictures that aren't in compliance, then we decide whether

[2:49:14] we're comfortable approving that at a staff level or if we're gonna bump it up to

[2:49:16] town council. So With that, any questions?

[2:49:38] That it's already in the table. It's, yeah, it, it's, yup.

[2:50:02] Uh, it's flipping me right now. Amy, I, I know you're gonna, you're going slow on

[2:50:07] the seasonal, um, like draconian enforcement, but are you gonna notify people like

[2:50:12] in the Mountain Village Newsletter or something like that, hey, heads up this winter?

[2:50:16] Yeah, so we have a mailer coming out hopefully in the next week or two as people

[2:50:20] are putting their seasonal lighting in with a really heavy recommendation to obviously

[2:50:24] put those also on a timer so that they don't have to manually turn them off every

[2:50:28] night. Um, and then it'll be going out, it's going out as a press release. We'll

[2:50:32] be putting it in the newsletter. We'll be kind of continuing. We'll do another batch

[2:50:37] of that as we get close to the end of the, um, seasonal period as well. Kevin, you

[2:50:42] actually hit on what I was thinking about. Uh, I've had clients that put them onto

[2:50:46] their lighting control system. And it's on complete cruise control. So I think the

[2:50:52] earlier we can communicate that because uh on those old like touch and neutron systems

[2:50:57] and some of those, um, not only do you have a clock function, you also have a calendar

[2:51:03] function. If they engage their lighting programmers early enough, so they can get

[2:51:08] that criteria built in. Great. Just one other comment, um. You know, the, the, the

[2:51:16] existing folks with older homes and a lot of non-compliant lights and things like

[2:51:21] that, a way and you're trying to be, you know, navigate that, that, you know, that

[2:51:26] whole experience for them. You could have it though where you're accommodating but

[2:51:32] upon the sale of the property, um, it, it needs to be rectified and you, you know.

[2:51:38] There's, you can use a device, you know, like an escrow or something like that from

[2:51:42] a sale that's where it, it happens, you know, subject to the sale of the property

[2:51:48] because that's when, you know, a lot of money is exchanging hands and people feel

[2:51:52] a little more flush on their way out. So something to think about. Yeah, I mean that's

[2:51:56] something that we could certainly bring forward as a further amendment. It was not,

[2:52:00] um, we were sort of, it was, it was, this was, this was an attempt to get something

[2:52:06] passed versus nothing. Um, and yeah, there can, obviously the code is, is elastic

[2:52:12] and can always be looked at further, you know, down the road when, when maybe people

[2:52:17] see how impactful the current version is. I mean I would say that, you know, there

[2:52:22] are some things within the compliance. That still are gonna be really great so you

[2:52:27] know for example in 5 years there's a number of folks that have um you know their

[2:52:34] driveways lit up like it's the airport kind of a thing and those those will have

[2:52:38] to be turned off so I know it's hard to wait 5 years but.

[2:52:45] When is, I, I was just actually downloading the CDC off the website just to see if

[2:52:50] it was there. Yep, so it's not there. It's, you have to, um, it's, it's was it linked

[2:52:56] in my memo? I can send it to all of you. It's separately on the website. It's not

[2:53:00] within the. The uh code consulting version, the online version, it takes them a while

[2:53:05] to get through it. So we have it on the website, but it's not um correct in the,

[2:53:10] in the full CDC. It's on the planning page under lighting regulation. So also all

[2:53:18] the adopted ordinances are in the uh archive center of the website and that's where

[2:53:22] you can find it. But they, they do eventually meld them into this, the total. Yeah,

[2:53:26] it just takes a little bit of time. Uh, just thinking for applicants that benefit,

[2:53:32] yeah.

[2:53:36] Any other questions? No, but I will say that that. In so many ways makes things easier

[2:53:41] for us. It really does. Yeah, I feel a little terrifying.

[2:53:49] Yeah, I'm sure we'll clean it up again, but it was a, it was a good, it was a good

[2:53:52] effort. OK, um, let's take a break. Everybody can get their lunch and if the next

[2:53:59] applicant's comfortable with us eating during their. Great, thanks, thanks. I have

[2:54:06] a question. I have a question. Amy, two things. One, with the seasonal lighting,

[2:54:13] I see it says that there's an additional 2-week period. What does that mean? Um,

[2:54:20] for the sake of equity because not everybody celebrates, you know, the typical winter

[2:54:25] holidays, and there are, there were folks on council that felt strongly that we needed

[2:54:29] to. Include other holidays that fell outside of that zone. You can put up holiday

[2:54:34] lights for two weeks. You can for.

[2:54:40] I, I mean, I'm not gonna ask you what your holiday is.

[2:54:44] So like if you wanted to put up red, white, and blue lights for 4th of July, you

[2:54:47] could do it for 2 weeks. Correct. If you want to hang up Halloween lights, you can

[2:54:51] do it for 2 weeks. OK, yeah. OK. And then the other question is, because I am

[2:54:59] visual, uh, I'm not sure that I quite understand the glass element of a sconce below

[2:55:05] 90 degree cutoff. Do you have a picture of what that means? I have provided it in

[2:55:10] the past. I don't, um, I can send you one, Ellen, but it's that decorative sconce

[2:55:16] where the bulb is up inside the casing. But the glass projects and what happens is,

[2:55:21] is the bulb illuminates the glass itself as if it is a bulb, right? So it's that,

[2:55:28] um, I, I'll send you an example after the meeting. We, we, I did have it when we

[2:55:33] were originally going through those lighting changes. I don't have it prepared today.

[2:55:37] So those are allowed or they're not allowed. They are allowed at a primary entrance

[2:55:43] only. Um, and that needs to be 450 lumens or below. And again, that's if the the

[2:55:50] actual bulb, you can't see it. You can't see the bulb, you can only see the glass,

[2:55:55] but the glass does illuminate a little bit. It has a glow to it. But if you can see

[2:56:00] the bulb, you can't have that at all. Exactly. OK, so we'll make an exception for

[2:56:06] when you can't see the bulb even though the glass is being. Lanterned on, right.

[2:56:13] OK. Yeah, because in the past we've, you know, we've sort of, we have a working interpretation

[2:56:18] that those were, you know, not full cutoff. When you look at Dark Sky International,

[2:56:24] etc. they will call that fixture dark, you know, dark sky cutoff. What we didn't

[2:56:29] want to see is I didn't want to see those all the way around the building because

[2:56:31] it will look just like light bulbs from far away. Um, but it does make sense. People

[2:56:37] love those fixtures at a primary entrance, and it sort of, you know, brings people

[2:56:41] to the primary entrance of a property, so. And historically, thank you. We had those

[2:56:47] with opaque and a 40 watt bulb. Yeah.

[2:56:53] All right, all good.

[2:56:57] If so, we, we will break for lunch and then reconvene in 5 minutes for our next agenda

[2:57:02] item.

[2:57:13] Pursuant to the DC section. Excuse me. 173 14. May I ask,

[2:57:21] is there any conflict of interest or ex parte discussion? Uh, Mr. Chair, I have a

[2:57:26] conflict of interest as a partner in Proset construction and But it's uh presenting

[2:57:34] here, so.

[2:57:37] Great. Thank you so much for that. Well we can move on with The

[2:57:46] Yeah, thank you, Chair Bing Chair Brown. Um, I'm going to be presenting on a specific

[2:57:52] approval for General Easeman encroachments at Lot 220B, 113 Palmyra Drive.

[2:57:59] Yes. 00, sorry. Here, I'll go back. That was my, my first slide. Um, right, this

[2:58:06] application is from Ben Elliott of Proset Construction, um, and the owner of the

[2:58:11] property is 113 Palmyra LLC. Um, the property is currently under construction as

[2:58:17] a single-family residence and it is zoned as a single-family. Um, the application

[2:58:22] is for general easement encroachments on the east and north side of the lot. Um,

[2:58:27] it's a 0.62 acre lot that's 29,700 square feet, and its gross square footage is 8,414

[2:58:34] square feet. Um, the adjacent land uses, um, to the north, south, and west are all

[2:58:40] single family, and then over on the east will be active open space with the bridges

[2:58:45] ski run.

[2:58:50] Um, this request is for, um, approval to allow two retaining walls to encroach into

[2:58:55] the general easement on the north and east side of the lot, and currently they have

[2:59:00] already been installed.

[2:59:05] To provide some context, uh, the DRB approved the design review application for a

[2:59:10] new single-family home located at Lot 220B, um, during the July 7th, 2022, uh, DRB

[2:59:16] meeting. Um, and the previous approval of the single-family home included General

[2:59:21] Eastman encroachments of a retaining wall on the south side of the lot.

[2:59:29] Before discussing, uh, encroachment locations, I wanted to point out that this updated

[2:59:34] civil sheet shown on the screen was submitted by the applicant on Monday. Um, in

[2:59:40] my memo, I did include a condition for the updated and engineer approved civils to

[2:59:44] be provided, um, prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued. Um, however,

[2:59:50] this condition may be removed now. Um, for retaining wall one, let me get my mouse

[2:59:57] over here. Retaining wall one right here on the east side of the lot is a boulder

[3:00:01] retaining wall located, oh, as I said, on the east side of the lot. Um, as the applicant

[3:00:07] pointed out in their narrative, uh, the site's natural, um, grades and slopes over

[3:00:12] in this portion of the lot, um, was causing excess excessive amounts of water to

[3:00:18] drain towards the rear of the property. Um, due to this, retaining wall one's extension

[3:00:23] and encroachment was deemed a necessary intervention by the applicant to redirect

[3:00:28] drainage for preservation of the foundation, rear of the patio, and then rear of

[3:00:33] rear landscaping. Um, for retaining wall too, that is over in the north side of the

[3:00:40] lot, um, it is Over by the installed hot tub, right, oh, my mouse disappeared. Right

[3:00:47] here. Um, according to the applicant's narrative, the varying depths of the natural

[3:00:51] stone used, um, those courses resulted in the wall stepping back to retain the soil.

[3:00:57] Um, this result in the base course extending slightly farther into the general easement,

[3:01:02] uh, than the courses above, which created the encroachment. Um, at this stage, removal

[3:01:07] of retaining wall two would require significant disturbance to the site and relocation

[3:01:12] of existing landscaping.

[3:01:16] Um, on screen, I've provided a recommended motion if the DRB chooses to approve the

[3:01:21] general easement encroachments, um, with the following conditions on the next slide.

[3:01:27] And then just as a quick reminder, uh, staff receives the uh updated.

[3:01:33] That were approved by an engineer. Um, we received those on Monday. So again, if,

[3:01:38] uh, DRB would like to remove condition one, thank you.

[3:01:45] Great. Thank you. What questions for staff. Do you have any photos showing those

[3:01:52] um retaining walls? Yeah, I do. Let me grab them really quick.

[3:02:26] OK. Once I share my screen, um, I'm gonna provide uh drone photos that the applicant

[3:02:31] provided to us with the updated civils.

[3:02:45] Oh, let me see if I can get this too. Bigger

[3:02:54] And so that this is retaining wall one on the east side of the lot, um, and so right

[3:02:59] where my mouse is is where the original retaining wall ends and then to the left

[3:03:04] hand side is going to be that encroachment that we see for retaining wall one. and

[3:03:09] so the slopes, um, in natural grade up here. The drainage was just getting too excessive

[3:03:15] towards the foundation and rear of the property. Um, so the applicant deemed it necessary

[3:03:19] to install this portion of the retaining wall to then encroach. Um, and then on the

[3:03:25] opposite side over on the north, if it will. Load. Come on.

[3:03:35] And then when it shows, this will be a retaining wall too.

[3:03:44] Sorry, just taking a moment to load.

[3:03:48] And then right here would be retaining wall to use encroachment.

[3:04:04] Yes, it is.

[3:04:07] Mhm

[3:04:37] So do I hold it? So Got it. All right. Thanks, Mr. Chairman and, and

[3:04:44] the entire board. Appreciate your time today. Uh, uh, my name is Ben Elliott. I'm

[3:04:48] a project manager with Prosec Construction, uh, responsible for the construction

[3:04:53] of 113 Palmyra Project.

[3:05:00] And sorry, was I just introducing or?

[3:05:05] Was this, sorry, was this my time to add anything to the, or I didn't, OK. So to

[3:05:10] make it work. Sounds good. I appreciate it. Well, thank you, Soren, for the, um,

[3:05:14] the summary, and I think she covered it really well. Um, the only thing I wanted

[3:05:18] to add, um, was kind of going back to that picture on the east side of the house.

[3:05:25] Um, in addition to improving the overall drainage of the site, uh, one thing we noticed

[3:05:31] upon final backfill was that it actually constricted the egress of the house out

[3:05:36] of that exterior exit. And then can we excuse me, can we have the pictures when he

[3:05:41] says he's sad, I'm not sure which. China is which

[3:05:46] Yeah, so it stopped that side right there.

[3:05:51] Yeah, so, so by incorporating the retaining wall there, um, that did allow that egress

[3:05:59] path to stay consistent kind of around the house and facilitate a little bit better

[3:06:04] movement around the house. Um, and then the only other thing I was going to add on

[3:06:12] the, um, the retaining wall at the hot tub. Um, with the depth of those boulders,

[3:06:20] um, kind of like Soren explained, they're actually, the spec on them was about 2

[3:06:25] ft deep. Um, so they're actually pretty large on there. So that, um, uh, that depth

[3:06:33] in relation to the civil details, uh, following the stepback requirements from the

[3:06:38] civil engineer, um, is, is kind of what, uh, what drove the Placement there and not

[3:06:45] being exactly uh along the easement line right there. So, um. Well, no doubt, uh,

[3:06:53] learning experience for the installing contractor as well as us, I do think it provides

[3:06:58] a little bit better landing area right off the step from the hot tub deck as you

[3:07:02] come off of that plan east side, which would be the closest side to the picture being

[3:07:07] taken right there. Um, to give a little bit more space before the edge of the wall,

[3:07:12] so.

[3:07:16] Anything else? That's all. OK, great. Uh, board questions for the applicant. Can

[3:07:23] I ask one real quick one on the hot tub side, how is that, uh, exterior ground finished?

[3:07:29] Will it be finished to be lawn, or it's, yeah, it's lawn and landscaping, OK, yeah.

[3:07:35] And so there is some off of that west side, which is the closest side towards the

[3:07:40] picture, there's black stone steps that go back uh towards the patio right there.

[3:07:51] I can, yeah.

[3:07:55] Let's see

[3:08:32] Sure Does it, does it automatically upload?

[3:08:44] Then if you wanna send them to me as well, I can pull them up, yeah.

[3:08:58] All right, just sent it

[3:09:48] Did it send then. Yeah.

[3:10:06] It did, it's kind of File.

[3:10:13] It's, uh, it's fully, the grass is growing,

[3:10:22] Exclusive

[3:10:42] Well, I'm sorry I asked.

[3:10:49] Yeah, 2 seconds.

[3:10:53] I reduced the file size so that one should come through.

[3:11:20] I'm gonna say in the interest of time, can everybody imagine that looks like with

[3:11:24] Juan?

[3:11:27] Yeah There it is. OK, here we go. Outlook wanted to take its time.

[3:11:53] Right on the corner. You don't get to say anything. Come on. Oh, is it not? Why is

[3:12:00] it not going up?

[3:12:04] There we go. And then you can, yeah, there should be more attached if you scroll

[3:12:07] down on that. I was gonna say it's a nice looking backyard. Oh.

[3:12:15] Sorry, Ben, Outlook is having a meltdown on me.

[3:12:37] Yes, please. Um, did you receive any, um, the neighbor to the north on Lot 211 and

[3:12:42] the one on 220A north and south of you? Did you get any, um, Pushback or any kind

[3:12:47] of comments, any public comment from those? Not that I'm aware of, no. Nothing is

[3:12:52] OK. Did send the noticing out.

[3:13:03] Any other questions for the applicant?

[3:13:18] Are there any pictures from above?

[3:13:26] OK. Yeah, just those ones from the side.

[3:13:38] I do have more though that we could look at.

[3:13:46] Chavels

[3:13:55] OK. OK. OK, if that's what we have, that's what we have. We'll move on.

[3:14:03] Uh, any further questions for the applicant?

[3:14:08] We've received no public comment. No public comment. Baghdad. So we can uh go to

[3:14:14] board deliberation.

[3:14:19] I'll start. I think that, you know, this is one of those cases, it's better to ask

[3:14:22] for forgiveness, uh, you know, on the back end than, than have the plan, uh, you

[3:14:28] know. Probably demonstrate that it, it might have been needed upfront, but you can

[3:14:33] never know. I don't really have a, a real problem with these types of encroachments.

[3:14:38] Um, they're like the as built for a better product. It faces the ski run, it's well

[3:14:45] sits well above it. Neither neighbor to the north or south has objected. Those houses

[3:14:50] are already built. I, I'm fine with it.

[3:14:59] I agree with Toby

[3:15:02] I agree with Toby as well, but you guys weren't here when there was a board member.

[3:15:07] Any encroachment into a setback. With Punishable by death. I, I, I think

[3:15:15] it's the, the applicant is fortunate that one of the board members had to recuse

[3:15:20] himself that is most, most against this kind of thing. It's pretty unusual. And I,

[3:15:25] and I actually will say the, the one wall I went through the retention because of

[3:15:29] the steep slopes, yes, the other one seems like kind of a.

[3:15:34] Landscaping feature to make my hot tub nicer, but.

[3:15:39] But the encroachments so slight, I not that that's like slightly pregnant, but The

[3:15:45] encroachment is so slight that I can, I can live with that.

[3:15:50] I think also public works approved it, so. You know, there seems to be a reasonable

[3:15:56] assumption that that's OK, and I mean I wouldn't wanna go toe to toe with public

[3:16:01] works, so if they say it's OK, I'm OK. OK. If there's no other

[3:16:08] motions or, I mean, discussion, I'll ask for motion, please.

[3:16:19] I moved to approve the um Gotta get my glasses on again.

[3:16:28] I move to approve the specific approval for general easement encroachments at lot

[3:16:35] 220B 113 Palmyra based on evidence provided in the staff memo of record dated September

[3:16:43] 20 September 18, 2026 and the findings of this meeting with following conditions

[3:16:49] one. Great, thank you. 0 2nd. I'll second it. Great. Any further discussion?

[3:16:58] May we see the people on the screen, please? I think Jim has left the, the meeting,

[3:17:04] so I'll be voting, uh, and with that I'll ask for a vote. All in favor. Aye, aye.

[3:17:10] But the record show that Ellen Kramer voted affirmatively.

[3:17:18] She said, I, I, I. OK, great. We'll continue moving along here too. All right.

[3:17:27] Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. So glad we could be your first appearance.

[3:17:36] Uh, our last, well, not the last agenda item, but, uh, next agenda item is reading

[3:17:43] approval of the 227 design review board meeting schedule. So, that would be you.

[3:17:50] That will be, yes. Um, here we are.

[3:18:08] Um, all right, I'll be presenting the, uh, reading and approval of the 2027 DRB schedule.

[3:18:14] Um, so up on the screen, uh, is the full schedule for 2027, um, the first Thursday

[3:18:20] of each month next year, starting at 10:00 a.m. Um, in my memo, I did point out two

[3:18:25] dates that I wanted, um, DRB to look at, which would be July 1st, which is gonna

[3:18:30] be the Thursday prior to Independence Day, as well as Thursday, September 2nd, which

[3:18:35] will be in the middle of the Telluride Film Festival. So I wanted to see if we need

[3:18:40] to move either, should one be remote. And just

[3:18:47] I'll just note that the um Thursday, September 2nd, if it is during the film festival,

[3:18:53] We would Oh my mic's on, yeah, um, we would anticipate that it will be a remote only

[3:18:59] meeting because, um, because they use the, not that we have a contract for them for

[3:19:05] next year, but we're assuming that they would wanna come back and use council chamber.

[3:19:14] OK.

[3:19:17] Do we need to take action on this? Um, yes. Recommended motion here unless any of

[3:19:23] the dates needed.

[3:19:29] I'm a little confused though. Do you have two new dates proposed in there? I didn't

[3:19:33] see them. Um, no, they're not proposed. It's up to, uh, the design review board if

[3:19:38] they would like to move them or change them. I think the July 1st meeting is fine,

[3:19:45] um, but like we move in the, um, September to the 9th instead of the 2nd, so we get

[3:19:53] back into the room. I think we're more functional inside the room instead. Yes, yeah,

[3:19:58] understood. So instead of September 2nd going virtual, you would like to move it

[3:20:02] to September 9th, correct? OK.

[3:20:06] To approve the design review meeting scheduled for.

[3:20:14] 23rd, 26 with the modification of the September meeting being moved to

[3:20:22] September 9th, 2027. I'll second it.

[3:20:28] You have a motion to second any further discussion.

[3:20:32] If not, I'll ask for a vote. A favor. Aye aye. The records show that Ellen Kramer

[3:20:39] has voted in the affirmative. Thank you, Ellen. Welcome. Great. And uh we can move

[3:20:47] on now to staff updates. Staff. I'm starting with you. Oh, go ahead. Um,

[3:20:55] yes, the main update is just about the Palm Plaza project. Which you guys uh saw

[3:21:01] at an informational session. It was it, I think it was last meeting. We did have

[3:21:07] a an informational session with council as well. They gave us a thumbs up to continue,

[3:21:13] didn't give us a whole lot of direction about which concept they were choosing. Well,

[3:21:18] each councilor had their own opinions and they were pretty split. So, that'll be

[3:21:22] interesting, but what we are uh going to go ahead and do is move forward with the

[3:21:25] um alternative review for governmental projects process, which I think I outlined

[3:21:31] in our informational session. It includes, um, at this next council meeting. Presenting

[3:21:36] a resolution that sets up a task force and a process for the eventual entitlement

[3:21:41] of the design. Um, that Um Excuse me, the task force is gonna meet probably

[3:21:49] in November and we probably will come back to the DRB for a recommendation on a final

[3:21:55] preferred alternative, um, probably in November or December, but that needs to be

[3:22:00] identified as part of this resolution which is we're obviously gonna drafted the

[3:22:04] staff but it will be passed by council, so ultimately up to them what that process

[3:22:07] looks like exactly. So, anyway, you will see it at least one more time, most likely,

[3:22:12] um, and we're also will look be looking for. A couple of DRB members to uh participate

[3:22:16] in the task force assuming that's the direction council wants to go. So, um, if you

[3:22:21] have any, anybody wants to volunteer, let us know. Otherwise, we might start picking

[3:22:25] folks volunteering.

[3:22:30] Yeah, um, and I just wanted to give an update, um, on a procedural note. I was asked

[3:22:35] by a member of the board about public comment and what happens when a member of the

[3:22:42] public reaches out directly to DRB members, um, via email, so, um. You know you guys

[3:22:49] are are well known in the community. Members certainly will email you about applications.

[3:22:55] Um, I think the important thing to note is that you, this, you know, any application

[3:23:01] that's before the board is generally a quasi-judicial item and so it needs to be

[3:23:05] discussed inside of a public meeting. Um, you can respond to the responder that you

[3:23:11] received their comment, but there shouldn't be any back and forth engagement with

[3:23:15] that, um, with that member of the public, and that is due to our open open meeting

[3:23:20] laws. So if you have any questions on that, if you have concerns, if you're being

[3:23:25] contacted by, um, a member of the public, not just via email. This also applies to,

[3:23:31] you know, out on the street or at a, at a cocktail party or anything like that. Um,

[3:23:36] the, the response needs to be, hey, I understand you have concerns about this. This

[3:23:41] is a quasi-judicial item and I'm not to be speaking about this outside of a public

[3:23:45] hearing. Not that anyone broke any of those rules. It's just a nice reminder the

[3:23:50] question was asked. And so that I thought that I would, you know, just kind of reiterate

[3:23:54] to everybody that you guys do hold a position of, you know, trust in this community

[3:23:59] and it's important that we have the, the, you know, substantive discussions around

[3:24:05] these active applications inside the public meeting so that everybody is aware of

[3:24:10] the discussions that are happening.

[3:24:14] Great, thanks. Anybody have anything else? Motion to adjourn. We have a motion on

[3:24:21] the floor. Is there a second?

[3:24:29] We have a second further discussion. All in favor to adjourn. I, I, I can't, I can't

[3:24:36] see Ellen's recruiter, Ellen. Thank you. Thank you all. Affirmative. Bye.

Design Review Board Meeting

Agenda

Transcript