Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call the meeting of the planning commission for March 4th to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance [clears throat] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible.

Colbert here. Ruer here. Yosha here. Hillyard here. Web here. Fraser here. Thank you. I would glad to have a motion to accept the agenda. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? We have minutes from the meeting of February 18th. They're somewhat lengthy. And if you've had a chance to look at them, I would be happy for a motion to accept approval of the minutes. The reason why we're taking so long for the public is that we just received the minutes this afternoon. So, we're taking a moment to review them. include approval of minutes. Is there a motion for approval? So moved.

Second.

[clears throat]

I'll second. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Thank you. There's an opportunity for public comment that is not associated with any of the agenda items this evening. Do we have anybody here who would like to make public comment? Open that. Seeing no one approach the dis, we'll close public comment. our regular business um as in there are two major um pieces of business this evening. One is the consideration of the draft comprehensive plan for adoption and then following our discussion [cough] and decision about that we will also have a consideration of a major adjustment for um a building site in Golden. So um but first the comp plan we um [clears throat] as many of you know u the have been working on an update uh of the comprehensive plan uh since middle of 2024 and it's been a public process um with a lot of opportunities for communities input, opportunities for the planning commission to look at it. We've had several study sessions, discussions, deliberations. This meeting tonight is a continuation of the meeting from February 18th in

which we had um some opportun we had opportunity for more public comment on the comprehensive plan and discussion deliberation uh in the planning commission. We had a smaller number of members who were here that night and we wanted to continue to tonight's meeting uh when we knew we would have more members of the commission here to be able to discuss and vote. And also um as always there was a little more feedback for u staff um from that uh draft at that point that we saw on the 18th. Um this comp plan is based on uh work that was done back in 2010 in the adoption of Golden Vision 2030 identifying values for the city of Golden. Um and each time that the comp plan has been reviewed, uh we've gone back to look at those values as a basis for looking at what um what work has been done and also um what we think are the needs and the the things that we need to consider and um and work on in the coming years. In 2011, um the comp plan was initially uh developed around community goals of land use and transportation, open space, and other aspirations that Golden had as a

as a city. Um in 2017, we amended the comp plan to include a section on housing. Um as I say the um 2024 initiative was to look at what had happened in the intervening time um in the city uh particularly along the lines of development of neighborhood plans. Um the transportation master plan uh the pedestrian and bike master plan. uh parks and recreation u master planning. Um we had also adopted the use of form uh based housing uh zoning regulations uh to look at uh development within Golden and working with our existing contexts. And um there are also various state laws that have occurred and have in the past um regarding land use and so on that we needed to take into account. So there were a number of things that um were tools that we could use as well as guidelines um as we started the review of the comp plan in 2024. Um this 2026 comp plan um acknowledges and identifies the relationship between the comprehensive plan and the various other plans that have come into existence since that first edition of the comprehensive plan. um and draws um connections between um

the goals and so on of the comprehensive plan with compatible with the other master plans and neighborhood plans that we have that the city is working with. Um it this plan looks at um various items um that we uh feel are important to um focus on over the next few years. Um and is really the the result of an 18month collaboration uh that the planning department has really spearheaded in terms of um working with planning commission, city council, with various other boards and staff groups in the city and numerous uh public hearings both formal and some less formal kind of try to go and meet people where they are rather than set something up to you know have come come to a meeting at our convenience. Um, and we've got a lot of feedback from that. And I really would like on behalf of the commission [clears throat] to commend Matt um and Wimpy and uh Carl Oite uh for all of the work and pulling things together and the careful listening and so on. It's really it's been a big effort, but I think it's it's resulted in um a good document for us to look at. Um, with that somewhat prolonged introduction, um, like to

have turn it or ask Matt and Carl to present where we are now and how we can move ahead tonight.

Sure. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chair. Uh this is the second hearing, the second required public hear or should say the second part of the required public hearing uh for the comprehensive plan adoption. Uh my presentation is largely mirrors uh the February 18th meeting. So I'll kind of hit the highlights of it and talk about some of the changes uh pretty small changes that we've made subsequently to the plan document. Um and then just talk about what next steps look like should planning commission choose to adopt uh the plan tonight. Uh so as Ross indicated kind of some of the the rationale behind uh updating the comprehensive plan was that expanded city planning approach that we've been taking. So obviously we kind of uh did things a little bit backwards where we had our regulatory uh uh standards the formbbased zoning code and other zoning code updates uh that preceded the planning uh the comprehensive plan. But we've also uh been uh focused on building out a robust housing program as a city. Uh and then we have a number of new citywide uh plans. And that's really one of the biggest changes where we're not having every single thing uh being represented in the comprehensive plan, but rather talking about how this plan can interact with those other plans that have been based on their own extensive public process engagement with boards and commissions and approval by city council. We've also been responding again to a number of uh changes at the state level. Uh some of those have been smaller, easier things to incorporate. uh and Carl's team has been leading changes uh to those. Uh but then other things like our housing plans uh particularly Senate Bill 241 174 uh the entirety of chapter 8 uh is focused on responding to that and our upcoming housing action plan uh that the thriving communities group will lead with our support uh will be uh also in response to that. A couple of themes um that we as staff kind of saw come out in the plan. Uh the

first one's obviously affordable and general housing support. So again, I think we see between the community and city council and our budgeting process. Uh really uh this plan really supports the continuation of the housing program's current focus and its funding. Uh we will be developing again a housing action plan that will probably start uh later this year. That will become part of the comprehensive plan. So planning commission will have an opportunity to review that. But that will start to de uh dive into uh much more detail um on uh housing elements uh thriving communities. I think they just took it to council or are getting ready to take it to council, but we had to update a lot of data collection in our housing needs and uh strategies assessment which per the state is the basis for this housing action plan. Uh so there's a lot more uh local information uh that's available in that plan or in the HNSA and that will be used to develop that plan. Again we also really lean into that system of plans concept. So we're really trying to adopt uh recognizing our other uh policy plans providing much more in-depth recommendations and then honor that existing feedback that we'd received. Um and as I said last time I'll make the same joke. This is somewhat tongue and cheek. keep Golden. Uh but the plan is obviously rooted in Golden Vision 2030 value themes. Uh that was a result that document was a result of a two-year process uh with the community doing a lot of engagement similar to what we've done with this plan. Um and we really view those as still pertinent uh still driving a lot of the work that we do as a city. You find them in other city documents as well. uh and the plan really provides guidance for how we navigate change while remaining true to those values. So again, just kind of hitting briefly

on our public engagement process. So we did our first phase of engagement in late 2024 uh through early 25. We did four listening sessions and seven popup events. We had about 50 attendees, but this is one where we really asked what do people love about the community? What would they like to change? What are some barriers for housing? uh and what are some opportunities and then how do folks engage with the development review process and so we saw a lot of that has been baked throughout the plan uh probably most explicitly became the basis for that uh chapter 2 a special place graphics uh the question of what people love but we also heard things such as there's too much housing there's too little housing um the concept at one meeting that somebody pinned the term kind of small town versus small city uh to represent how the community continues to grow. Um, and then looking at minds being a part of our community, but also it feels like there's a lot of minds development going on right now. And as a state institution, they assert that we have less control. But I think we talk a lot about in chapter 5 regional partnerships, how we have our intergovernmental agreements for development and for operations and that is generally how the chit city is chosen uh to uh develop our relationships with mines and it's definitely a unique approach. We did a second phase of public engagement. This is where we tried to do some activity based public meetings. uh we had very limited attendance at these uh but we I think when we've done uh policy focused public engagement whether it's been on the bike and ped plan uh the comprehensive plan or on the zoning code update we've struggled to get public engagement I think we would always like more and so we really tried to make this more activity based we looked at what the uh uh kind of evaluate in a

hypothetical ical development proposal against the draft goal uh goals in the plan at the time and then get feedback on our draft housing goals and our implementation actions really trying to make it somewhat more interactive, more interesting. Uh we know policy can be dry. Um given that low attendance, we do caution kind of drawing large-scale conclusions uh from this round of public engagement. But we did hear things kind of continuation of what we heard in phase one of not concentrating affordable housing in the central neighborhoods. Parking is a concern and should be a bigger part of planning. um and that we need a greater variety of of affordable housing and then need more local perspective perhaps via neighborhood plans and then folks worried about their ability to stay in their home and not be displaced. Uh later la uh late in 2025 we had two 30-day public review periods uh reviewing the draft document and so we got 17 we collected this mainly via public survey uh that we had up for the entire 30 days. We also had planning commission study sessions and city council study sessions during that same time frame. And we really were asking at that point to review the draft document, provide targeted feedback. Um and that's the way we structured both the survey and our presentations to the board and uh city council. Um folks again I think again I think we heard variations of kind of the the same threads that we had heard. Uh disappointed that we were focusing on expanding versus limiting housing. Um folks wanted us to really focus on parks efforts uh which we forwarded those comments over to park staff since the uh open space and recreation master plans are currently an ongoing process right now. Uh some folks felt we were soft on historic preservation. This was before uh we kind of uh rewrote that chapter in response to planning commission uh feedback. And

then again with parking concerns, uh wanting to have some discussion of the benefits of density and then concern about mines development, uh I should say ENL but now National Laboratory in the Rockies. Um clay works and cores uh and then a request a very specific request to address the informal housing market uh mainly related to co-l livingiving. And then uh we've held our public hearings as required by state statute in advance of any potential adoption. Um, we solicited feedback from our neighboring jurisdictions within a three-mile radius. We've heard to date from uh Arvvada and Jefferson County. Didn't hear anything from Wheat, Rich, or Lakewood. Um, and uh we've incorporated uh their comments into the plan and uh we included them as an attachment in your packet. And so what we've kind of heard since the February 18th public hearing, we got two additional uh emails uh that came in. Uh the first one was uh an email concerned about historic preservation uh and how the city would or would not apply uh the equity based approach that uh is in the current uh document and also concerns about preservation of city-owned assets. And I think that's a fair criticism that it's been difficult at times to engage with the city when we own a potentially historic asset. We also received a a second email uh regarding housing that was largely supportive of the housing chapter uh but also pushing the city to do more uh in that realm. Uh so there's specific feedback. We think a lot of the spec the additional things that we could do would be uh suited for looking at in the housing action plan. um one of the the larger kind of planning commission uh comments and discussion that we had related to chapter 4, the housing chapter and there was some introductory text that related to uh home ownership

uh rates and how they differed between different minority groups. Uh we had been asked to see if there was some golden centric data um or if there are ways to provide additional context and kind of we went back uh we looked at the updated HMSA which does have some very interesting data uh regarding building out a a a metric for displacement risk based on a variety of uh census and demographic data. Um but we found for an introductory kind of uh section in the comprehensive plan, we didn't want to introduce that concept without context because we feel it's interesting. It'll be helpful in the housing action plan. Um and then we really couldn't find any other uh city specific data on that topic. So for right now, again, I think we we proposed to just remove that paragraph from the comprehensive plan. And part of our thinking was again, it's largely in an introductory narrative talking about housing currently in the city. It wasn't necessarily proposing a policy change or um [clears throat] any sort of implementation action. And so we feel that uh to meet planning commission's uh direction to provide that context and to have that kind of holistic discussion uh that's best we can kind of uh rely on the housing action plan to delve more into that type of data. Uh and again that's using the data that's in the HMSSA is the the legislative requirement uh as we build out that uh that housing action plan later this year. Um obviously we can be directed to do something else but that was just our general thinking uh behind that change.

I think other than that we know uh from a proofreading standpoint we've been going back and forth with our designer. I think now once uh they've done a fair bit of proof reading, we know there's going to be a final hard proof read uh that they're anticipating getting done if there are any changes that come out of tonight's meeting or any potential future meetings. Um but they would do that in advance of uh city council reviewing the final document. So speaking of that uh so right now we are we're we're scheduled this is to be the last meeting uh potentially but obviously uh it's dependent upon uh adoption or any changes. Uh there's a resolution for adoption that would be then adopting the plan and forward a recommendation to city council that they approve the plan. That's the consistent language with state uh legis uh state language. uh we've really since that February 18th meeting, we've been directing all of the public feedback uh to these hearings or to uh city staff email or phone. So, um if you know, barring anything we hear tonight, we've provided everything that we've uh heard via the public hearing process. City council is uh scheduled to consider approval of the plan at their April 14th meeting. And then this plan will be available digitally on the city's website. we're probably going to make some changes uh just to the overall formatting of citywide master plan or master plan. It kind of creates some confusion. So that's one thing that the planning group will clean up as we get the comprehensive plan uh up on the website. So that is all I have. Uh so we're definitely happy to answer any questions um [clears throat] you know respond to to public.

Thank you ma'am. Anybody do we have any questions from the commission format? Just a comment. Thank you for taking a different perspective, a different view of that housing um paragraph that was in the beginning. I appreciate it. Look, it reads well. Thank you. Okay. Glad to hear that. I'll just say thank you for taking the time with us to go through this document. I know um we had a lot of thoughts and feedback and I just really appreciate you listening and taking into a consideration.

Other comments

just celebrating Matt and staff uh for their process and the commission's conversation. Um it feels like the the plan is a real interactive integrated uh userfriendly tool. which is what we want. So, I'm pleased to be writing this place. At this point, [clears throat] we will um open public comment. If there are any folks that are here to speak to the comprehensive plan, um this would be the time to have an opportunity to do that. Seeing no movement or anyone rushing in the door, um I will close public comment. Thank you. Um I too would like to thank uh Matt and all of the folks in planning who have been involved um for both effort over 18 months, but um particularly the working with the the planning commission, we had lots of feedback for you and um I think you've done a really good job of listening and incorporating it and so on. And so at this point, I think we're ready for deliberation as to what the next step is. Well, I'll put it up here similar what we did last time. If you need a a draft [clears throat] approval motion or adoption motion, something there as a basis.

Okay.

Thoughts, comments? I'll just say that I'll I'll give ourselves a pat on the back. I I think that we did we did a lot of work on this. I know staff did as well, but I it really takes all of our diverse perspectives and we all come from different places in Golden and and see things through a different [clears throat] lens. And I I just really appreciate all of you, you know, taking the time and providing the feedback to where we we are today as well. And of course, staff. I I did say that, but I, you know, also recognizing my fellow commissioners,

you know, staff very much appreciates having a a strong two-way conversation on this plan. It made it much easier to finish this. So,

are we ready to move to to a motion? Chair, as a matter of the planning commission review of the proposed 2026 city of Golden Comprehensive Plan, I move that the planning commission adopt resolution PC26-7, adopting the plan and recommending city council approve and accept this plan.

Is there a second? Second any discussion. I will be ready for a vote then. Colbert, [clears throat] yes. Ruer, yes. Your hi. Elliard. Hi. Webb. Hi. Razer. I. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. [clears throat] We've done that like five times. Okay. Our next um matter of business is um consideration of a major ment for PC 2548 PC 2601 81716 street Lauren you have some things you'd like to tell us

yes a lot of things um so I have one case I have well I have one address and two cases before you this evening so I will be uh presenting the first case which is a major adjustment for accommodation of forms first and then allow you all to have a discussion and you know obviously we'll go through the public hearing and things like that and the applicant presentation and then uh take a pause and then we'll go on to the form zone site plan if directed. All right. So, uh, the property before you for consideration is 81716th Street. It is located, um, south of downtown, right across the street from Colorado School Mines along 16th Street, uh, between Washington and Arapjo. Uh, the property faces uh, 16th Street and has access uh, from a rear alley in addition to 16th Street. So, as I mentioned, there are two cases. The first one we'll be talking about is the major adjustment for combination of forms and this is a the request is a modified side drive couple house type that would allow for the garage to be converted to a condition space with an additional half story and then we'll get into the form zone after that. So, uh just an overview of the property. This this graphic was provided by the applicant. Uh the property is located is approximately 7500 square feet. It's located in the transition form zone with a use uh zone of R3 which is a multi-am multi- household zone. Uh it also has a significant grade change about 15 feet from 16th down to the alley. Um and this illustration here kind of shows you the grade of the lot. Uh there are a lot of trees on the lot, so it can be hard to

see if you drive by the front of it to see how far back it goes and and what's back there. But just uh this graphic really does a good job at showing kind of the depth the lot and the um configuration of buildings currently. Um so there are two buildings currently on the lot. Uh there's a 1492 square foot twounit dwelling. That is the what is known as 81716th Street or the primary structure in the front. Uh there's a 699 square foot garage in the back with a dwelling underneath that faces onto the alley. Uh the existing structures were uh constructed around 1902 or 1905 according to Mr. Gardner and perhaps even later. Um I use the assessor data for this not having a survey for this property. So um both have been used as residences uh for quite some time and are zoned residential. And also just currently just uh there are currently three units on the property. There's uh two in the existing primary structure, unit A and unit B and one underneath the garage. U this graphic here just kind of shows the uh the grade of the site and where it starts and goes down to the top as well as kind of showing the grades around this site. As you can see um on this this right here is the alley and you can see the significant grade uh goes up, you know, from the back of this house up to the alley. The alley does not go through to a rapo street. Um it's kind of like a dirt wall. Um, this graphic here kind of shows here the alley location as it relates to the house. And here's a survey of the existing conditions showing the layout of the two structures. The first house is centered

in the front uh front portion of the lot. Um generally centered uh with an existing driveway um from 16th and the rear building is uh is struck is approximately 20 ft off of the property line um that goes into the alley. Um and uh there are a set of stairs that currently connects uh the back of the lot to the front of the lot. as well as a driveway. I've provided some photos of this uh property. Of course, on the left, yes, on the my left, uh there's 81716th Street. As you can see, the houses has a gamble roof uh and of the Dutch colonial or colonial revival era. We also have uh the rear structure, and I kind of have two pictures of that because I think it's helpful. So, uh, the one in the middle is kind of the view from the alley, and you can kind of see the front door and the, uh, awning, as well as all the trees in the alley. And then the one on the right, uh, shows what it looks like when you're walking up the side of that rear structure towards the house on the existing staircase. It kind of shows how the situation of the houses um, from the uh, from uh, ground level. So the request before you is a combination of forms uh for a major adjustment. Uh the requested request the request is really to look to primarily use the side drive couple house um with elements of the suburban and village house form type to maintain the existing structure. Uh for the rear structure it's access from the alley. The request is to renovate the extinct garage portion of it and to add two additional units to the to the top.

This here is the applicant's proposal. Um you can see the addition of the parking on the rear um and the additional units on the rear of the property over the garage as well as one additional unit in the existing house. uh find finishing out the existing basement and a potentially a small addition in addition uh small addition on the back of the house. Uh there's a currently a sleeping porch back there that's not in super great shape and it's not conditioned. So would be just potentially finishing out some of that square footage. Um this here shows the three house form types that are being uh looked at. All are allowed in the transition form zone. And um the village house and suburban house all have a multi-unit configuration. The side drive couple house has a multi-unit configuration, but it's limited to two units per structure in the R3 form zone. The applicant's proposal uh form type was provided to uh in your packet. Um it follows generally the side drive house couple with a few exceptions. The first is a square footage of 3900 square feet. Uh that would be above the typical 3,200 square ft. That number accounts for the existing square footage as well as some additions they are proposing. Uh currently the house is uh designed at 36 there all the square footage of the house is designed at 3650 but this provides a little more uh room for interior design um as the structures get finalized. Um we found on the last form zone we did with this it as we started the designer finished out the the the top floors a little more flexibility on

square footage was necessary to kind of make sure closets fit and those kinds of things. Um there's also an existing twoft side setback on the rear structure that is existing um and is proposed to be maintained with an addition above the existing rear uh bottom basement structure. They're also proposing three units per building to uh to finish out add two units on the back and then one in the front for the basement and small addition. Um, and they're also proposing finally a mostly preserved building provision which currently does not exist in the side drive house couple. It only exists in the other house form types. And uh, that provision allows for uh, some additional flexibility on on stories and driveway as written and the existing driveway to be maintained in the front. um as well as locking in this form type to only be used for existing buildings. And so if they were uh the form type as proposed would is designed for use of existing buildings. Staff has reviewed this request um and there are five criteria for review of of a combination of form types. The first is that all the form types are allowed in the form zone in which the subject property is located. Um, and as I I um stated, all form types being used for this combination are allowed in the transition form zone, the three house form types. The second talks about the massing of the developments consistent with other developments on the same block face or appropriate transition to the massing of adjoining lots. Um, so I want to just quickly show you all uh what's existing in this area. Um, again,

this is also based on Jefferson County assessor data which is and can be not always accurate. So I'm just because I'm just trying to use a single source here. The building on the corner is a seven unit is at least I would say at least a seven unit apartment building. There are more vehicles than seven. So, you know, perhaps it's more. Uh, but that building is 4,500 square ft. Uh, the building on the other side of this is 3947 square ft and the assessor list that as a 14bedroom structure. So, and then of course uh on the other side of that is a 7bedroom structure. All these structures um are are you know are um again that's from the assessor data. I did not go in to verify that was not able to access the properties to verify that information. Also on the alley, just to note, there is a three-bedroom structure uh just accessed off the alley. Um and then there's a duplex on the other side of that three-bedroom structure faced onto Arapjo Street. The third criteria is the design of the development allows for safe and efficient circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. Um the applicant is proposing um form standards that uh keep [clears throat] the separation of buildings and allow for uh additional parking on site uh one space per dwelling unit. Uh the design will also improve some of the existing pedestrian access on site which is uh quite uh which needs some updating I will say based on trying to you know the stairs are a little crumbly and some investment would would be will be helpful. Uh the third the fourth criteria the design of the development brings together the forms in an integrated arrangement with buildings that relate to one another

share access or amenities and consistent or complimentary architectural styles and materials. The applicant's proposal integrates the structures in a way that would share the outdoor space and parking area u that is existing on site and create new parking areas. Um and it also improves the existing access and adds an amenity area between the buildings, a more formalized uh amenity area. Um the addition of rear structure, the the addition on the rear structure has complimentary materials to the primary structure in the front which is primarily um wood siding. And the final uh criteria is the development includes outdoor amenities or common court areas that are appropriate design and scale for its intended use. Um and this is kind of similar to the criteria above it talking about that the design they have an amendy area between the structures that's sort of scaled um between the existing trees um and it's scaled as an outdoor amendy area that um is consistent with the scale of the buildings that exist on site and the new proposed uh additions to those buildings. Um so uh staff in this review um really wanted to highlight a few a few things about this project. Um the first is that um when staff looked at this project with the applicant um and trying to figure out the best way to move this project forward um so you all could get um could have the most information about it. We really saw this as a modest renovation within the existing footprint. um and that if it had been proposed to be more outside the existing footprint that some of the review criteria would been more difficult to meet based on sort of the size and the existing context. Uh we also um just want to talk about

the lot size. So the existing lot size is 7500 square feet. that is larger than a typical golden lot and larger than the minimum lot size for all three house form types which is a 6,000 square ft. Um staff recommends as part of uh your deliberations to discuss increasing the minimum lot size to 7500 square ft to reflect not only the additional square footage that is being requested but also that this form type works on this larger lot and that a smaller lot would have a would have a more difficult time meeting some of these requirements potentially. Um staff also notes that the forms and site plan was also submitted to give you all all the information you need about the project. Um and we also wanted to discuss the review criteria. U this is the second time the planning commission has used these review criteria for this type of project. Um the review criteria themselves are relatively limited and give a very uh staff a broad lens to and commission to review this project. Uh while staff believes it meets the criteria, there's a lot of ways you could look at this. Um given the limit the limitations of the review the spec the limiting factor that the review criteria do not include a whole lot of specificity in them. Um so staff wants to point that out to planning commission and also um note that uh that we recognize that the review criteria themselves um may be something that planning commission may want to discuss at a future date. if this form using this way to address these types of sites is seen as something you all want to continue to see um that perhaps looking at the review criteria in the future to ensure that development meets the standards and expectations of the community as we see more of these uh

projects. Um I also um want to point out that the project um because it was preserving existing buildings um that was a that was a big factor in our analysis. Uh it was also a a very prominent factor in in why we thought they met the review criteria. this project as a brand new project would would be less uh desirable. Um keeping the existing buildings on that block. It's kind of that's what's out there um was more favorable than seeing something different. Um so with that um I'm happy to answer your questions. The applicant does have a um presentation as well, but staff does recommend approval and we do recommend um three conditions. The first is the minimum lot size adjustment to 7500 square ft. The second is the side setback of two feet shall be maintained for enhanced compatibility because it is more than 50% of the 5- foot required side setback and that the plan shall conform with the city's engineering utility standards um as those are those will be designed um in more detail at a later point. So that is staff's recommend recommendation and um I look forward to your questions and discussion. Thank you. Questions from the commission. Commissioner.

Yeah, I have a few. Do you have um your staff report available for the screen? It's in packet. No, I know, but I want to refer to it. Make sure Yeah, give me your Okay. Yep, it's up there. All right. It's 39 pages. You're going to have

it is um I just want to clarify a couple of things in there. You're Oh jeez. On page six in the assessment on the leftmost column, which is the assessment of side drive couple house says maximum number of rolling units per couple is one per lot. I think your testimony was two. I want to clarify which one is accurate. It is uh one per lot in that's that's it my staff report is incorrect. It's two per lot in the R3 zone district. The if you look at the review criteria on its base it says one per lot and then one of the additional standards um in that form type it's further down um it says says uh two per lot and I think that might be addressed under um let's see if let's see I'm not sure if it was addressed under here or not but that was the intention to address it um as part of the project

it's two two per lot can I follow up on that yeah please um so are you saying that the form zone uh what we're considering tonight the form type can modify the underlying zone district. No. So the but the minimum or the maximum number of dwelling units for R3 per lot is how many? There is no maximum for number of dwelling units in R3. Um R3 allows for any number of dwelling units as so long as this the the standards are met.

I don't think that's accurate. I think it is for certain form types there is no limit like village and suburban per your report but I think this form type does carry a limitation this the side drive couple house is a form correct that's correct the form type does have a limitation but the underlying zoning of R3 correct does not have a limitation okay I was unclear about where that conversation was so thank you

um let's see uh another question. You showed the a survey um as part of your report. I didn't see that as part of the packet or the applicants materials. I guess the first question is that accurate that that's new in your presentation. Wasn't part of the materials previously. I mean maybe the basis for preparation for that actual

interest um that's a good point I don't I got it from somewhere um so it was part of the preparation it's it's the existing conditions map in this attachment which is the um which is the attached site hand documents. Is that the same drawing that you show in your presentation? Okay. So, it is it's an existing conditions, not a survey, correct? Yes.

Okay. Those two are different. Um, my next question then is a little hard to see on the screen, but um did that's what you called the survey. I'm assuming since it's not a new exhibit that it didn't include existing trees as part of that survey, did it?

Um, that exhibit did not have existing trees. Um I believe later on in the just I can show you I it's I was saving it for the form zone but uh if you can let me just this right here shows you the existing trees. we did um have the applicant provide that given the amount of trees on site uh were pretty numerous and the fact that a lot of them them seem to be on the property line. So we wanted to have a good understanding of the tree locations uh on site and some are being removed but the majority of the trees are remaining.

Okay. So, I'm I'm just trying to connect the what's in there is an exhibit versus what's attributable to a survey. And I can follow up after the applicants presentation, but is it your understanding that this exhibit the locations of the trees are per a survey which is not provided in any of our materials? I'll let the applicant um answer that question.

Okay. Um, another question about the mechanics. Um, the twoft existing, I'm going to call it distance from the existing structure to the property line. You've posed in here as something as a as a modified site setback. my head ticking through that and correct me if I'm wrong, but is that it's an existing nonconformity. I think I saw that the proposed um renovation would be compliant, but I'm unclear about the mechanics of why that just isn't a existing nonconformity that can't be exacerbated. Why does why would that take a determination as part of this evaluation to modify it to a two foot side setback? Well, the uh existing because we were going through all the the form type setbacks. We wanted to ensure that what was going to be built would be reflected so that so if it's existing two-foot setback that it is maintained. It is a nonconformity, but since we're we are evaluating this whole site, um staff thought it appropriate to go ahead and call it out in this for this project to because it is going to go up above the existing uh plane. And so just for to be transparent and to ensure that we're being clear about the intention is to keep the structure in the existing its existing place. Um,

yeah, I agree with all that. I'm I I'm just I'm unclear why an existing nonconformity results in

our evaluation and possible action to modify it to a two-ft sight setback which would affect any new conditions. So we can maybe shift that to discussion but your your position is it should take should change to a twoft setback as part of our deliberations. I my position our staff's position on this would be that the because you're evaluating the entire site and that they are doing an addition over this this pro this on this structure and going up that it should be it should be uh part of your approval that it's part of the of your consider because it is close and we it's part of it should be part of your deliberation to look at that and staff wants to ensure that you're you're able to you know we're pointing it out. We're saying it's there um you know that it is 2 feet whereas it would typically be 5 foot if this was built today.

Yeah, understood. Um, another question similar. You've positioned the 6,000 versus 7500 question as a modifying the minimum. So, the current lot meets the minimum standard of 6,000. I'm again it's it's explain to me why if it meets the minimum we would need to modify the minimum and what are the effects of that.

Yeah. Um the reason why staff included that as a potential condition for you all to consider because it does meet the minimum at 6,000 if you were drawing the straight line to the side drive couple house. But given the additional square footage that was being requested and the size of the lot and that this is such a custom and unique property in Golden, given the grades and other other factors, we felt that planning commission should consider um as as these cases people look at them and say what did planning commission consider and approve that this works because it is a larger lot. It's 1500 square feet larger than the typ well 7,000 is the typical but 6,000 is the minimum. It is 1500 square feet larger than the minimum would be required. And so that is something for you all to consider as a condition on this project. Although uh that was a staff addition just to be really conservative because the review criteria did not give us a whole lot of opportunities for that. So positioning the question and answer for deliberations. It's reconsidering [clears throat] mechanics of increasing a minimum that it already meets is is really the onro on onroad or placeholder for discussion about additional square footage and additional units. Is that fair?

That's fair. Thank you. Um I need to organize my thoughts. I have more questions but Okay. There are others in this time for me other questions. Just a comment. I just want to have on public record a disclaimer that I am familiar with the applicant. Um but Mr. Puzio and I are not engaged in any business together right now and it it will not impact my impartiality.

Just since we're interrupting with that, I'll just add I know the applicant is part of a is a parallel professional but doesn't affect my ability to role in this case. Um, yeah, please. Um, thank you. So, staff, would you say that setbacks are measured from the property line or a lot line?

They would be measured from the propert the Well, there are two properties here. They're next to each other. So they would be measured from either the lot line or property line in this case. In the future, if it when subdivided, it would be each lot, but currently they were measured from the property lines as they exist today.

I read in the packet that this property is comprised of portions of several lots. How does that take how does that factor in? So that would be something the applicant would have to um would have to rectify if approved to combine all this into recombine it into appropriate lots. Uh the side drive couple house does have minimum lot sizes associated with it. So they would have to meet that in order to move forward with the project. Um so those that would be part of it. I think it's a can't remember one but they the lots are obviously larger than the minimums that are est because of a larger lot in general

the parcel the parcel good portions of lots portion yeah [laughter] parcel [clears throat] of portions of lots okay yeah it sounds like it's a very very old subdivision where things were built over potentially over top of lot lines and everything got super messy over the course of time yes that happens a lot here so yeah but would be rectified uh if this application's approved, right? What's the mechanism for rectifying that? It' be a administrative plat. Okay. Thank you.

Um just followup question on that. So the with regard to this application subdividing it into the combined form zone type of side couple house is that's not the current property configuration of the lot. It is not subdivided the way No, we're looking at No. And and it and if it were existing as existing today, you know, it can remain. It's just if they now that they'd like to change it, they they would have to fix those legal issues.

Um I have a question on parking. Um I mean it's a crossover issue but it's in your report as relevant to criteria C that the safe and efficient circulation. You you've started that conversation. So um understanding that it crosses over I think those questions make sense now. Um, so if your report says one space per dwelling unit, um, if can we bring up the parking table from the city to make sure that that's table 18362021. Go back here. So, um, here's the land use table. Um, it's one parking space per dwelling unit for residential, single house, full use, house, duplex, or row house form types, form zones.

So, you're looking at the the first row, right? And then um which column are you looking? I think we

Yeah. So it's residential. Actually, that's incorrect. It would be multi- household not listed above because it is proposed. So it's the fourth row down, right? The fourth row down. And then what is what column? The it would be the um It would be the uh minimum for all other areas. Okay. And then what is that? What is that metric?

It'd be one space per one bedroom and two one one space per dwelling unit. Um and one and a half spaces. Studio units, one per one studio units, one space per dwelling unit. One bedroom and two bedrooms, one and a half space per unit. So it's measured per bedroom rather than per unit. Correct. Correct. And it's got the sliding scale with regard to bedrooms. Correct. Um and then in your analysis and in the [snorts] applicants application, were bedrooms assessed as part of this?

Not directly. They would only be permitted to have one bedroom per unit because that's really all that can fit on site. But the existing existing units are all um the average is around 600 square ft. Pretty small. Yeah, that's that's not a relevant metric, right? The average of the units isn't right. Correct. We we do not have four plans of the units. Do or you do not? We do not have four plans of the units. I mean bedrooms of the existing house of the new house. I think there is a floor plan of the new Understood. I've seen the the new plans, but how did you determine bedrooms of the existing house?

Uh, that was just what the applicant um told us there are one bedrooms per per in staff's analysis of the additional parking spaces in the rear, was there any conversation around impact to traffic in that alley off of Washington or challenges due to turning radius in that little area.

Yeah, let me just bring up back the site here. Yeah, the um existing alley back there. Um so the parking space is the the there is ex there is a lot of existing parking in that alley that is utilized um and including 20 ft of space in this one. The alley is approximately 20 ft wide. So there is significant there is plenty of turn space as well as this is at the very end of the alley. So there is some additional um space beyond this because there is additional alley access on both sides of this uh closer to Rapjo. [clears throat] Um one other question just so we have all the same fluency for discussion in terms of metrics of parking. Um can you go back to the uh chapter 18 section? What metrics for parking in this condition were used in your determination that circulation would be met for this farm zone application?

The metrics that were used were from 18 uh 1836 of one space per bedroom dwelling. No, I'm sorry. The measurements of the space.

Oh, measurements of the space. The measurements of the space are 20 foot or 18 by 18 by 9. And there is an existing I just noted it's not part of um so you can't have tandem parking in this configuration the multi-unit configuration. Um however there are additional on-site parking spaces in a tandem format with the existing driveway but we're only showing one parking space on the driveway. Um, but there are additional opportunities for on-site parking in a tandem which is not, you know, doesn't meet the code. However, they are there

or could meet the code for one unit, right? One last, well, another question. I'm not sure it's my last yet. Um I think this was part of the text amendment that we went through earlier or last year but um with regard to bedrooms and then in the application there's reference to loft. There is well can you confirm for me the definition of loft in zoning code? We do not have a definition of loft. I don't believe so.

Let me double check. I think we maybe added maybe we added one recently. I think it was part of the text we did. Um it's in definitions which is alphabetical if you could bring that and read that for me. Are you trying to get at the question of whether the loft is a bedroom? Yeah, we that the definition clarifies it. I just want to add it to the collective. No, that's so also confused. So, thank you for clarifying. I'm bring it up.

I'll let Carl read it though. Loft means a space designated for sleeping on an intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of a story, open on one or more sides to the room in which the space is located and in accordance with a compliance with section uh R 315 of the IRC or international residential code.

Thank you. Um, I think those were my questions for staff. Thank you. [snorts] Other questions for staff?

Okay. Um, I assume we have you said there's the applicant. Yes. And they have a presentation as well. [clears throat] Please come to the um podium and introduce yourself and connection to this application. Sure. Can you guys hear me? Yes.

Um my name is Ronnie Palusio. I am the architect and planner and partners as a developer on this. I think I've met all of you before in previous planning commission meetings, but just to restate, um I've practiced in your community in the past. Um I've worked on a couple of projects and most recently um presented a similar type of application for a major adjustment. Um and that was passed and then we've been moving forward with the construction of that. Um and then as you likely know, um I also was part of the team that helped rewrite your municipal code. So, I know quite a bit about it. Um, I want to compliment staff again just for their help. Um, the robustness of their explanation really leaves less for me to explain and I think staff report was pretty thorough. Um, I do just want to share with you um that the opportunity that is built into the code to allow for this form of discretionary review is very purposeful and I know there's a general question that staff led with um that is about future cases and to what degree you may entertain these types of projects and I really recommend strongly that you continue to do that. Um because these are the kind of creative solutions that allow us to meet those overriding objectives that are coming up in your new comp plan as well as like broader city goals that I think collectively we were all aware of when we rewrote the municipal code. That being said, I think it's also very purposeful to point out that this is a combination of [clears throat] forms and the way that

the city has been administering that is that they look for one base form type to start with that's the most similar to the one that's being proposed. So, the couple house form type is not the form type really that you're reviewing. We're reviewing it against it because it has most of the aspects that um are part of this proposal, but it's in fact all form types that are allowed in this form zone. And so that is why staff and also shared the other form types including the village lot type. If we collectively think that's a better one to start with to talk about um how many units can go on a lot then one's perspective on density would immediately put us in a position to say an unlimited number of units can be put on a lot because that's what's allowed in that form zone. So what you're seeing here is the combination of forms. It is good to have a reference form and there's more than one. the one that we've chosen here is one that allows for subdivision and that's the reason why I chose it. Um, and I can talk a little bit more about that because it meets some big picture objectives that I think you may share. Um, let me just see if this thing works. Yes, this thing works. So, there are two things tonight that you're reviewing as staff had described. you were presented mostly the combination of form types that is the form zone that I'm presenting and then there is the actual site and building application pieces the site plan application piece is going to be presented in its totality by staff after

this and so it's basically we're saying is the form zone allowable and you've seen that and it's like is the stuff that this wants to do. Does it fit within that? So, there'll be a second vote that you'll do after this. Um, my presentation, and I spoke with staff about this, will include the totality, and I think that will help illuminate what the form zone is and then what I intend to do and how they're consistent. Um, and I think you'll see that they are consistent and it might alleviate some of the questions about what um, we might open ourselves up to if we approve the form zone because you're going to see exactly what I want to do. I think staff, just to point out, had a handful of conditions that they proposed. I think they're wise conditions. Um, I I agree to those conditions. I would recommend if you move forward, you include staff's conditions. Um, and the purposefulness of the increased lot size associated with my form zone, I think holds a lot of value, not for me today, um, because I will meet the minimum regardless, as Commissioner Yoshida was pointing out, but the precedent that it sets in your community and the ability for future review to look back at this and say, you know, part of the reason why they may allow for more is because of the lot size is valuable. And so I agree with all of those thoughts. And I have some comments about I think some of the questions that Commissioner Yoshida um brought up regarding setbacks, which is a little more boring, but I'll get to that later. So our project as you know and I can go through this relatively quickly is pretty much within the campus

of the school of minds and that adjacency is really complicated and unusual because immediately across Arapjo there's a multi-story building and then we sit in an area that looks like it could almost contextually be um a historic district. So, there's a lot of variety of building types in there. Um, but the campus's impact on the neighborhood in this immediate area applies a lot of pressure and I know that you're seeing that already and have been talking about that with your comp plan um rewrite. And so, you know, this is one of those lots that I think is subject to that pressure. Um, [clears throat] and you can see here, maybe it's challenging to see, but basically the form types um that are listed in the table are all of the allowable form types um in this zone. And so they can all be reviewed against what I'm proposing. We kind of narrowed it down to three. And then again, the base one really is the couple lot for the subdivision purposes. Um, this is what the streetscape looks like. And so you can see that there's a diversity of homes. It's hard to really capture this uh correctly just with photography. Um but you can see that our Gamro roof house sits among other homes that I think um you know are of the character and flavor of what we're trying to protect and preserve in your community. And it's the small town character. And while not protected explicitly under preservation rules because they're not in a district or may not individually rise to the merit, the collection of these homes I think is valuable. Um, [clears throat] in the image you can see immediately to the right but recessed in the background is one of the multifamily structures that is the neighboring building and then far off to the right you can see the multi-story building

that is the school of minds. But the context I think is valuable. In fact, I like this lot because it has an old house on it. The reason why I want to do this project is because it has an old house on it and I believe in the preservation goals of your community. Um, I sat on the preservation board in Boulder for 9 years and believe in what preservation can do in terms of um, you know, maintaining historic context and character and having a relationship and orientation to what's happened in the past. Um, this graphic here talks a little bit about how big the buildings are that are surrounding us as well as the number of units. I think staff already covered this, but as you can see, and maybe it's challenging from your seat, but letter M, which is just to the left and west of our property, um, is a seven unit, threetory with a basement building. That basement and most of the lower level face our property. And so when you look at that um building from our property, it is significantly tall. And as staff pointed out, the alley doesn't connect through. It really ends at our property's edge and there's a significant amount of area in the back for um backing out and navigation for any vehicles that are associated with our parcel. And then adjacent. One other really interesting thing, I mean clearly there are other multi-unit buildings that surround us, but one thing that I also really enjoy about this is the smallalness of adjacent lots that there already is kind of a language of subdivision that has cur occurred. I don't know when and how this happened. Um but it's just really lovely that behind us um lot letter Q is already a subdivided small little lot that sits on the alley and that's its orientation to the public realm. So, it doesn't have frontage onto the street. Um, and

there's something great about that. Um, in that smallalness is a version of affordability. And I'll bring that up again in a second here. Um, and let so maybe I'll I'll say now the the big goal picture goals that I have that I believe I share with your community is one the preservation of bu existing building inventory. And I believe in that and I think this project is doing that. Um, we're not demolishing the old house. Um, and in fact, we're keeping aspects of what I think is a really unusual subordinate structure to compatible design. I think that, you know, this building and the type of intervention that's happening on the lot is a version of compatible design, not only in form, but in kind of how the character of it is that fits on the lot and its disposition to the neighborhood. Overall, I think there's a general question in your community and I'm so appreciative to heard about hear about this in the comp plan which is like appropriate density like what is an appropriate amount of density and I believe that this particular proposal strikes that we are not looking to put an unlimited number of units that are allowed in the R3 zone. What we're trying to do is put three units at the front and three units at the back which is six units. it's less than what is adjacent to it on both sides in terms of bedroom count. Um and then um the last thing is as I said earlier a version of affordability and in this case I believe affordability happens through compactness. So you'll notice that the units that we're proposing at the back are small. Those are 600 square foot units and they have I'll show you in a minute, but they have compact stairs that get up to them and they have these really interesting spaces that we're trying to configure in a dimminionative form. We're preserving the small unit

behind it. Those units are like between 500 and 600 square ft. The units at the front are larger. The two existing units at the front have larger square footage. Um, and then the new unit that we're adding to the front, which I have control over because it's an addition, is also small. That's also under 600 square feet. So, this image here, um, describes how the project relates to a base form and it just is a visual summary of a lot of the bulk regulations that staff um, summarized and in collaboration with staff. You know, this is the tool that we have used for this project as well as when we rewrote the code to kind of demonstrate how buildings might behave on a lot. And really, this is the thing that you're approving right now, which is like, do we like what this form um type might allow? The reason I chose the um the um this form type, which is the couple lot, sorry I spaced on it, is because I think it's a great lot type form type in your your community and that it allows for subdivision. It lets you do the very thing we're trying to do on this property. Um, and with that we can not only offer a diversity of housing and housing scale, but our intention is to offer for sale units at the back. So we can condominiumize the new construction because it's new, whereas the existing building is much harder to do. So all of the old building inventory that you have in your town is really challenging to subdivide. And so often times what happens is that you have single ownership and it's exclusively rental. Um, not that there's anything wrong with rental property. Um, that is another form of affordability, but it's hard to create all of the demising and separation you need between units in an old house because that's

already built and so it's challenging to do. So, our goal here is to provide a diversity of housing types, housing options, as well as for sale and for rent. Um, that's that's really what our goal is. And so, um, we created a bunch of images. The one in the upper left is the existing condition which is totally bizarre. Um, it has alley access and that existing structure at the back has an existing unit that is at the ground and it faces the alley and as staff mentioned there's 15 foot of grade change from the street to the alley. So, this thing like drops off. Um, today the area between the existing house and that back building is all concrete and the building at the back is actually, as you can see, there's three garage door bays. It's a garage on top of a unit. So, it's particularly unusual, but that so that double frontage, which is the alley in the front, really isn't being used purposefully. Um, and that is one of the appeals to the property is that like we can do something interesting. We can add units to the back. We can make improvements to this old building at the front. We can get rid of a bunch of hardscape. We can create a common area between buildings. And that can help support another form of community, which is a shared space that happens in between these buildings, which is another thing that I believe in. And so the image on the right demonstrates how we plan to remove the upper floor which has the garage on the back building and then add two units that are side by side. So there's two units abuting each other and one unit below a three-unit composition in the back and they have a halfstory which is their upper story kind of disposition to make the building look small and be small. Um I'll show you more about that in a second. Um the building at the front has at the back a little appendage um at the back

of the existing building which faces what I'll just say is going to be this shared space. Mostly the lower level of the historic building faces that and what it is is it's kind of this really poor partial walkout basement which has utilities in it. So there's no real purpose to it today. And it also has a vertical element that is a a sleeping a former sleeping room from you know the 1900s um that still is uninsulated but it's charming. And so we intend to renovate that sleeping room and put a unit on the back of the existing building specifically to keep that tower to make it meaningful and then to add a unit at grade in the in the common area so that units face onto each other so that future residents actually have a meaningful relationship where someone at the ground at the back of the front building has a relationship with people that are in the newer building. that's um at the you know former garage location. Um and you can see that we've got some dimensions and things that are shown here. Um so in the top of this page the existing conditions are shown and at the bottom um the proposed conditions are shown. And I think you know this colored version of it intends to demonstrate that at the front building this is just the front building that you're seeing right here. the back ones in a future slide. Um, yeah, it's a little challenging.

But at the front building, um, what we plan to do is the yellow stuff and red stuff is the stuff that faces the courtyard. We plan to use some of the existing unused space underneath the building to include and incorporate into the proposed unit and then add that little piece of orange. So the added square footage to the front building is just the thing that you see in the orange square there. Um and then that will result in a little micro unit that sits on the back that faces the grate there. And then um this is what that building elevation looks like. So the thing on the right is the back of the building. And today the yellow thing is there. So that's the sleeping tower. We're going to try to add that little orange thing and have a little ladder that goes up into the second floor of that yellow thing um as additional loft space. And um you know that will allow for this lower level to have a relationship with the rest of the space out in the courtyard. Yeah, I wish these screens were like jumbotrons. It's hard to see, but um this describes how that works and there's some really cool information in there about the section and how the thing behaves. So, this is the back building and what you can see on the top is the existing conditions and at the bottom is the proposed. So the upper left shows the thing that's on the ground that's under the garage and then to the right of it in the center at the top is the garage that sits on top of it. And our proposal is to keep the thing. So the bottom is the proposal proposes to keep the unit at the bottom, to take the garage off the top, which is just the parking area, and then to add side byside units, which you see there,

that have a little set of stairs that get you up to um another unit area that sits above. And it would look something like this. And those things are roughly 600 square feet, 500 to 600 square f feet. And you can see in these images kind of what they look like. And so, you know, they're compact one and a half Well, there's a half story space on the upper floor, um, which is where the bed sits. The access to bed is a compliant stair, and there are closets that make it a formal bedroom. Um, and there are really compact lower level. They're like micro units. I think they're going to really be rad. Um, so that is the combination of forms piece of our proposal. And this here is the site plan application. Um, I still feel like it's appropriate. I'm going to look to staff for this, but I still feel like it's appropriate for me to run through this. I think it'll like illuminate quite a bit. Um so that's last thing you saw was the thing to vote on now. Well, after this that is um this is the next piece of it which is the proof and I had the form zone application prepared in January for a full review and we decided with collaboration with staff that it will be best to bring both to you tonight together um so that you can see the full application and the proof that we intend to do something that will actually comply with the form zone. And so here's what it is. This is the application for that. We we will be considering those separately and I would appreciate it if you could have a second time to present on that part.

I can definitely do that. Um that sounds great. I would like to show you then the last piece that does apply to the form. They overlap obviously. Um and that would be the animation. Okay. Just Yeah. And so just go to the very beginning of this and we might have to take this slow. So stop it. Go back to the beginning. Or actually, may I use that remote for a sec? Use your clicker. Oh yeah. Yeah. Why don't you just set here? [snorts] If I speak loudly, can you hear me? Is that okay for the record? Yeah, there's a microphone right here. There's microphones.

Okay. All right. We have a little animation that shows you a lot of what we were just describing, but this is the existing condition. You can see the hardscape um and the existing building at the rear. And so the proposal changes the lot like this. It's easy to flip between the two. You can see the addition of outdoor space between the buildings and how the change might occur. Um and then the animation is going to move forward. You're just going to see the front. So this is the proposal. You can see the vertical element that is the existing sleeping um uh outdoor uh room. And then if we continue to go forward, you can see what that loft would look like um with a ladder access that sits right in here. And so I'm just going to keep moving forward. This is really the addition to the space, which is just an entrance in the kitchen. And then I'm going to go forward a little more. And it's going to do something weird here, but I promise it'll remedy itself. So, this is really the lowest level unit. Um, and everything that you see to the far right is essentially crawl space in the existing building. And so, it's really unusable space. Um, but if you see my cursor here, um, this is the shared laundry for those units that, um, you know, combined together to be in this building. And then I'm just going to go forward. And now you recognize the full form of that building. And then it's going to do this crazy flip. and we're going to go see the back again. And perhaps this is easier to see now that it's closed. So this is a halfstory second floor. And then we're going to just drop down on top of it. And so these are the new units that are being proposed. There's more information shown in the foreground than in the other side. Um but basically there's a footprint of building and a bathroom and a set of stairs. And that spiral stair would get one up into a smaller sleeping

loft that has appropriate space for closets and be defined as a bedroom. And then there's a unit on the lower level which is to the left there which we don't see into but you can see in section kind of how this becomes a one and a half story uh or a half story upper structure. Um and then it'll just kind of take us out to the full kind of image. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Questions for the applicant.

Mr. Palio, how many existing bedrooms in the structure? I I think and and I I want to get this right, but I think there are four bedrooms in there. Um and also, you know, in speaking, we should go look at the image actually. Okay.

Um In speaking with staff, um, you know, our conversation around parking in general was what you heard initially, which is this requires one parking stall per unit. And so the thing that you're pointing out, Commissioner Yoshida, is something that we didn't discuss. Um, and if I could just ask Lauren to go back to the existing conditions drawing. Um, we measured the buildings. Um, we also pulled all the survey information offline in terms well all the square footage information offline to confirm against this and then in addition to that um we hired uh a surveyor to come out to the site to create what is ultimately the survey that's the base drawing that all drawings are made from and we also had an arborist come to the property and identify existing trees um but before I I don't want to misspeak about the bedrooms I'm really hopeful we can pull it up because I think it is in the drawing set um there is either to a unit for one unit and I am sorry I don't know.

Yeah. So based on the drawings um these are the first time staff has seen these drawings as well. Uh the ground level unit has one bedroom. Lauren, are you meant to share your screen? Oh yes, I am meaning to do that. Uh the uh ground level unit has one bedroom and then the upper level unit, this is in the 8617 building uh has one bedroom as well.

This old house is unused. They turned it into an up and down building and so you know the rooms up there are very unusual and that's why I'm like I don't know what it says. So Um, my question is the drawings we're seeing now were staff's indicated this the first time they've seen them. You've included in your presentation, but they were not part of our packet. Correct. Which you submitted for?

No. All of the information that I've given like staff has and the the application that um uh chairperson Fraser was asking that we postpone does include answers to more questions. I'm just localizing the question to the number of bedrooms and configuration of the existing units is included in your presentation but was not included in the materials submitted for tonight's hearing to us. Correct. That is incorrect

for let me just make be clear. Um this was not submitted as the for the combination of form types the combination of form types site plan does not have this sheet in it but understood but the connection point that you've raised in your staff report is that parking is relevant to criteria B or C and I mean I I want to slide it in the right spot as well but of parking and what its metric is and is it a criteria did form zone your staff report makes that connection right thank you

commission yeah I have a question for the applicant um will any of these units be ADA compliant

they cannot be um I mean perhaps the lowest level unit off of the alley but it's got it's an existing unit only in the sense like ADA compliance requires, you know, roll in access with some really like restrictive ramp requirements and I don't see a way of getting that on any of these units and except for maybe the lowest level unit, but genuinely I I don't think they would be compliant. Yeah, I was just I was just curious due to requirements for multif family development and I I wasn't sure truthfully if this triggers that requirement or not and I was just asking a question. Yeah.

Well, sure your discretion I don't have any additional questions for the applicant but the applicant's presentation I have a few followup questions for staff. Okay. Um any other before we do that any other questions from the commission for the implement? Thank you. Um, so the the site plan shows that uh there would be potentially five spaces on one of the potentially two lots and only one space available another lot. What's the plan for shared parking?

That is a great question. I'm so glad you're giving me the opportunity to go back to this. Could we actually look at my proposal? um because really it's the proposal that is going to dictate this and so I know you're kind of looking at two things here. Um so the property is going to work in a couple of ways. I am hopeful that we can subdivide it. I think that will happen as long as public works and our team can figure out a way to provide the appropriate utilities to it. I think we can. That being said, um there are a couple of easements that will be on the property. There will be a use easement in the center of the property that is the shared green. And so that common outdoor space will have a shared use and maintenance agreement in which all residents um will be able to use that space and share in it. And I'm going to talk about the parking in a second, but these are the other things on the west side of the property. It's likely that there's a utility easement that runs from the front into the back because water is on the front and sewer is on the back and so you need to like get these things and so uh it's likely there'll be use easements that cross the property. Um the parking configuration is something in fact we did collaborate quite a bit on um because at one point we were satisfying all of the um parking for the existing building with tandem parking up front and I believe there are provisions to allow for tandem parking to count for your parking count in your code. And the way that I imagine this work, so there's an easement as well for the parking area um that is against the alley and then there would be assigned parking for units that are in the primary house. Two of which would get assigned parking at the alley and be able to access and use those through the

use easement with the sidewalk system and the stairs. Conversely, the bu the units at the back would be able to use the parking and use that same use easement to go enjoy the amenities in the middle. And then the extra parking that sits at the top that is the one that's shown in the um uh what was like the existing garage or existing driveway is the sixth stall that would be assigned to somebody up front. And my hope is that we would still continue to be able to use the um tandem parking for guest parking. And you there have been conversations that we've had as well as about the on street parking available in front of the building to service the totality of parking needs. And in addition to this, I know we've had some talks about this, but you know, in addition to this, this is a property that is very near the school of minds and I know that you're contemplating comprehensive plan adjustments to parking requirements coming from the state level. I believe that this is aligned with what those goals are and um I also believe that this will function for the residents of the um both pieces of the property.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions for the Thank you. Thank you. I think before we move to public comment, we'll do additional ones for um questions for staff and then go to public comment after that. Thank you. Um so first question can you again so we all have shared understanding bring up the package from the applicant that was included in our packet.

Sure. Just to clarify my what I think I've seen, I think we just heard the applicant testify that it was incorrect that the existing units were provided. I just want to make sure we're all seeing the same thing in the packet. What was in our packet? So, this the 12 pages, this was what was provided. Um I will say there are several versions of this packet of information. So go to the existing if you can go to the existing front building

sure drawings. So this is what was provided in your packet. So we have the um that's well no that she I'm sorry. Go back. Yeah. So that sheet that shows zoning calculations, that's not existing conditions, correct? Right. This is for the new forward uh one two sheets. Sorry. One well the existing build the the color diagrams that show the addition to the the floor plans of Okay. Existing building 12.

Yes. Thank you. [laughter] Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. So, those those are those gray boxes are the existing units. We were not provided information regarding existing bedrooms. You were not provided that. I I you know, like I said, I don't want to with the applicant. Um, you know, there were a number of packets. There might have been a sheet or two that, you know, we might have seen at one point or another, but it wasn't the intention for staff to weave something out. [laughter] So I'm not I'm just trying to clarify what I just want to what I just want to make sure you understand our attention. Yeah. Compared to documents that may have been exchanged. Understood.

Um the other So can you also bring up uh the municipal code again with regard to combination of forms? I think the the applicant's testimony in your the staff report alludes to something that feels a little bit different than what I read there. So, um I don't know what subsection that is. It's for Yeah, it's bright

here. Um let's see. Oh, when I do that, sorry. Apologies. Once you uh adjust MUN code, it it loses your place.

I was trying to do full screen and I got punished. Okay, hold on. Um, give me just a second here. major. Okay, here we are. I'm not going to pull down the screen just but here's the

So, it the major adjustment to combination of forms. An adjustment may be approved to allow for a combination of form types to be organized in a way that is not contemplated by this chapter. It does not say elements from other form types, right? It says combination of form types. Is that correct?

That is correct. But Commissioner Yashida, if I can uh step in here. So I think if we step back to the way that the enhanced compatibility criteria um you know function overall. So um you know there's two site types of enhanced or two types of major adjustments. There's one for practical difficulty, one for enhanced compatibility. And I think the way that staff looked at this, the overall um process for enhanced compatibility has a broad latitude of adjustments that planning commission may consider. Um and then the combo is a subtype of that, right? So um in a way you know any like you can adjust up the floor area um as permitted or you know the setbacks and other things under that broader latitude under enhanced compatibility before getting to that subcategory to allow them to be organized in that side drive couple type.

I understand I'm just trying to clarify what the different versions of it and what the source language is. Not asking for your interpretation. Um my The follow on question to that um yes

the mechanics of process you we arrive here for this application as a combination of form types are there other are there other process or mechanics to consider this application i.e. I mean, I know we're leaning away from PUDS and things like that, but are there other mechanics in the code that were considered or could have been considered for this application?

Yes. Uh, we did consider looking at this as two house form types on two future lots, you know, one facing the alley and one facing the um 16th. Um, however, that really missed out on that that sort of com that sort of community area in the middle. We felt that given the size of the lots that that was something that would be really important to your considerations on this project in particular. Um, the other thing we did look at is well, what if they just left the front house alone and we just went after the back house to figure out, you know, what to do with that. Um, again, given the parking situation and and trying to improve the parking situation, frankly, on the property, um, we felt that looking at it in a in a holistic way gave planning commission the most information to consider this request. Um, this is only our second time we've kind of come forward with something like this. Um, and generally it's been used to preserve structures. Um, and This is not in a historic district. Um it is a house. Um both houses are well over 50 years old. Um and we staff felt that preserving the structures would be important to the context given the age of the structures around it. Uh so we did look at a couple other ways to do this. Um but staff felt that the combination of form types and admittedly there is some limitations to how the criteria list out. you know, they're they're pretty broad. Um, we felt that the combination of form types gave you all the most information and gave you the most flexibility when you were considering this that you could say, well, this one thing doesn't quite work, you know, and instead of on the whole site and you would have the

opportunity to look at the entire site um, as part of your deliberations is instead of one part of a site or kind of trying to silo each one into a form type. Yeah. So I appreciate the other ways of thinking about it. Is simple question. Is there another process by which this application could come before us other than the combination of form types like a um looking through our what section is it? The process section. Um,

so it it could have come through as a reszoning for a PUB. Yeah.

Um, for a property of this size, that's a it's a pretty intense tool to use given that we weren't really looking at density so much as we were looking at form. Um, and so staff felt that the formbbased code was the better place to address this. Um I mean and you know there it could have come through as a PUD but it would be a lot more detailed. It would have a lot more to it. Um and frankly you could stretch much larger outside the bounds of the code with a PUB because essentially whatever you it's custom zoning. So the form zone combination even given its limitations to the review criteria still was we thought staff felt it was effective in in containing the development to you know a mod incremental modest additions rather than something else. Um but certainly there could have been other ways it could have gone for sure.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Other questions for staff hearing? None. We will open public hearing in this case. Do we have folks who would like to make public comment? If you would come to the podium, please introduce yourself and your address. You'll have three minutes for public comment.

Thank you. My name is Paul Casey. My wife Kathy and I own the uh home at 817 and a half 17th Street. The half being the important part because it's on the alley. It's the white roofed house that you saw in the aerial photo across the street. We've owned this house since 2021 22 I believe. I'm also a registered professional engineer in the state of Colorado and uh I would it's pretty simple. I mean we don't really have any aversion uh to the u type of um development that's proposed. We would like to know what improvements are going to be made to the alley. And the reason I bring that up is parking is extremely tight in the alley as it is now. If we're adding units, adding parking spaces, it's going to continue to, I think, exacerbate what's a very, very tight u parking scenario now, access and parking scenario. Given that, also the utilities, the sanitary sewer has been I think three different times we've asked asked the city to come in and uh jet out the sewer because it continues to back up. Now, we're just going to be adding load to that. And it does collect from uh the area to the west above it. So, we've got some issues there with potentially sewer capacity. Um so, we would like the commission to address, I think specifically, improvements to the alley. It's a dirt alley. Is it going to be paved? What's fire protection going to look like? and I know it's got to go through the uh review from utilities and and so from that aspect, we obviously want to protect our own property and those around us and make sure we don't have any issues associated with uh the

additions that are that are being uh proposed here. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Other public comment.

Hello, my name is Jessica Stro and my husband Ken and I own the property and occupy the property at 1616 Washington, which is a house at the beginning of the alley right there. Um, we've lived there since 1998. We actually lived in the house that they now own when we started, but we bought the house out in Washington there in 2000 2001. So, been there a long time. Um, I have similar concerns to the Casey's with the alley itself and the parking. Um, having three units at the base, but having parking for five of those units is going to add a lot of traffic into the alley. And part of it, too, is not having the the alley dead ends. There is no through. It's dirt. There's nowhere to actually back because it's a hill. So looking at the turning radius, vehicles being able to safely maneuver out without encroaching on adjacent property or backing down the full length of the alley and using other property to turn around is one of my biggest concerns because we see it now with the load of traffic that's back there because of the other multi-unit residents that are back there. So adding five more cars to the back of the alley is definitely going to be something that is it needs to have more of a study done. Um having five spaces there there isn't going to be the maneuverability at least in my in my opinion. Um the other thing is again just the mitigation of storm water. Taking the lot and doing any other changes to it. We want to make that storm water is mitigated properly and not going to encroach onto other adjacent properties as well. Um the alley does not have great flow. There's not a whole lot of great drainage at the

end of it. And we have taken water into our basement um a couple of times with you know they call them hundredyear storms but we've seen them twice in the 20ome years that we've been there. So, um, well, I just want to make sure that that is also part of the consideration of what happens with extra storm water. Um, I do think that on the site plan, it said that 65% of the lot, give or take, was non-permeable. Um, and it was 45% permeable or open space, including walks and things. So, again, it's just more water that needs to make sure that it's mitigated properly. And then the other ones for the other part of the book that we're not talking about now. So again, I'm not opposed to what is being proposed. I just want to make sure that other adjacent properties are not negatively impacted by this. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments. Thank you for being here and for listening through the all the things that have come before this public comment. I'll close public comment at this point. Um I think at this point we will also take a five minute break before we come back for conversation and deliberation. So moved. So moved.

back into order. Moving on to deliberation. I think it's good to recognize the received.

We received some public comment in writing and we want to acknowledge that. I'm going to ask Carl and Lauren to um tell us what that was.

Abs. Absolutely. Thank you. I uh um staff received or the city received um two emailed public comments uh prior to posting of the packet um and were attached to that agenda. Um and then um another uh that was received um today and was also attached to that agenda. Um and just um as before planning commission um uh moves into deliberation um it's uh best to give the applicant a chance to respond to all public comment both emailed um and spoken tonight.

Okay. Would you like to come back to the podium and and respond to the public comment?

Yeah. Thanks for the opportunity. Um, [clears throat] the public comment that came through digitally, I hope you've also had an opportunity to review and I'll just share with you since I think I'm grateful for this. I don't know this person, but I know he's reputable in your community. Peter says, "Thanks, Lauren. This looks like a good project to me. It's confusing with units A, B, and C listed for both the front building and the rear building. Plus, sheet 11 has two main level plans, which also gave me a little trouble, but overall it looks like a great way to gain some density. I have no objection to this project. I just feel like that's worth saying since somebody wrote it and thank them. Um, Paul and Kathy, are you Paul Kathy? Uh, Jessica and Kenneth. Um, thank you guys for your comments. Um I am around after as well to talk a little bit more about this and um Paul and Kathy had some comments. Um I what I'm hearing is there's some enforcement issues in the alley for parking and clearly something needs to happen to enforce um parking regulations. Our proposal is requesting parking to happen entirely on our property. And so if someone's parking like in the alley in an obstructive way that seems like an enforcement issue. I'm grateful to hear about the um sewer backup issue. It sounds like a public works department problem which you know we'll connect to but I'm sure if there's an issue there the city will get at it. Um and then um you know it is our intention to make the site more permeable as you said. So we're removing a significant amount of hardscape um and collecting that water that would normally just shed off the back of the property in the green court. And there will also be mitigation strategies to make sure that it's not being pumped out to the back of the property with gutter systems that address uh drainage flow in appropriate ways. So, thanks for your

comments. Okay. And we had the there was a historic uh comment that came in this afternoon.

Yes, Mr. Gardner uh wrote a comment um essentially just um referencing the build date which I took from the assessor. He has information that was built in 1905 instead of 1902. So I just I correct the record on that. I'm sure I'm sure he's probably accurate, but I just wanted to note that based on his researchers 1905. Um the assessor is not known for its accuracy on build dates. It's clo it's often close, but not always accurate. Um, and then the other comment he talked about was that uh something it had to do with the history of the structure and who had owned it in in a previous time. Um, as well as the uh there was once proposed a Court Hill historic district that did not any that was many many years ago and never went any further than just study um that this you know this area. The reason why you see a lot of historic homes but are not designated, the city did study at one point, did not move forward with any designation in this area.

Thank you. [clears throat] But I I will say that it would not preclude the owner from trying to to go forward with a individual designation on the property if if they would like to do that. Any other public comment? No. Now close public comment. Thank you. Thank you for the making sure that we got Well, actually there was there was a written comment. Um you also submitted a written comment regarding Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um the Casey's also submit a written comment as well that was including your packet.

I didn't I just double checked everything so I did not see it. I double checked the two attachments on the agenda. Yeah. And each only included one, one from Peter and one from Rick. the written comment.

I think that is a or saving PDFs issue. Uh when I was putting this together, um there is there was another written comment and I'm happy to um to print it out and ensure you have it. But my my recollection from the comment it is very much what you heard verbally um from the Casey's um and I can bring it up if the Caseies would like to read it and make Oh, the lace they left. Sorry. Um I'm happy to read it into the record their full comment that they submitted. I think that would be we can do that. That would be a good thing to do.

Okay. Yeah. Apologies for that. Um, was staff able to address the comments as well? I think there were some questions coming out of the public comment first. Yes. Here we go. I'm going to read the comment from um, this is what not from the cases. Excuse me. It was from you all.

That's right. Uh hello. We received a notice for the public meeting but may not be able to attend. The plans show all the parking for these additional units to be off the dead the little dead end alley. This alley is not maintained by the city and currently there are 18 vehicles accessing the existing units multiple times per day. Are we expected are we to expect an additional five plus vehicles multiple times a day on an unmaintained base surface to not be an overload? Not only will this degrade the poor the a pretty poor surface, but it will also make it harder for the residents who walk up and down to do so safely. We honestly do not have any issues with the new units, but feel the alley in its current condition is not meant for all vehic for all the vehicles that have been added over the last 25 years. The speeds of the current vehicles on a dead-end alley are not are already kind of out of hand. We would hope another solution for parking can be found behind the main house. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now close public comment. Um, and ask staff if you would if there do you have any comments to it or maybe there or particular questions that we have from the commission about the public. Do you have anything in particular, Carl? Don't I don't believe so. Um, but you know, if you have further questions as you deliver, you're happy to to go into that.

I'd ask the I mean, so questions are important. Um, they're not anything the zoning commission or this particular staff can answer, but if if you could spec if you could refer that to the right department and get an answer to these questions, I think it'd be important.

Yeah, absolutely. I I will say um to the utilities and I I'll will speak to some of those that yes, public works does look at those um and ultimately when um looking at building permit um you know if this were approved uh tonight it would move on to those building permits and ultimately that's when um the engineering team uh reviews the sizing and capacity um and those other factors um as well as this would have you know those confirmed with uh the final details um to make sure that it meets their their specifications. Um as far as the alley, I think that's, you know, a public consideration. Um and, you know, I think something that um especially as this moves forward, you know, we would look at um you know, in in collaboration with uh public works um to potentially address some of those concerns. Commission RER

uh just confirming that um one of the concerns that was raised is storm water mitigation and at what point in the process would that be addressed?

Absolutely. So formal storm water uh mitigation through um the uh is generally triggered based on a size of disrupted um property. Um so that's generally a half acre. Um so from a storm water permit perspective um the site does not meet those thresholds. Um however uh I think there's two components of that. One um drainage is reviewed um at the time of building permit by engineering um to make sure that there's adequate drainage um you know into the site or you know off of the site um and that does not impact uh other properties. Um the other is that right now there is uh pvious surface or imperous surface sorry the one that doesn't absorb water uh yeah impervious surface um with the com the driveway area as well as that access to the garage um that is proposed to become more green space um and so I think overall the uh imperous surface area is being reduced on that site so I think there's um two components that um is in mitigated and then is also um further reviewed with the uh the final drainage with building permits.

Thank you. And then um not directly asked, but it kind of spurred a thought. Um has the fire department been consult consulted with this application and are there any concerns with the you know high number of uh vehicles and residents that are going to be on this dead end alley? The fire department didn't have any specific concerns. Um they noted that the property has two access points which for them gives them two options from 16th or from the alley. So in their uh for their purposes um you know having two access points um resolves their their concerns with this.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions for staff? Okay. So, um I think it's time for us to talk and deliberate. Um and just to I guess remind [clears throat] ourselves we we have a the question the first question in front of us is about a major adjustment to allow for the use of um a combination of forms for form types to uh proceed with the development of this property. Um and that that's a major adjustment under enhanced compatibility. um not under uh practical conditions or practical difficulties. Um so um we will do that first and then look at the question about the zone site overall zone site in the packet where we have um Lauren has reviewed or given us her review of the criteria uh to meet for the enhanced um compatibility. And um I think what I would suggest is that we look at those

[clears throat] individually and have a chance to discuss whether or not we think we agree that the criteria are met or if there are issues or conditions that uh we want to call out for u special consideration. So on the in the staff report this is pages n on pages 9 through 11 um look at those criteria. So um first one is that all All of the form types are allowed in the form zone in which the subject property is located. And they've um they've identified and confirmed that all three uh form types are allowed in the transition form zone. Any questions? B. the massing of the development is consistent with other development on the same block or appropriately transitions to the massing of adjoining lots. Um any questions or comments about that? I'll just add the comment that uh with a larger lot uh the consideration to allow for a larger uh amount of floor area I think is appropriate in this scenario and kind of you know pulling the pin of where you had pinned earlier. um just you know ensuring that uh that it's consistent and and that I I agree with staff that the that increasing the um minimum lot size for something that allows uh this much floor area um I think would

be more consistent with some of the other developments in the area.

Yeah. I mean I think this is this is [clears throat] the section where I the the question about um allowable floor area and allowable units related to the form types come in. I agree with Commissioner Ruer that I mean I I don't agree with the mechanics. I I agree that the conditions it could be supportable raising a minimum that's already met in order to get at it I find convoluted. I appreciate the intent for transparency. It took me a while to connect all the dots. I didn't find it very transparent. So I I I I can come back around to that. I'm not as clear on I mean this the bedroom question I think as it relates to parking comes in later. The I feel like I had to fight to find the information that side drive uh couple house carried with it to that was wrong in the staff report is one and the request was three again just took a lot of machinations for me to understand and I didn't find transparent but is it potentially okay I mean that's I think the question really got straight

you say in terms of number of units I because the form car I mean the form carries it sorry I interrupted

no no sorry I interrupted you I I also agreed that it was very difficult to discern number of units I also had a hard time getting my head around being told it's a bigger lot and so you should allow more square footage and units and whatever. But oh by the way, we're probably going to subdivide it. Why are we talking about a bigger law? I don't know. That to me was a little strange. So I don't know. I mean I'm a I can it's I don't the criteria is I don't find the criteria met per the staff report is I mean but the point of cons from a consensus standpoint I I mean there's there's I mean maybe jumping to the there there are a lot of items that looks like that we've that have been raised during tonight's testimony that maybe the staff report should be updated and revised. I don't think I don't think it's supportable to say the criteria is met per the staff report and reynthesized given the new information is maybe where my head is at. But I I I find it hard to support that line item given the new information that's been presented

and some of the and some of the discrepancies and errors that we found. I agree there's some information tonight that was presented that we have earlier and also probably some information that we still need um potentially but maybe not related well for me not related to this criterion but certainly for this application but getting back to B yes at least I feel like the the front um unit building whatever house seems like it matches the um neighborhood the back I have no idea because I don't know what else is on the alley we weren't show me that.

Yeah, I when I look at the criteria for B, it talks about being consistent on the same block face. So, I don't know that the alley matters so much, but maybe I'm misinterpreting it. But I think the intent is, you know, what you see from the street when you're driving around the neighborhoods, you want it to look consistent. And I think his renderings are showing pretty consistent style of the front house. So, okay. See, the design of the development allows for safe and efficient circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. Um, we have we we have confirmed that there are six bedrooms.

Is that correct? The current floor plans as shown by the applicant this evening show one bedroom in each of the existing units in the front building. Um so there are there would be one existing one bedroom there's only two bedrooms in that in that structure currently or at least as known today. Um staff would recommend that um as a point of order uh given given the testimony this evening that uh perhaps a condition limiting the number of bedrooms on site would be appropriate um given given the information so that there just wouldn't be further subdivision for bedrooms um in that existing building footprint. So clarification, I thought the applicant's testimony was four existing four bedrooms in the existing.

That's not what the four plans show. Um testimony, right? No, I understood. Um the assessor shows four bedrooms, which again is I think that's what did you say about uh it's looks like two. So just just for clarification, the standard is for each bedroom there'd be one and a half dwellings or one and a half parking spaces, right? Per bedroom. Per bedroom, which is not per unit.

Uh it's uh studio units, one space per dwelling unit. One and two bedroom units, it's one and a half spaces per dwelling unit. And then three plus is I don't think that's correct. Staff, can you clarify which uh Commissioner R is correct that for onebedroom units in this particular zone, it is one and a half units. One and a half parking spaces per per dwelling unit. It says unit. Correct. Right. Correct. Multi-unit. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm there.

Right. So it's one and a half it's the transitional zone which is other in the case of that parking table which is the rightmost column right given the information provided with the the four plans again it's the four plans as that I showed and looked at this evening uh show one bedroom in each of those units. Um, so staff would recommend I one one of those units could be satisfied by having the tandem because it is the same unit. Um, but the other one would have to be converted to a studio in order to meet the parking regulations.

Are we looking at the entire site? I'm sorry.

Yeah, I mean I think there's a lot of unknowns. I mean my this simple tally and again I I'm in a position that we we should see all that information. Um and I don't have enough um information to understand where we're at, but sorry I can't get that commander sheet. Four plus two units on the back plus a loft and a another bedroom in the base basement. I get to a total of six bedrooms just based on the numbers that I'm hearing around. But should that be verified? And is that actionable? I'm not sure. I think it should be verified. I don't I don't feel like we have information.

I think is the loft the bedroom in the basement unit in the front house? Well, I'll let you know and go through all those questions. I so my my point of clarification to get the loft definition read is I I think what's labeled as loft are should be considered veterans for the sake of the parking calculation. So all that being read synthesized redistilled into a clear and concise staff report is that's that's what I would expect

and and I I think you're absolutely right. Um, I think that as as stated at the very beginning of of this conversation and the presentation, uh, the residential free zone district has unlimited units provided that all the all the on-site parking can be accommodated. And I think that is the limiting factor and I think that's really important for us to to discuss and and determine here,

right? Or or is it something that we're considering the variance for? It's got to be the facts have to be distilled and then how it's what the consideration in question is are I I don't think we're we have the information to go through what's been present but regardless we're looking under [cough] the necessary parking spaces [clears throat] right

which which magnifies community concerns about patterns Yeah, good point. It would change, right? If if the the staff report is public, I think you're right. To the extent that that's the only document the public has been privy to, I think we owe a updated report to the public. Okay. Um D. The design of the development brings building forms together in an integrated arrangement. Um, buildings that relate to one another, shared access or shared amenities and consistent or complimentary architectural styles and building materials. any comments or [cough]

I think it could be but I it's interesting that this is a criteria but we don't have the architectural information. I mean we did see some renderings but that kind of was not necessarily part of of our consideration. So if we were to approve this, I would recommend that that be a condition of our approval that the architectural uh standard architectural styles and building materials will be complimentary just to ensure that criterion is further.

Okay. I I will say I I do appreciate the the crafting of the common space between the two spaces with the the huge the two build things. I think that's a creative use of space and and I appreciate the the applicant's rationale

which speaks to to E.5 on those criteria. So um what I hear in the discussion thus far is um that we didn't that we don't have don't believe we have sufficient information to um really understand the parking issue and the uh therefore the impact on the alley in the back or or whatever other alternatives there might Um so yeah processing where you're at just point of order question I mean the what are the paths forward for the for us to continue and expect new information to be redistilled. I don't know what that means with respect to notification requirements. Does the applicant withdraw? I mean, it doesn't make sense. I mean, advancing it to a motion seems unlikely in that I I mean, the only motion I could arrive at would be we don't have enough information. It would be to deny, which is maybe premature given what you said because the information isn't there. But that's the only path without it. So, I'm just thinking this out loud.

I thank you. I'm sort of doing the same thing. Um what I'm thinking is that we are not ready to make a decision and that um we should look at a a continuation to um be able to get more information that we need. Yeah. So my I mean my question would be does a continuation logistically can new information [laughter] be reynthesized or does or does it what does it mean with the application? If you could give me just a couple minutes I could find that answer.

Yes sir.

Sure. Thanks for the opportunity. I don't know what's going to happen tonight, but I'm going to need some feedback about your direction on parking because there's two things. One is the form zone or one is the combination of form types and then there was the actual application on how I was complying. You saw a lot more tonight than you might normally get with just the combination of forms. And in fact, I was stopped when I was going to show you the next application. That is how I comply. And so, we're at a really unusual crossroad because what I'm hearing from you is we need more information. The information you're looking for is the compliance piece that comes in the next aspect of the presentation, which I will say you already generally know because I've shared with you. And I think that is why Commissioner Yoshida is asking like we need more information. But as an applicant for me to do anything meaningful like leaving here today for a continuence with the magnitude of the information I've shared tonight, what I would really love to hear is just the information about what is the appropriate balance of parking for the project that I'm describing. And by law, I'm allowed to park on the alley. And so I don't think you can like limit the parking on the alley. That is like a allowance that is just given because of frontage requirements. But if there is a relationship between parking and unit count or parking and bedroom count that you think is important to discuss and to give me information on, then I can either respond to it and say that is going to work and we can put that in as a condition for the form. um combination of forms and I can amend my site

application which I haven't shown you yet. Um or I can say it's not going to work and yeah like a continuence would be necessary for me to go figure out what I'm going to do with the project. Um, I hope that makes sense, but you know, a continuence without any information or discussion about what the perspective is puts me in, I will just say staff as well in a terrible position because it's pretty much directionless. Chair Po order that's at your discretion, but this is commission discussion, right? It is. It is an commission discussion with staff

or among ourselves and We were shown a lot of extra information tonight that wasn't in a packet. So, I really feel like we need to have all of that information before we even go further. I I think the information specifically for me that I think we're looking for, and you all please correct me if I'm wrong, at least at least some of the information that we need is is how the form type um would conform with the parking requirements. Um there are minimum parking requirements for multi-household residences that are applicable to all form types. Um we can't just make up something. Um if we were to, you know, move forward with a with an approval tonight, um all each of the six units would be required for for these spaces to um be comp for this to be compliant with the parking regulations. They'd all have to be studio units. Um no bedrooms permitted. So uh just just some maybe feedback for the applicant for staff. Um, we we need we need some more information about about the parking requirements that are being applied here. Not that wasn't really provided in the staff report. Um, and then the number of bedrooms per unit and the information that was provided this evening that we didn't see in the packet and all those things.

I agree. It's not it's the additional information that was presented needs to be reynthesized. It's not we're not asking for additional information. We're asking the information that's clearly needs to be reynthesized clearly changes the nature of the staff report. That's the information to the public. What what for staff? Um, what does it what will it take to put together a revised report and be able to address those issues, particularly parking and bedrooms and impact on the surrounding residents use of the alley and so Thank you for the opportunity to um consider this and I think um you know at some point I might um ask for a brief opportunity to deliberate with uh um council um because I think right now um you know I think that the question um that this poses is if this is related to one of the criteria directly for the major adjustment for enhanced compatibility or to the applicant's point is this a um component of the uh consideration of the form zone site plan um that is then subject strictly to those parking requirements under 1836. So I think with that if planning commission is thinking okay

do we have the information um based on the overall parking and how that impacts that um the criteria under enhanced compatibility uh for that combo of form types if you're thinking oh we need this to address that criteria specifically or is this a question um that is actually better suited for that deliberation of the form zone site plan which is that next consideration um and whether or not you know there's that. So I think that's just a clarification that staff would need is if you're going to continue and it's based on that information for the parking um whether that's for the the potential zoning opportunities or is that for the actual technical um requirement for the forms on site plan.

Understood. So, I'd ask everybody to look at page nine of the staff report. [snorts] The criteria C talks about safe and efficient circulation. The analysis is six units is sufficient. Therefore, the criteria is met. That's that's it's entered into evidence. There is no question that that's the way that you evaluated it and that's the way the information was presented. I don't I mean outcome still needs to be discussed but I don't think we're draw I'm not drawing an erroneous conclusion that that's the way the information was presented. It's it's it's there. Right.

So what I guess I'm confused about what what what it is that we're still missing because I think you're right. I mean, if we're going based off of this analysis, so how how do you if if parking is determined by bedrooms rather than units and the staff report is six is sufficient. How I don't understand how the we we don't have enough information to make the math work that I see. I Okay. I I would I would I would say that we we are not considering the number of bedrooms at this time, right? We're considering the form type. Yeah.

And so by approving this form type, we'd be essentially very much limiting the number of bedrooms that could be put into this development. So again, all six of the units would need to be studio units according to the parking regulations. Um I don't know that that's really truly what is intended here. Um I I think that potentially if the applicant would like for something different to be considered, we we need to think about that probably now. Um but yeah, I I I guess I agree with Carl that um you know, we could consider these things potentially, but it's not what has been discussed this evening. It is if we're truly taking a step back and looking at the form zone, you know, does it meet that criterion?

Yeah, I agree with that. The part that doesn't quite add up to me is the question of how parking was evaluated and it was not. It was I think the testimony was that the wrong column was used. So I get your point, but I also also came back around to the same question. How was it evaluated?

Yes. So where I'm not sure where that leads us is there is there further clarification that we need from staff and staff perhaps meeting with the applicant. to [clears throat] clarify the the confusion between parking based on dwelling units versus parking based on bedrooms.

Well, I don't know if there's confusion. I think the testimony was is that if if the wrong column was used and that's what's in the report, [clears throat] our decisions are any decisions based on that but the analysis was is we have a known inaccuracy. So any decision downstream of that acknowledges that right

I I'll also add that I think that you know maybe not specific to the form zone but looking ahead to the site plan we understand that some of these are lofts loft spaces that are going to be considered bedrooms and therefore put the total number of parking required over six. Um, so I I would recommend that we continue this case to allow for staff and the applicant to further evaluate the total number of parking spaces required, desired, number of bedrooms that are, you know, anticipated here. Um and and truly if if not if six units are not able to be accommodated on the site due to the amount of parking that's required then you know maybe additional thought needs to be given on on the proposal.

That's not to say that I don't like it. I do I do like what's been done here. But I just think that um what's it's it's difficult to accommodate everything on the site.

Yeah. I mean, just as far as a discussion point and deliberation, I mean, I appreciate the intent. I appreciate um the bold strokes of some of the solutions, but some of the positioning and some of the outcomes that aren't clear is where I get where I'm not I want to have more precise information. Right? It's and which is related to my question about mechanics because I if if the solution requires a set of set of conditions I want to clearly understand them and you know if if it passes the tipping point even though the site is small but the nature of it is it's so unusual it should have come through as a PUD is I mean that's I'm wondering if if that's not there and we can adapt but that's the other perspective which is that the outcome and the solution in the process to get there I think have to have clarity and I and we don't have that right now

we need a little more information be helpful uh So on the parking question, obviously there's ways to modify parking requirements in the code. Um given the constraints on the site, it would be unlikely that there would be additional parking to be provided for this number of units. Maybe one other space in a tandem configuration without getting rid of the green space.

Um obviously the applicant can make the decision to reduce the number of units. However, um it would be good to get input from planning commission on whether or not as far as considering a variance or considering um any reduction in parking given the size given the units themselves or um or would you be looking for um you wouldn't I mean obviously you can consider it but just getting your input on the parking itself given the nature of the project and the context it's And

I I get I get the question from both. I just don't think it's appropriate to to provide an answer for that. I get the question. I guess it but it's it's well it's whether or not you would consider it or not. It it be it's not really asking you make a decision just something you would

It's the same question in reverse. We we weren't asked about any of the nature of of our tenor on the adjustments that are in this packet. So, I mean, you know, it's it's a chicken and egg question. I mean, I that's that's my answer is I I I I'm I get the question, but I don't I'm not alone provide an answer. You can put whatever variance the applicant staff seems reasonable forward. It's it's our job to consider it, right?

Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Yoshida. I think we need to evaluate the criteria for approval, I think we need more information. Um, off the top of my head, I I can't remember what all the criteria are. So, I, you know, without seeing that in this context, I I think it would be very difficult for us to give a tenative thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Well, I'm not Yeah, I'm just more um the configuration of the site was a big consideration and how this was brought forward and and the existing configuration. So, um, it could change significantly potentially with another configuration. And so, I just was obviously I' I've heard on both sides. I've heard um support for the preservation piece, but you know, sort some of the the issues with the um parking. And so, it's kind of balancing those two questions um moving forward. So, Um any input you all have individually on that topic would be helpful for staff and the applicant as we decide how to move this best to move this forward or take a pause or whatever that might be. Um but certainly you're not required to give any input if you don't if you do not wish to. I I think what I hear student specifically is simply just like a reading of the presentation with more data included data that we provided that wasn't in the packet is that

no not really I I'm saying our consideration of the question is clearly different after hearing the packet the testimony whether it changes the I'm not predicting if if the application stays the same and the variances are in requests or position clearly is one outcome. If the application changes is another I'm not I'm not predicting either outcome. So [clears throat] potentially we would be asking for the applicant and staff to have view of [clears throat] their plan and to know the kinds of questions that have been raised. parking certainly being one of them. alley and use of the alley. Whether or not the accommodations are studios or one bedroom and if there is in fact a request for variance from parking ratio depending on [clears throat] what they're presenting. Those are the kinds of things.

Yeah. Is there a one bedroom? Is there one bedroom sleeping going to be in this unit? And we didn't see any of the outline of the original units, which I would like to see. Do we know or do we does the staff know that in the second half of the applicant's presentation there's going to be more detail that would help shed light on how they're planning on coming complying with some of our concerns or or is that just supplemental conversation?

Um I think it's hard to say uh given the deliberation that I've heard. I will say that um staff did um staff brought up sort of the review criteria for this item and that it it doesn't have a section for con you know conformance with parking code for example that's not listed specifically. So there's a lot of leeway in this in this how you would analyze this and staff admittedly you know understand you know we we were very transparent that there are a lot of ways you could analyze this. You don't necessarily have to agree with staff's analysis. You can you can have your own analysis as well. Um so um you know I think that that's where it leaves a little bit of a question for us because there is such a broad way to analyze this that having your direction given the broad nature of the review criteria themselves [clears throat] is helpful for us to know uh is helpful for us um but again not required but again again you can have your own analysis. You do not have to agree with staff's analysis.

Commissioner,

yeah, I understand that. And kind of like I was saying earlier, if we approve the form zone site plan as presented, that would be limiting the units to six studio units, which is essentially impossible with what has been presented this evening because there's lofts and and bedrooms associated. um and and the lofts cannot be turned into a studio necessarily. So I I don't think that approving the form zone site plan as presented is going to get anyone anywhere. Um, you know, based on the math that I'm not even sure is correct based on how I read the code, I think based on what was presented this evening, there would be nine total parking spaces required for this site. I don't think that that's feasible based on what what it looks like. I don't think that yeah I I would recommend to staff that that we that they recommend a continuence due to the fact that the form zone site plan presented this evening is not going to achieve what the outcome is intended

and

um I guess I'm not tracking with that because the criteria says the design of the development allows for safe and efficient circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. it doesn't specifically go into how many spaces it is. That's in their analysis. Um, but the actual criteria is not as pointed. And so I mean from my perspective as long as we think that there's going to be a way to have safe and efficient circulation of vehicles whether it be by having six spaces and if need be a variance from however it lands up going on the on the next round. Um I don't and you know you're more experienced with this than me so maybe I'm missing a procedural thing but to me it seems like we could forward with this one.

I agree. Okay. I just don't think it's what the applicant wants. And how does that limit limit them to doing only studios? Uh the parking requirements. So if we agree to this mixed form with only six parking spaces on the property, but I don't think it says that anywhere. That was only in staff's analysis. No, it's on the site plan that was presented. That's what we're approving this evening. We weren't approving the site plan yet the form the forms zone site plan approving this.

So point of clarification um we are just looking at the um major adjustment for enhanced compatibility for the combination of form types. The actual technical requirements of the form zone site plan is a separate public hearing that would open up um after um the uh determination on the uh the existing um case in front of you for that um major adjustment. So um I think that's just where we're at. some of these technical details um could play into planning commission's consideration um as they relate specifically to that um safe and efficient circulation under criteria C. Um however, you know, that's just right now we're we're at the the higher level. The site plan would have to comply with the uh the chapter 1836. Um but that's a a separate public hearing that would open up after this. Okay. Um, it's clear the applicant wants to speak. I'm not sure that that's appropriate at this. I mean, we've had that opportunity. Um, guess I'm looking for some guidance about that. Um what I might recommend is that um planning commission um move forward with the uh consideration of the rest of the criteria uh related to the application or the public hearing um as it's open. Um and at that time maybe uh see once you go through um the rest of that criteria um do you have the information you feel comfortable with to make a determination on the major adjustment? Um, and if so, you know, you can have that motion. Um otherwise if there's

pieces that you do not feel that you have um then I would request maybe a brief um um pause so that way uh staff could um both consult with legal counsel and also the applicant to see are there pieces of that that might become um relevant either tonight or ways that we could uh continue that and make sure that we're all on the uh the same page um to get you the information that you need to make that uh determination. So okay,

I would suggest given those options that [clears throat] this would be time for a pause for staff and applicant and council. Great to share information and to come back with some recommendation about proceeding. Five minute recess. Yeah, we'll take five minutes.

call the meeting back to order.

Uh thank you chair for the opportunity to discuss with the uh the applicant. Um you know I think at this time um I would we would recommend that like I said planning commission um finish their deliberation on the uh remaining criteria uh for the major adjustment. Um if there is additional information that you would like to satisfy um one of those criteria to make a determination um you would I think consider a continuation um with clear direction um for that information that you need um to address that criteria um and then staff has some clarifying things that um we would bring back to you um at that time as well. So um but at this time I would recommend uh planning commission um finalize their determination based on the information provided on the major adjustment uh for tonight and that might just identify other things that you you find or at least um remove certain things from your your consideration if you desire a follow-up. You might also find that you have the information you need tonight to uh come to a determination at least on this part. Um staff is planning on um recommending and the applicant has agreed that the form zone site plan um so that's that next public hearing that we would postpone that to a date certain um so not consider that tonight um and just limit your deliberation and your determination to the uh major adjustment at this time.

Okay. Are we um do we have any other questions of staff or things that we want to talk about in terms of the criteria? Do we have uh enough information to make it deter to make to vote on the major adjustment? Um or do andor do we have particular um things we want to list uh as um in something that we need more information about or we approve it uh pending either getting more information for outlining um specifics that we would like staff to take into account as they move forward with that.

So I mean just a clarification I think the request was made to go through all four criteria through E. I thought we did that. Is that we did I just want to make Oh, you did. Okay. We've asked twice and thank you for clarifying for staff that uh you had asked and answered. I I am sorry I missed that part of the deliberation.

Okay. So I mean just yeah I mean Commissioner Hillyard was that I don't think criteria C is met. We've had a lot of discussion about that and both staff and other pressures have said you don't the criteria is the criteria the analysis you can agree disagree with have an alternate point of view I don't think that criteria is met is where I that

would you feel more comfortable because I'm I'm I think I'm to the point where uh I could re I could I could get to approval here with some conditions of approval to ensure that at this time of site plan approval that these it's hard it's hard to say some of these things without seeing the site plan. Um, so the two conditions that I'm I'm considering or yeah, conditions of approval I'm considering are all the ones that staff had uh listed A through C along with one that addresses uh letter D stating the design of the development shall uh be shall ensure consistent or complimentary architectural styles and building materials. And then another condition to address I think your concern hopefully um which is also mine um the site plan shall comply with all development regulations including parking unless a variance or major adjustment is approved.

Perfect. I think it's just hard I I know that staff did the analysis uh based on the parking spaces but I don't and and dwell in the dwelling unit situation. I just don't know. I don't know that we have enough information for the form zone, the combination form zones that we're looking at versus the site plan, which is really hard to kind of differentiate between them to be quite honest.

Yeah. I mean the I mean the nature of each variance or condition is relevant. We There was illusion to it and I brought it up. The the two foot side setback I I I I think is worth unpacking as well still. So yeah, I think to get to a motion we got to unpack that too. That is a thought.

Yeah. Okay. And um processwise if we to do that motion with those uh conditions then um is it our expectation or is it the process that we have and this is a I guess a question for staff and maybe for council of um what's the feedback mechanism for the commission about meeting those conditions. Would they be the we do the hearing for the zone site? Um would we get feedback information in terms of that or is there some other point in which we get that information or we putting the conditions in there and assuming that they will be addressed without really having an opportunity to review that again. Um, couple things. You can bring back the form zone site plan as a you can recommend that it come before you. So, you would have that opportunity to review it um in this setting. Um, so that is one op option and um I believe that has you've done that many times before where you've had adjustments and wanted to come back and see the site plans.

So, that would be um that would be typical. Um the other as far as process and feedback obviously anything you all say on the dies today is helpful feedback for us to ensure we get you all the information that you are requesting. Um and being specific about that feedback is always really helpful especially given that there are six commissioners up there uh up there. And so um being specific is really helpful for uh for staff so that we do bring you back all the information that you are expecting to do your anal to uh confirm your analysis of the of the request or compliance with the form zone in the future either way. Okay. Yes, commission.

Sorry. Go ahead. No, no, go ahead. I was just gonna um before we kind of make any motions, I do want to circle back to Commissioner's desire for conversation around that two foot side setback. Um I I also I mean it's one of the things that staff recommends as a condition as well, but it's worth having a conversation about. It's it's very different than um what the you know typical setback might be. Uh I think there's some um building code considerations uh that might need to be made as well in terms of fireproofing due to approximating the property line and things like that.

Yeah, I mean I the way I think through it is just different. It's it's an existing building that has a nonconformity, it can be allowed to stay there. Any improvements need to comply with the existing setback or approved setback which would be 5 ft. But the way it's positioned now is modification to foot setback which means any improvement can happen there. So that's that I'm I don't I'm confused by that positioning. It just doesn't make sense to me. It allows for the extension of the non-conforming situation to to be you know extended into the upper floor basically. Um but is that something that we want? Is that something that

No, I think I think any my simple position is you'll the existing building can be allowed to stay where it is that foundation improvements need to comply with current setback. So it's non-conforming non-conforming can stay at two five is the form setback and improvements need to be at five. It's not a reclassification of a new set of two. That's that's where the machinations I don't I don't follow me. It's simpler just to say it's not conforming to sight setbacks apply for construction. That request for the modified setback is to provide greater space for that common spacing between the original building. So it's just the size of the building. It's to allow the the upper unit to align with the lower unit to have essentially one wall plane as opposed to bringing it in. I'll just say personally um I think that the the two feet for enhanced compat compatibility in this scenario specifically I I I'm comfortable with. I think it needs to be made clear that the that this type of form zone combination of form types um you know would need to be modified based on on you know, the scenario that's being applied to and I don't know if that's how it works and if it's not let me know.

Um I mean I think and staff correct me if I'm wrong the combination of form types is for a property specific property and not not for you know to be used necessarily anywhere. That that is correct. And um ultimately planning commission may also consider adding a condition that this applies to the existing building and the existing building footprint. And were that to um go away um that it would come into conformance with uh standard um setbacks for the form type um would be a way that you could potentially condition that. So, it's addressing the um existing condition and that existing nonconformity um while then also um if that were to ever be built up new um entirely new then um you know it could be made to um comply with the standard setback. So, not if it ever were demolished it couldn't be rebuilt to 2 feet. It'd have to meet that 5 foot setback. the way the wording for the form zone is doesn't doesn't [clears throat] make that clear already.

It's just a it's just a straightforward two foot set back just given the existing footprint. Um you could condition as Mr. on said you could condition that setback as only applying to the rear building in its existing configuration and not something new or you could condition frankly the whole project that is based on preservation of the existing buildings on site. Um and I think I had mentioned something about that earlier that this project is really based on the the proposal is based on preserving the existing buildings in the the maximum extent practical while um having some space for renovation and incremental um incremental progress or incremental development on the site. Um so it would be appropriate uh to condition it to you regarding the existing buildings. That's the intent of the the request. It's it's not to build new.

I mean, yeah, I think it has to be class acknowledged and classified. You've done it one way. I think about it a different way, but I mean, I agree. It has to be somehow addressed and improvements need to be addressed as part of that. But, right, we're saying the same thing, right? I think if this came in as, you know, a blank lot, you wouldn't see this. Staff would not be bringing forward well the applicant bring it forward with whatever they would like but staff would not be bringing forward something of this nature with our drafting conditions as we have been speaking. So happy to

happy to uh take a stab when the time comes. Are we? It feels like we're close to a moment of emotion with conditions. Yes.

Is that am I hearing reading that? Can we review what the drafts?

Sure. So, uh, updated letter B, uh, if you're looking at your alternative motion conditions on page 13. Uh, I modified it to state the side setback of two feet shall be maintained for enhanced compatibility specific to the existing rear building footprint. Is there anything additional there? I think that captured kind of the conversation that we having. So, so if we had footprint, does that mean if there's a third edition, it would still fall under it would get the same.

Yeah. footprint would be just like it would be in effect essentially going up from where it exists today. So that I mean that's not what I described but that's it's not I'm just saying I'm just making it clear that that yeah that's not that's that's different than what I'm thinking I do understand. Yeah. No, I know. I'm not I'm just clarifying it for everybody.

Um I'll I'll reread. So the other two have the same letter D is what I had added. Uh the design of the development shall ensure consistent or complimentary architectural styles and building materials. Again, that's reflective of letter D. Criterion D. Um condition of approval E. The site plan shall comply with all development regulations, including parking, unless a variance or major adjustment is approved. Um, letter F, the forms of site plan shall be presented to the planning commission for approval, but we'll have it come back to us and attorney can modify my language. I give you liberty. Uh, and then letter G, approval of the major adjustment is contingent upon the preservation of the existing buildings. or or or something to to that effect.

So brainstorm friendly amendment would be to add an H and an I that make the I find the minimum lot size adjustment unnecessary and convoluted. So I will make conditions specific to what happens as a result of that which is allowable building area of 3900 square feet which I think is the applicant's request and density units of six rather than unlimited which is in order for tonight to to create a clear boundary because the boundary is not clear by by adjusting the minimum is is I find convoluted it doesn't attach to the two issues that the asking variance for this is asking for. So let's just make those specific So to not [clears throat] not use the wording that's currently an a but to be more specific about and or I I find it I find it unnecessary and convoluted. So either add to it and or you I haven't thought through whether in place of or adding modifiers. I think it probably both achieve the same outcome but I think abs of that it's too big. 75 is too big.

Is too big big big right. Um because the implied development request here is implicit to that. This that's where all the math of well this is a site that's x x% larger results in building square footage that's x% bigger. That should be included in our motion not included as derivative math. That's not true.

I I agree. That's why I was suggesting that we not use a and then have a instead either a substitute for a that just recognizes the 7500 square ft and adds this phrase of six living units. and the allowable building area which is why the SE the 7500 is invoked in order to get to a higher allowable building area I think I mean somebody's check the application but that's the way that's the only that's the reason why the 7500 minimum is involved in order to raise the

for two purposes for density needs and to raise the law. All right, here I took a stab uh modifying a the minimum lot size shall be adjusted to 7500 square ft to ensure compatibility of the allowed 3900 ft of total floor area. Does that capture that or am I off entirely?

That's half of it. I think for for density purposes as well because the other form zones one form zone is restricted to two which does not serve the purposes and the other one is unlimited. So I'm saying those two extremes we should create the boundary. So you're saying maximum total density of 60 minutes in this type of for this specific I mean for this

getting to the point in the evening where I'm having a hard time thinking um [clears throat] combination of form this combination this the subject application of form type shall be uh shall have a maximum of 60 minutes. When we say instead of talking about lot size, I mean six units and totaling not more than 7500 square ft. Not 7500. It's allowable building area we're trying to arrive at which is 3900.

Oh, okay. That's right. Confused by Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. I mean, the way you position it first is the way I'm understanding it. 7500 is a proxy for discussing density and allowable building. I'm saying you just address those two specifically. Did what I say capture what you were looking for generally? Okay. Can you your again? Yes. And thank you for doing this. Sure. Uh the design of the development shall ensure consistent or complimentary architectural styles and building materials. And we're including that as condition because

because it's a one of the things we're evaluating and I I wasn't able to make the determination that that was met without seeing the site plan. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Good question. I Yeah, it's interesting that it's a criteria without a Did you include both the number of units and the total square footage allowed?

I separated out the total number of to be a separate uh condition. Uh condition H the subject combination of form types shall have a maximum of six units whereas A I still have as minimum lot size shall be adjusted to 7500 ft to ensure compatibility of the allowed 3900 square ft of total floor area. So kind of it's both but but it connects the two. Could [clears throat] you repeat uh the changes that you made to a there?

Yes. Minimum lot size shall be adjusted to 7500 square f feet to ensure compatibility of the allowed 3900 square ft of total floor area.

Thank you. And I'd be happy to share my chicken scratch. Are we at a point? We're ready to put that to a motion. There any any other conditions that we think should be included? If I may interject, I would appreciate going through all these conditions prior to making a motion just to be sure that the motion I'm crafting here has all of them.

Should I read them all again? If you don't mind. Sure. Are you [clears throat] are you taking notes? So, should I read I'm crafting a motion right here? Yeah. Okay. Do you mean to read A again? No. Um, but you could start at D. I think I have everything up to D. Okay. D. The design of the development shall ensure consistent or complimentary architectural styles and building materials. It's essentially restating the criteria. D I Yes, I have that one. Thank you.

E, the site plan shall comply with all development regulations, including parking, unless a variance or major adjustment is approved. And There's a better language for that that's golden specific. Please, could you repeat the second half of that one more time, please? Yep.

Uh, the site plan shall comply with all development regulations, including parking, unless a variance or major adjustment is approved. Or maybe I should just say adjustment. I don't know. Major is, you know, depending if it's minor, you know, adjustment. I'm checking the math based on the what's in the packet of building total floor area for the zoning sheet. I'm crossing the 2900. That's what I'm basing my memory on. So, let me just check. Oh, it's 3600. My I mean the exhibit I'm looking is the is the summary exhibit zoning calculations. The total the two total building square footages 1940.66 + 1708.75 is 364941. So 3650

is that specific to the combination form type or for the site plan? I mean, it's it's it's in the applicants exhibit. So, I know. Yeah. I mean, that was not presented in our packet as attributable to one or the other. I mean, it's unless there's I mean, we can I'm just putting the information I have out there for everybody else to digest. If there's a number specific to that application in the form zone, we can use it.

But lacking another benchmark, a number, I'm using information that we've been provided, right? I'm not I'm not trying to be arbitrary about this. I'm just trying to Yeah. And and whatever we approve this evening is what the applicant's going to have to comply with. I mean, it it backs me into the same spot. I mean, we can appreciate the effort. But yeah, it's a hard it's a hard needle to throw here.

Point of clarification, the um application did propose for the combo of form types a max uh floor area of 3,900 square ft uh for the total property. Um, and I think that was in part um from the lessons learned from the last uh combo type where um they had to come back to you for an adjustment to that just because um in the final building layout certain things moved away from the garage parking and became a a laundry room and therefore it put them over. So I think it was an intent to have just a little bit of wiggle room. Um, so those details about, you know, parking area versus, you know, laundry room, don't trigger trip them up. But, uh, the the formal request from the applicant was 3,900 ft of floor area.

Yeah, I see that. Well, I see that in the staff. I don't know if I see that in anything from the applicant. Page three of the um, uh, packet materials uh, for the attachments. Yes. Yes.

So, going back to just making sure that I'm reading F, the form zone site plan shall be presented to the planning commission for approval. G. Approval of the major adjustment is contingent upon the preservation of the existing buildings. And I don't know if we want if there's a qualifier or some sort of like you know [snorts] to the maximum extent possible or something to that effect. Sure.

Approval of the major adjustment is contingent upon the preservation of the existing buildings. I think it would be helpful for staff to a little have a little clarity on a condition like that given they are proposing to get rid of a portion of the existing building. Um you might be specific to uh footprint and or give it a percentage or something just because holistically I I would say they're not doing that if their current proposal.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that? Otherwise, I'd ask staff to recommend something because I'm I'm not sure. It's the same doop, right? I mean, it's using we're making the condition beyond the information we're presented and asking to refine it to the conditions, but ask that we really don't know what the conditions are. So, yeah, I don't I don't know how to respond to that. [clears throat] you might consider um you know for uh build you know for portions of the building along building frontage um and within the general uh building footprints um would be a way um you might do that um just

sounds good to me okay got that no [laughter] sorry what part of that do we want [clears throat] uh so G approval the The major adjustment is contingent upon the pres preservations of the existing preservation of existing buildings uh particularly along street frontages and within the building footprint to the maximum extent.

So it's a small addition. So maybe we would say um you the term maximum extent practical. I know it's vague sounding but that implies a little more of like it's you know there might be a little here and there but it's the majority of it or that you know it's there's rot or something you know they get in there and it's Yeah. And it could be that you know with the uh the preservation it along street front just really preserves that that front portion of that building. um and allows for the additions in the back. So maybe limiting it to um footprints is unnecessary at this time.

Just to be clear, here's the condition I have right now. The approval of the major adjustment is contingent upon the preservation of the existing buildings along street frontages and along the building footprint. And I think what we're I think maybe removing the building footprint because I think that could be problematic for uh um the additions that are proposed. Maybe adding to the maximum extent feasible or practical practical practical. Yes. Just to reiterate the desire for preservation but understanding that there are situations that come up.

Yep. And then H the subject combination of form types shall have a maximum of six units.

Thank you all for your patience. Prove how many Hes seems unusual that

it's not it's not all that usual to be combined housing. [clears throat] I mean, that's why it's here. I mean, I would I don't disagree. I just It's different for me. It's unusual. That's why it's here. That's why it's not something

straight after the code. It's unusual. That's why we're here. I guess I just I I just mentioned it, you know, to avoid us and trying to move something forward, but it seems like the the collective analysis of the commission move forward with these parameters.

Well, it's well, no, I I I get what you're saying. I mean I'm I'm trying to engage in discussion that moves the body and the discussion forward. Everybody's vote is individual and my criteria frankly is are the conditions met or not? I don't think they are the is the criteria met or not and if does the proposed motion and conditions do they somehow remedy that and that's the nature of it's it's there's there's layers of decisions there I think that you know

staff could just point out point of clarification on the resolution your packet there is an exhibit A that details all the form type um requirements. So, for example, maximum dwelling units, square footage, some of those are already in there. Just to point out, I don't think anything you said conflicts with exhibit A. Uh but I just want to point out that it's there and is part of the resolution.

Yeah. I mean, the only those amendments given that line of thinking is to is just to make it granular rather than saying actable parking requirements I think we know what those are after the testimony today which is it's the 1.5 better I mean it's the it's the appropriate box in the appropriate column to just make that specific so there's no confusion even if it's reiterated I mean to that to that point just make it unquestionable where I think we landed. So there's no interpretation.

All right. I'd be happy to make a motion, chair, if that's where we're at. I think that's where we're at. Thank you. Um, you said [clears throat] there's an exhibit. Is that supposed to be an exhibit to our motion or just to reference that? It's an exhibit to the resolution as presented in the packet. Um okay.

So um the resolution has a space for conditions um of which we filled out the one about referencing um the uh plan being referred to planning commission because obviously in in the earlier version of this that was coming right after. Um and the motion had some additional space for conditions which obviously planning commission has uh discussed expanding upon. Um I it' be staff's recommendation that exhibit A still be included in your resolution. um just based on the fact that it sort of records all the all the things for the proposed combination of form types although um so but I don't believe based on the discussion I heard that it there's anything that's contradictory so there might as commissioner stated there might be things stated twice uh but they aren't necessarily conflicting

I would agree and I see that the motion states that we approve that resolution so that makes sense All right. Um, chair, I move to approve resol resolution PC25-48 for major adjustment requested for 81716th Street, a major adjustment related to the combination of forms based on a finding the review criteria set forth the Golden Municipal Code have been satisfied based on the evidence presented to planning commission at the hearing on this case with additional conditions previously discussed. A through H. A second.

We have a motion with a second um we proceed um to approve the major adjustment and with conditions as outlined. Uh does anybody need uh rereading of the conditions to check and make sure that got everything in that we believe should be there? Absorbed enough of the conversation so that we're pretty confident that

I think it's been several times. It has. Okay. And um any other discussion before we vote? We have a roll call. Colbert, yes. Ruer, yes. Yay. Hillyard, yes. Web, hi. Razer, hi. Motion passes.

Thank you. I really just as a point of personal I think it's really important moving ahead for us and for Golden to be able to really figure out ways that we can work with existing properties and do infill and so on. So finding good ways to do that and finding a process or um things that we can uh decide on that are helpful to to facilitate that process. I think it's really important. So thank you to everybody for really taking the time to parse all this out and think about all the different pieces. Um it's not not fun. It's not U the best way necessarily is be at 9:30 on Wednesday night, but I think it's really important that we do that in order to be able to have things like this move more smoothly in the future. Thank you very much. Um

No, I agree. Um and we will um look forward to doing forums site consideration at a future point scheduled. What what does our schedule look like for the 18th and beyond that?

So we have one um regular business item on the 18th. Uh we're bringing forward the uh Golden Terrace uh PUD amendment uh resoning uh for your recommendation. So um we could um add that we currently have a prepared uh study session uh for um April 1st. No joke. But um if uh you know we could certainly handle some regular business in a study session um on that night as well. Okay. Point of order. I'm so sorry. Um, do we need to continue the site plan to a date certain? So, that was going to be a um not a continuence. Uh, it would be a postponement to a date

certain public hearing was not open. The difference is you continue an item when you've already opened it. We've yet to open the form zone uh site plan, so you postpone it to a date certain. Okay, great. Do we need a motion for that?

Yes, you do. I think the the other just if I I may from um staff's perspective I think things that we would bring back uh for your consideration with that um certainly parking was a conversation tonight. Um you know the what staff has seen from this uh proposal um with those loft units I think raises a question of interpretation. And so we'll be bringing back a formal determination um between studio and um those loft units and whether they qualify as bedrooms or studio um units um uh for that consideration um and that would be a director determination um as an update to that staff report for you.

And do you have a date you want to suggest for that? Um at this time um you know I would say Uh maybe we could discuss with the applicant briefly.

Sure. Two minutes. [cough] [clears throat] applicant and staff would um prefer the uh April 1st uh meeting. Okay. And we [clears throat] need a motion for postponing.

Yes. Forum site. So I think that the motion would be um motion to postpone PC26-01 for the form zone site plan to a date certain of April 1st, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. So moved. Second. We do need uh some commissioner to make that motion on staff. to say the words.

Chair, I move to postpone PC26-01 to April 1st, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

So, we know have an idea about what the next two meetings look like and I think a motion to adjourn is in order before we have to vote whether we stay longer than 9:35. Second. Um, chair, may may we um actually uh staff would like to pro um have one update on historic preservation um as we have this opportunity. So, sorry. Um I've been in this room a lot and including last week where we Thank you folks.

Thank you. Where we um had the first reading of our um process and procedure update for chapter 1858 which is our historic preservation chapter. uh council um took pulled it off of the first reading to have a discussion about whether or not uh planning commission should review that chapter prior to their consideration of it. Um upon further discussion, council um council did did not want to move that forward. However, they did request that staff um bring you into the guideline discussion which is slated for May and then give you an update on the procedural updates for 1858 which really um it's not a lot of weight. It's it's really just a lot of language updates um and not not so much many uh policy updates frankly. Um but um so we are planning on bringing you all into the guideline discussion um as it relates to zoning in May. Um we are working on those guidelines right now and um you'll start to kind of see those out in the community. But I just wanted to bring that for because it just had it just happened and we are going to second reading on March 10th for that ordinance and there will be a public hearing. Um, but I wanted to since you were all um discussed in in great detail in that meeting, I wanted to bring it forward to you all and discuss it tonight. So, um, sorry to make it longer, but I just

Okay. [clears throat] We may want to talk about whether or not we want to think about using format we did with sustainability in terms of having a subcommittee or something like that. other than the whole commission, but I assume we could the staff have some conversation about that come back.

Yeah, I think we'll want to discuss that because we we don't know the extent of the of what are the collaboration pieces. Um, and we are hoping, um, so if it's specific to the zoning piece, that might be a good, um, the the the form this is going to take is not yet determined yet, which is why I'm being a little vague about answering it, but um, we do believe that there will be some um, there will be some parallels between design guidelines for historic preservation and what's in the zoning code and so it makes sense to look at those two things at the same time um in the month of May is what we are anticipating um based on the current schedule with the consultant and our of course we also bring to histo board as well so um I'm that's the current schedule but I just wanted to let you know that that was discussed city council last week

okay we can presumably discuss it and I can presumably discuss it with staff and maybe come up with some idea about how that might work, suggestion about how that might work. Yeah, that'd be great. And I' I'd like to bring in historic board to that conversation as well because it's kind of their their piece. So, I just want to make sure they're on board with whatever um collaboration looks like with you all. Um bring them out. Thank you. All those in favor of adjourning [clears throat] I I first first and second we did already. Okay, I'll I'll count it. [laughter] Thank you very much.