Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Fox, Cruz, Ludor, Brian Adams, Rich Levy, AJ Summers. Before we begin, uh, agenda items tonight, is there anybody who's here who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Seeing nobody, is there anyone online? uh whenever I call on you, you can raise your Zoom hand and we can unmute you. Okay, seeing none, then we'll go to our agenda items. Our first one this evening is PL 202600002, lift up of route county building expansion, who's the applicant here for presentation. And before we get started, I need to recuse myself from this item. Uh my company's on the design team.

Perfect. Thank you, R. AJ. Okay. Are you are you waiting to be accepted in? I told Josh that she can get in.

I can share your packet if you stuff that's in your packet if that works. I think I see Ryan, you're in. Do you guys want to share from that one or is this not the same thing on everybody's?

Got your email if you want me to click through it for you. My name is Chansy Keenan and we're here tonight to talk about the LiftUp expansion and I'd like to introduce Sue Fageline who's the executive director to introduce the project um from a third standpoint.

Hi, thanks for having us tonight. Um I really appreciate your time and your support. LiftUp has been serving our community for 30 years this year. It's our 30th anniversary. Last year, we served over 3,700 route county community members, which is about one in seven of our route county neighbors. Uh we provided these neighbors with emergency financial assistance for housing, medical costs, mental health costs, prescriptions, utility costs. We provide scholarships. We provide emergency services for folks stuck in a transient situation, particularly in the winter. We don't want anybody to freeze to death here in Steamboat. Um, we provide warm clothing through vouchers to our thrift store and of course food through our food banks. We were able to feed over 3,000 individuals last year and provided healthy snacks to up to 620 Rock County children per week through our Rocket Pack program. Our case workers help our clients move from crisis to self-sufficiency. The need for our services has more than doubled over the past 10 years and we are doubling our space to help meet that continued need. As you know, tonight we're working with Chancy Keenan and her team as our architects. We're working with Paul Brinkman as our owners rep and Andrew Picking is heading up construction. So, we're really lucky to be working with a team of people known for getting things done beautifully, on time, and on budget. We are uh busting at the seams at Lifup. If any of you would ever like to come by for a tour, I can show you what I'm talking about. whether it's in our food banks, providing uh services for our clients, needing privacy for meeting rooms with case workers, or even we have no more space to put any staff. We just keep sticking dividers into offices and trying to make it work. So, uh I really appreciate your time and consideration and um thanks for all that you do for our community.

Thank you, Sue. Again, my name is Chansy Kenan. I'm the architect of record with Mountain Architecture Design Group. And as a longtime member of our community, um it's been truly impactful to learn more about the services that LiftUp provides. Um I was very familiar with the donation center in the thrift store, but the extent of their reach is is really impactful. Um so I'm excited that they're positioned for this expansion. Um in our initial conversations we um we of course talk about the community need and that that is rising exponentially. Therefore the need for them to expand their um their building. Sue talked about the overcrowding. Um the food bank is exceeding its capacity. The thrift store is their revenue generator. Um so to support their programs we need additional space for additional volume in the thrift store. Um and in turn the donation center also needs to increase their space to support the thrift store. Um they currently have a pass-on trailer in the parking lot on the side of the donation center where a lot of the donated items um end up going because they either can't process them, they don't have room for them in the thrift store, we can't use them and they end up in this this trailer that then um is distributed to other communities throughout the region and it would be great to keep those items here in Steamboat and um and therefore sell them and increase the revenue for the programs that Sue was just discussing. Um the spirit of the project has been to help our neighbors who need a hand. Um and that is is kind of embodied in providing a place that is welcoming, a site and a space that is safe, that is easy to navigate. Um where we can be compassionate to our neighbors and respect everybody's dignity through that process. Um it's a very budget conscious project so that we can continue to direct their funding to their programs as opposed to a fancy building. Um, Toby, can we skip to the next slide, please?

Chancy, can you raise the microphone just a little bit? Yes. Thank you.

Right. So, looking at the site, we have two parcels that are owned by LiftUp and have been for quite some time, two buildings, and three access points. Um the lot is currently we have a a replat that has been in process and is approved and we're just going through the final um recordation of that to combine the two parcels so that we can create a um the proper building expansion that we're looking for here. The goal is to connect these two buildings um and grow each area of programming um relative to relative to the needs that we're seeing today and into the future. Um, can we actually pop to the next the next one and then come back here? We've got a few images here of their current the current internal office spaces and break room spaces. Um, as Sue mentioned, they are busting at the seams. They're putting people in nooks and crannies and overcrowded. Um, the break room is currently 91 square feet to support all of their employees. I have a list of they about 14 full-time employees, 16 part-time, temporary employees, contract employees, and nearly 300 active volunteers that are all trying to function um in this in this space. So, so the need is the need is apparent and and very obvious if you if you go into the the depths of the building here. That's all right. Um a lot of the spaces do not have any daylight and um they're just are are very substandard for today's working environment. Um Toby, can we go go one previous again? Thank you. Um some of the site safety concerns that were brought to our attention immediately and maybe some of us have experienced visiting the site um are are the access points. There's some congestion around the donation center on donation day. We have these three different access points. There are large trucks that visit the site for deliveries to the food bank as well as that donation center trailer. Those happen in um in off hours. They're not

happening when people are visiting the thrift store. Um but we still need this this site to accommodate those large delivery trucks. Um let's see. So with that, there was there's obviously room for site improvement. I guess one other thing to mention is um is our pedestrian access. There is an existing bus stop on the north side of the property along Curve Court. Um, and a lot of folks access this building from using the bus or from um from the sidewalk, whether it's via bike or a pedestrian, people walking, and then they have to walk through the parking lots to get to these main entry points. So, so really a lot of room for improvement with site safety at the site. We had initially looked at combining the buildings and maintaining the food bank and creating kind of an L-shaped addition in between the two. Um but after looking further at that food bank building and site circulation etc it really became apparent that removing that food bank building was going to be the best solution to really create the opportunity that we needed to um to have the best solution. Toby, can we go two more? Thanks. All right. So with removal of that food bank building that opened up the east end of the property for our proposed addition. The existing building is in lighter green and the proposed building is in darker green. Part of that proposed building is two stories, but a lot of it is just one story. Um the pink arrows do show our pedestrian access points coming from the bus stop and other um other sidewalk access as well as from the parking lot. That was one of the big challenges for this site was that we wanted to address the street architecturally and create safe access points for for so many users using public transit systems as well as people who are in the parking lot. Um our solution was this interior entry core that will bring people into the building where they can disperse whether they're shopping in the food bank or shopping in

the thrift store or using financial services and those um those kind of office type functions. upstairs. We were also able to clean up the donation center, kind of the lower left arrow um by pushing the pass-on trailer back from the pedestrian from the the parking lot side um and moving that function um internally of loading the trailer to the back of the of the um the building as opposed to in the front parking lot area. if you're familiar with how that functions right now, there's lots of cones and sight lines are challenging. Um, so that that's really going to improve the congestion on that specific corner. Um, let's see. So, vehicular movement, safety, the northwest access where the passon trailer is is going to remain as it is today. We're getting rid of the access the other access. There's a little red X on the kind of the northeast corner of the property. Removing that all together and then improving the east access to um to help accommodate the vehicular access and those delivery trucks, etc. Um, all right. Can we look at the next slide? I won't go through the floor plans in depth, but they are color-coded for all of the different programming that LiftUp provides. The donation center is growing by about onethird as well as the thrift store. Um the purple area is the food bank which is almost doubling in size and the blue area on the bottom of the page is actually the second floor and that's where most of our offices and our case workers are located. Um the yellow areas are employee spaces. Um, all of these areas have natural daylighting and are designed to today's standards, while they're not excessive. I think it's going to tremendously increase the um just the welcoming environment that we're looking to um to create here. All right, next one.

For the building exterior, we have the existing building. Um these the color on here isn't showing up great, but it's I think we're familiar with it. It's a beige metals sighted building with a green roof and a short stone Wings cut. Um so we're we're working with that and the new addition incorporates metal sighting of various colors and textures. Um we are pulling from LiftUp's branded colors um to create kind of a vibrant exterior that I think is really appropriate in the industrial zone and we see that in several other developments in the area. Um, so we're kind of excited about that. Um, next one. Again, thinking about their budget, we're incorporating simple forms, but we do want to bring daylight into all of the spaces. And with that simple kind of boxy form that we're looking at, we've created um the spine element as a light core into the upper level so that we can have clear story windows to bring natural daylight into those deep interior spaces um for occupant well-being, employee retention, and just to again create that welcoming atmosphere for folks who are needing to access the services that LiftUp is providing. Um the building meets the overall height requirements for the zone district. Um, and it also meets average plate height on all but one facade. So, both of the public facing facades are compliant with the average plate height requirements as well as the west facade. And it is the south facade that we are exceeding because we have that shed roof form. So, we're taking just that high end of the roof form um which you know the average is is the same on both sides. So, we're 2' 3 in over on that one facade. Um, it was intentional for us to set that facade back on all sides. Um, the south, the east, and the west. I had a little pointer I could kind of show you, but it's, you can kind of see how it's just in the center, that light core. Um, so that we're meeting the intent of reducing the building massing

around the perimeter of the building as well as the perimeter of the site. Um, Toby, can we pop one more? I included this graphic to kind of demonstrate an alternate that we um to just kind show the um that the impact by the average plate height on that south elevation really doesn't change if we were to meet the average plate height on that side. On the top graphic, the blue slanted line shows that roof element coming back down to meet average plate height. So that the plate on both sides would be 28 ft or less. Um, and then the two, the middle and then the bottom image are actually the same with the exception of that blue shaded area which shows if we brought that roof form down again, we would see roof there. Um, and the one on the bottom does not have the roof coming down. Instead, we see windows. And again, it's set um, I can't remember exactly. I think it's 25 to 30 ft back from that south face. So, you really don't experience that mass. Um, and is my opinion that if we did fill in that space where the blue is shown that we would actually be increasing the building mass for this um this particular building. Um, let's see. I've got some additional images on the next slide if we need to refer to those again to kind of show the light core and how the mass is reduced by not bringing that roof form back down and the benefit of bringing light into those interior core spaces we feel far outweighs the um the average plate height variance that we're requesting on the south facade. Um lastly, I'll just touch on the conditional use. This is an industrial zone district and it is an institutional use which is allowed by um with conditions. I think Toby did a great job of outlining um the appropriateness of this use to remain in this area. They've been there for decades. Um it's a mixed use that contributes to the vibrancy of this area. It's an appropriate site for the

type of vehicles that are access passenger vehicles as well as delivery trucks accessing the site. um we don't have any adverse impacts to the neighbors with noise or odors or any of those those types of things. Um so we really feel that the use continues to be appropriate and not negatively impactful at this area. Um with that we appreciate your support and are here for any questions. Great. Thank you. Do you have a staff report or presentation for us as well?

Yeah. Uh Toby Stafer, senior planner. So, um this development plan is for the liftup building expansion. Um the property, as uh Chancy mentioned, is on two recently combined lots. They are zoned industrial at the corner of Shield Drive and Curve Court. There are two existing buildings that house the thrift store, donation center, and the food bank. And the site is developed with three access points, sidewalks, parking, landscaping, and infrastructure. Um they will replace the one-story food bank food bank building with a two-story building um connected to the donation center and the thrift store. Um both will be expanded. Administrative offices will be moved to the second story. Um the addition includes a redesigned entrance um that that provides direct access to both uses from the sidewalks and from the parking area. and the existing donation center and thrift store building will remain with some exterior modifications. Uh, one access point on Curve Court will be closed. Um, and the access to Shield Drive will be improved and overall the project will reduce confusion and better facilitate movement through the site. Um, the proposed use is an institutional use which is a conditional use in the industrial zone district. Uh institutional uses are conditional because they can be anything that is not described as another specific use that provides a communitywide or regional service to the public. Um institutional uses can impact or dilute industrial areas by making it less likely for new industrial uses to locate in that area. Um and they could potentially make it more difficult for impactful uses, those that produce noise or odor or something. um to make it more difficult for those to operate than they have um had in the past. So, this proposed use has some characteristics that are similar to

commercial uses, the food bank and the thrift store. And then there are other characteristics that are similar to an industrial use, the donation center, um and the the food delivery that happens at the food bank. So, there's, as Chansancy mentioned, a lot of coming and going of large trucks. Um so those are just points to consider as you evaluate this proposal. Um the future land use district for this area is mixed use. Uh and institutional use is part of the vision for the area. Um this use in particular contributes to the long range planning considerations of the district and it will bring daily essentials to residents and increase density around transit nodes and corridors. Um as there is a bus uh stop on the front part of the property. The industrial zone district does allow for limited compatible uses like commercial or institutional uses. Um while the district does primarily provide space for industrial uses, other conditional uses are allowed as they have potential to add diversity or they may be too impactful elsewhere. So this use is consistent with the zone district. Um, regarding any negative impacts to the surrounding properties, as I noted, an institutional use could have impacts to industrial an industrial area um by limiting other existing or future industrial uses. Uh, this particular use has been functioning here for nearly 30 years and has been compatible with the nearby commercial and industrial uses for during that time. Um, the square footage on the site will increase and so the uses will expand with this proposal. However, the nature and the functions of the use should be similar to what is occurring there now. The expansion should allow for existing impacts from the use um congestion, wayfinding, pedestrian safety, and adequate access and outdoor storage to be eliminated or improved with an overall reduction in impacts from this expansion. Uh regarding the development plan criteria, um the site is uh mostly

developed. um does have pedestrian safety and traffic flow um and side access that will be improved by this development. The use does enhance the mix of uses in the area and the expansion should be complimentary to those nearby. Um there is existing infrastructure to mitigate any environmental impacts. Uh the proposed changes do meet drainage and water quality standards and we don't anticipate any new impacts or any other impacts that are different from what has been occurring on the site for the last 30 years. um for um development area to make sure that there's enough access, parking and pedestrian facilities. Criteria number three um there is existing access and parking. The parking and access will be improved. One access point will enclo be closed. The remaining access points and traffic flow will be improved. Um and pedestrian connections will also be improved. Um and as will outdoor storage, loading and refuge management. So we feel that the um these changes should bring the site um into better compliance with the CDC. Um there is one variance as noted for average plate height. Um the the standard is that um building shall have a maximum average plate height of 28 ft. Uh the plate height as proposed is 30t 3 in. Um the average plate height is similar in scale to the adjacent industrial and commercial buildings. Uh the proposed plate height is consistent with dimensional standards for existing and potential commercial uses across Shield Drive and in the CSON district which is nearby. So we don't find that this um should have any adverse impact on existing or future uses. As I mentioned, the area is in a mixeduse um future land use district. The included the new second story um does include a plate height that's similar to others in the area. So that is consistent with the character and future vision future

vision for the area. Uh the project should contribute to the general long range planning considerations of the district again by bringing essentials to residents, encouraging a mix of uses and increasing density around transit nodes. Uh one purpose of the average plate height is to reduce mass and scale of the building. Um this building includes several design elements that do mitigate the impacts of scale and mass. the majority of the new addition um and the new building does meet the plate height standard and we find that the intent of the standard is achieved without strict application in this case. Um we do recommend approval of this project finding it's consistent with the criteria for approval for development plan major variance and conditional use. We are recommending approval with eight conditions. Um conditions six, nine and 10 have been resolved since we wrote this report. All right. Thank you very much, Doby. Uh, do we have any questions from commissioners to, uh, staff or the applicant?

Have one question to the applicant. One is, congratulations on your 30 years. Um, unfortunately, the need doesn't go to way go away during construction. Do you have a interim plan submitted to the city or what are the plans for that understanding the impacts to the area? Ro Shambo for this one. Um the thrift store and the donation center are um planned to stay open and operational during construction as there is kind of minimal work to be done there. Um they will have to section off areas of the building for for the work being done interior on the interior. The thrift store is pretty minimal. You know, there's not a lot of interior walls to begin with. um at the donation center, we will be removing walls uh walls there. So, we do have a plan in place for that and the food bank will be relocated to another site and function um independently during construction.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I'll go. This doesn't particularly pertain to the current applicant. I mentioned this to you, Toby. I'm really having trouble understanding the institutional owner as a use and and you tal you talked a little bit about the varying pro uh activities that this applicant has but in general why is institutional a use instead of what they're actually doing.

Yeah. So an institutional use is um described as no other use in the use code really quite captures it is what an institutional use is. So as we mentioned um the office portion of this use provides services to to clients and customers like any other office. Uh the market portion the food bank portion operates like a market. The thrift store operates like a retail and then the donation center really operates like a warehouse. So that's kind of four uses that are all sort of primary and central to this um to this site and to what's happening there. So, it made sense to us to look at this as um one combined use for one combined organization as an institutional use that does provide a community service. So, it's um it wasn't easy to separate those four out. When we when we looked at the parking standard, I did look at each of the parking standard requirements for a market, an office, a retail, and a warehouse, and the um what they have on site is providing the parking for that. So we evaluated it in that regard, but um again it looks um looks at the the site and the property holistically as a as a function. So

I'm sorry I didn't write it down, but I thought when I read institutional it specifically called out a nonprofit operator. think um that that's what that was the part I had trouble with that were that were reviewing it as a nonprofit operating these various different uses versus if waste management was collecting clothes and repackaging them they wouldn't have to go through a conditional use as institutional and that's the part I was really intrigued by

the institutional use is an establishment that is not described as another specific civic public or institutional use that is funded and operated by unit of government or nonprofit organization and that provides a communitywide or regional service to the public. So, um this functions uh similar to what is described in that right I understand that but reviewing them because they're an NGO differently than how if waste management was doing the same thing that's the part I'm really struggling with.

I think we reviewed it based on the uses that are occurring on that site. So that's how we classified it as an institutional use. It's not based on the fact that they're a an NGO. It's based on how the site is being used. But that is in that definition though that you just read to me. It is. It's it's that's why I thought that's one one of the reasons why you chose institutional instead of reviewing them as three different uses or it's based primarily on the uses that are happening there and how that that use functions, how we classified it, not based on the fact that it's a a non-government organization. Okay, cool. And I just

and if I can just add to that, I think the reason I would agree with you, Commissioner Levy, that it's a little bit unusual to speak to the ownership of a use in the definition. And I think the reason for that is because oftentimes those types of uses don't fit neatly into other buckets. Um, and they're clearly not commercial uses as well. So when you think about how we characterize other uses, if you read the description of commercial use, the commercial use category and industrial use category, it really speaks more about like commercial and business operations primarily. So, I think it's just sort of recognizing that oftent times nonprofit um and government type uses are a little bit different.

Okay, I'll let it go. But you hear me on that one? Thank you. Nothing else. All right. Any other questions? No, I don't have any either. Is uh we'll go to public comment. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? No. Seeing none. Is there any online? You can raise your hand. Um raise hand icon. We can unmute you. All right. Seeing none there either. We'll close public comment. Um I guess first give the applicant a chance if you had anything else you wanted to add. Nope. Toby, do you have anything? No.

Any questions you just thought of? All right. we removing 69 and 10 from our motion or they just stay in as conditions of approval. You mentioned that they've been resolved. They've been resolved. Um you don't have to remove them. They're they're already removed from the project because they're resolved. So they won't move forward to the uh city council because they've been resolved. So thank you. Great. All right. Close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion. I

I think supportive of the project. I have no problem with the plate height, especially since most of the buildings there are taller and have long higher plate heights. Um, it's a obviously a good need if meets a good need. Uh, I have no problem with the institutional use. Um, and the variance though that's the plate height and that doesn't really do anything for me. Um, looks like parking and access have been approved. Uh, so um I'll motion to approve PL 2026 00002 uh with eight conditions I believe

or 11 doesn't matter or 11 perfect okay second.

We have a motion and some seconds. Any other discussion on it? I feel exactly the same as Lou. Um, and based on something that Chansancy actually mentioned, um, kind of honed in on that that there's a if they they actually met the standard, they can meet the standard with different structural styles or even that same look, but it wouldn't change the shape or that the the height of the I can't put a sentence together tonight. It wouldn't change the height of the roof and strictly adhering to that standard. This is better better than if not equal to yeah that

any other discussion okay yeah I'll I'll agree with you guys I think uh the conditional use I mean what we want to classify it or not the uses themselves I don't think are going to create any adverse impacts to the neighborhood in fact they're probably supplementary to the other uses uh in in the nearby properties and stuff like um that already exists. So I think that uh that's that's a conditional use that's very supportable with the criteria and the variance. I mean I think um what you were just alluding to Cala is uh exactly what I was thinking as well. I think that's why they why we have that option within the third criteria of the variance that um certainly the the massing impact to the pedestrian uh is the same and this is more just technicality but they've resolved it. they've mitigated what could be a negative impact from a taller wall or something like that. And uh so this uh this meets that um just fine as well. Looks like a great project. Nobody else. Okay, then I will call for a vote.

I I I And that passes unanimously. Thanks. That's a look at council. All right, we will move on. Welcome back, AJ. We'll move to agenda item number

two. Now, this is PL 20260036. This is appeal of abandonment of legal non-conforming STR use. PL 202278 is the appellent here um for a presentation. Come on down. Give us your your name and and uh uh your presentation.

Good evening. Thanks for um allowing me to come down today. I'm Megan Fitzpatrick um and the owner of 1675 Thistlebrook. Um, so we purchased this home in 2024 um and actively worked with the city staff to obtain um a new STR license. At the time of purchase, my understanding was that the existing STR would continue and that I needed to complete the renewal process. As I worked through the application with the staff, I came to understand more clearly the requirements and continued moving forward um to towards full compliance. Um during the transition, I was actively working with the city and coordinating documentation from the prior o owner to complete the application. All the rental um income was reported um and applicable taxes were voluntarily calculated and remitted. I understand the staff's interpretation of the code and the timeline. Um, and my request is not to challenge that broadly, but really to ask whether the strict application of abandonment provision is appropriate in a situation where the property owner was actively working towards compliant and is now fully compliant. Um, we've completed a fully compliant stay under the license that was issued um in March of 2025 um and provided full documentation as well. Um, and yeah, at that um that's all I have to say.

All right, great. Thank you very much. We'll let you know if we have any questions. And do we have um Bessie, do we have a staff report or presentation as well?

Yes. I'm going to uh share my screen, give a pre brief presentation Okay. Um, so this, as you um, know is an appeal of legal non-conforming abandonment of an STR use located at 1676 Thistlebrook Lane. This property is located in STR overlay zone C, which is the uh prohibited zone or commonly referred to as the red zone. Um, as I think planning commission is well aware, the STR overlay zone became effective on June 15, 2022. In the red zone, in zone C, to be eligible to obtain an STR license, a property must have been lawfully used as a vacation rental prior to June 15, 2022. There's a couple of other ways to be eligible in the red zone, but those don't apply to this particular property. Um, legal non-conforming status must not be abandoned. Um, in STR, we use our STR license and license renewal processes to require applicants to provide proof that they have not in fact abandoned that legal non-conforming status. Section 103D is the relevant code section um for tonight's appeal and it states that legal non-conforming status of a use shall be terminated immediately upon any of the following. Um the pertinent language here is um if the use has been abandoned or discontinued for a period of 12 consecutive months

regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use. Um there's a more detailed timeline and a lot more information in your staff report. Um but sort of boiling that down to some key dates. Um, the prior property owner did register this property as legal non-conforming in August of 2022 and then obtained the first STR license for the property in August of 2023. Um, the last lawful or license documented STR stay that we have proof of and documentation of occurred on April 6, 2024. Um, we understand that the current property owner and the appellant purchased this property on July 12th of 2024. STR licenses do not transfer with the sale of property. So, that prior license expired effectively on July 12th, 2024 when the property changed hands. I will just note um that that prior license would would have needed to be renewed or it would have expired anyways on August 7th of 2024. So um there was less than a month remaining on that existing license. The appellant initiated a STR license application on December 17th of 2024. It was over 5 months after they purchased the property. Um, and then on March 25th, the city issued that license to the appellant or the property owner. Um, and there was some clear communication about the time frame to avoid legal non-conforming abandonment. That is all included in your packet, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. Um, but it's staff's determination that the legal non-conforming use was abandoned on April 6, 2025.

that is 12 months from the last documented lawful stay. The basis for our decision is that there um while the property owner has reported two unlicensed stays that um they say occurred in January and February of 2025, those do not constitute lawful use of the property and those stays do not avoid abandonment of the legal non-conforming use. when executing I'm sorry, when excluding these unlawful stays, there's a period of discontinuence of the legal use for over 12 consecutive months. Um, and and again, we believe that that legal non-conforming status terminated on April 6, 2025. Um, so I did just want to make a couple of other comments um, based on information that was provided in the appellants um, appeal narrative and documents that they submitted along with that. All of this should be in your packet. But per the appeal narrative, the basis for the appeal is that the record demonstrates continuous good faith use and offers um, a cure for what's being described as a procedural gap. Um, I would s I suggest that the statements and the materials provided do not demonstrate good faith um and that they do actually confirm that the property owner knowingly violated city code. The appellant states they worked promptly to complete their license application. We have provided you all with emails with um this property owner and their realtor that date back to April of 2024 where we describe the process and steps needed um to maintain legal non-conforming status and to get an STR licensed in um this zone. The property current property owners purchased the property in July of 2024 and didn't initiate that license application until December 17th.

City staff sent three detailed and complete application notices dated December 19th, January 21st, and February 25th. Um, we do not believe that that is working promptly to complete the application. Um, the application was not completed until March 25th, 2025. That's 98 days after the initial submitt. Um and once the final missing documents were submitted, we were able to approve the license on that day. I did just also want to note that the missing submitt um remaining missing submitt items on March 25th included basic ownership documents that we require to be submitted as well as contact information for the required local 247 contact um that is needed to lawfully operate a short-term rental. Meanwhile, the property owner claims to have conducted two short-term rental stays prior to being issued issued an STR license. The first of which ended on the same day that the property owner stated in an email that they had not yet even hired a local 247 contact. Um, so both of those stays were not only unlicensed and unlawful, but they were um in violation of the minimum operating requirements for short-term rentals. Um, the property owner also has acknowledged in their appeal that the city communicated that 12-day window to avoid legal non-conforming abandonment. We tried to make that very clear in the email when we sent the approved license because we knew it was a really short period of time. Um, and um and and the appellant has described this as a result of an administrative our administrative processing. Again, I just want to reiterate that the timing for the licensing um taking so long to be approved was the result of the property owner's significant and repeated delays

in both applying and then completing that application. Um the appellant suggests that the reported February 2026 STR stay was licensed and presents a cure is what they're offering. Um, city staff in that March 25th email when we sent the approved license clearly communicated that if there was not a stay between then and that April 6th, 2024 date that the use would be considered abandoned and future stays would be considered illegal. Yet, even after the license renewal denial letter was issued on February 11th of this year, the property owner conducted an additional stay on February 18th. This stay occurred over 22 months from the last documented lawful and licensed STR STR stay and therefore does not in any way present a cure to the legal non-conforming abandonment. Um lastly, I'll just note that the in the appeal narrative, the appellant suggests that the code is intended to avoid dormant STR uses. Um, and I just want to um state that the legal non-conforming use section of our code has very clear purpose and intent statements which include preventing reestablishment of abandoned legal non-conforming uses and the elimination of legal non-conforming uses as speedily as possible. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions. Again, there's a all of those um emails, communications, and letters should be included in your packet as um attachments to the staff report.

Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions from commissioners? Okay. Everybody feels they know every everything we need to know.

I do. Yeah. All right. I I don't have any questions either, but uh I just want to make sure I'm not speeding anybody along too quickly. Um is there is there any online public comment for this agenda item? Again, you can press your raise hand zoom button. Okay, seeing none, uh we'll close public comment. Um as the appellent, did you have anything else you wanted to to add from before in your presentation? No. Okay. Uh, and from staff as well, I suppose. Do you have anything to add? Nothing to add. Thank you.

Right. I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and emotion. I mean, in in reviewing the facts, the email um original email was very clear, in my opinion, to the realtor in April of that year when they inquired, here are the requirements, here's what has to happen. That was reinforced and reinforced several times. Um and and following the code and the city, um kudos to city staff. I mean, there were three notices that went out one month in between as well as on that March 25th date. City staff responded within two hours with the response, here's what you have to have. And um so I I I don't see an administrative issue. I I think city followed the process. I'd like to add to that that I think this is probably the clearest cut case of the city just blatantly explaining everything they need to know in order to keep that legal non-conforming status moving of any of these appeals we've seen thus far. I I I I agree that it seems like well we've done a lot more than we have in the past and I think that's pretty good effort on the city's part.

You want to make a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion. Um, see, I motion that planning commission recommends denial of appeal PL20260036 and uphold the planning director's decision of legal non-conforming STR use abandonment. We have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion on it? Yeah, I'll add that that when you look through the dates as to when they first uh reached out and tried to find out information when they purchased the lot or the the property. Um, and when and then the amount of time before they submitted uh an application and then how much time between that application and and giving those final documents and that it's all recorded in the emails. um makes it pretty uh pretty obvious that it was not because of any extenduating circumstance or any lack of time and uh and we also know but it's worth reiterating and treating every uh what's the word I want to call every project that comes before us um fairly that that you know we do take a look at and understand very clearly what is a legal stay and what is an illegal stay and that this is a legal non-conforming use. And so it needs to be a legal stay in order to uh qualify and that we are applying that pretty fairly to this project as well as other projects that we've reviewed. Um or applications. I will use that instead of project. That's the word I'm looking for. Uh so um yeah so I I think I think we've received enough evidence to see that the um the director has applied the code um more correctly in this case and I would just add that's our responsibility as a commission what you just said in the last part. Do we believe the director met the requirements of the code? Anything else to add? Okay, I'll call for a vote.

I um I I I I Right. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you and best of luck at council. All right, we have a third agenda item this evening, a CDC text amendment. This is BL20260037 immunity plan expedited housing CDC amendment. Toby, when you're settled, uh do you have a presentation for us?

Um just a quick verbal presentation. Um so this is this amendment, this text amendment has two purposes. It's to update the CDC with current language for the recently adopted community plan and to update the expedited review process to remain eligible for Proposition 123 funding for housing projects. So, first the community plan amendment. Um the community canvas plan was adopted in October of 2025 and it will require a series of text amendments to align the CDC with new direction in the plan. So this is just the first step to up update the CDC language for consistency and establish the correct orientation for the community plan. Uh the amendment is focused on applicability, clarity of language and updated references. We anticipate future amendments will include more substantive changes to align the CDC with community direction established by the plan. We find that this amendment meets the criteria for approval as it will align the CDC language with updated terms in the community plan and further goals and objectives. Regarding the expedited review amendment in 2022, the city implemented an expedited review process for development projects that provide a minimum of 30% of their project for deed restricted housing. Around the same time, Colorado voters approved Proposition 123, which created a fund to support var various affordable housing initiatives. To remain eligible for Proposition 123 funding, the city needs to do a few things, but one of the things that we need to do is have a fasttrack review process that aligns with state requirements. So, this amendment will update and amend language in the CDC to specify which projects the expi which types of um processes I should say. Um the expedited review can apply to. Um the expedited review amendment does meet

criteria for approval. It furthers housing goals in the community plan and it will position the city for state funding and programs. It also encourages development of attainable housing uh to make an impact on the housing demand in Steamboat Springs. Uh so we recommend approval of this two-part tax amendment um finding it consistent with criteria for approval. Thank you, Toby. Any questions? Yeah. Um I'm just curious, do we have any statistics on how expedited the expedited process is?

I don't know if we have any statistics. We've done maybe five or six expedited projects. Since we've done them, we've tried to debrief and understand those projects um how they came out faster. I think a few of them came out a little bit faster. That was maybe if they were less complex. Um there was one that only had two units, so it went pretty fast. Um I think they end up a little bit quicker. Um I think we put off some of the the parts of our review. This is just from having administered a few of them. Put off some of their parts of our review to conditions and building permit. So that helps them get to building permit faster, though I don't know if we've had any uh be developed yet that I can say. The one twounit one that was developed. Um but some of the larger ones I don't think have broke ground yet. I'm not I may not be remembering them all, but mine haven't broken ground yet, the ones that I did. So, we don't have great data yet, but um part of what I think we'll be doing as we manage our deed restrictions and our housing program and our housing initiatives better with um current staff and new staff that we hope to hire, we're going to um be able to get some better metrics on all that information hopefully.

Okay, thanks. Any other questions? Uh I don't I have a comment um on 721.c.2. 2.A. Um, in your addition, you describe it as the community plan again instead of the Steamboat Springs community plan. I think you missed putting Steamboat Springs in there as you referenced it in all the other sections. Okay. Thank you.

While we're being picky, I have one picky thing, so let me get the picky thing out of the way and then hopefully you'll have more substantive. I was curious about the word vision. The word vision is capitalized 90% of the time in in the changes but not 100% of the time. I was curious is is that a proper term that I don't know about but should know about or is that not a proper term? It just the vision being descriptive. Yeah, I was looking at that and I think we when we drafted the language the vision could have been the first word might have been capitalized there but I think I will switch it to a lowercase vision. We don't have a uppercase or a capital letter vision. Oh, we Okay.

Anywhere. I our reference here is general vision from the entire plan since it's multiple pages. So, I will lowercase the vision throughout. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense because like I say, I I was curious if it meant I need to be looking for something. Maybe that helps. One other person in the code finicky. I'm done. Thank you. Rich, what did you have? Um, does the state differentiate that the state requirements that we have for this this review, do they differentiate between workforce housing and affordable housing units or they have to be treated the same? I think they're just looking for housing units. Um, I don't even think that they have to be dee restricted.

Okay. Can you remind me what our Scott square footage limit is on workforce housing units?

It's 1,000 square feet for a workforce unit. Um, I'm just having a little heartache to feel that workforce housing units are as valuable as affordable housing units since workforce housing units have no income restrictions on them, right? All the only restriction is they have to have a job here. And that's important. We wouldn't want it to. It's preventing it from being at least a second home. But I'm not sure, like I said, I don't think it's nearly as valuable as affordable housing. And putting it on equal footing, it I'm having a little trouble with that. And we haven't seen a well we have seen a lot of workforce housing units and I don't know who's in them but I've just had some I've been thinking about it a lot and when I saw these all pushed together I didn't put them at the same same level of importance that they that yeah I I I would agree that workforce housing is you just have to work here but there's no way am I limits on it and it would be nice if there was but um I mean they're essentially market price houses as long as you live Mhm.

Can we save that to the comments till when we are we are we just asking questions or are we making comments at this point because I have stuff to say about that. This being more um this is not an applicant versus talk the whole time questions and deliberation.

Okay. I just I disagree with you guys. I think that that workforce housing has a very strong place in the community and I think I think that there there are workforce housing units that maybe don't accomplish what they were intended to accomplish if they're huge and they outfit them like a luxury loft and then they just get rented to the same to people that maybe aren't struggling to find a place. I don't think those are as effective, but I think there are I think that restriction lets a lot of people um have a place to live here that doesn't get turned into to an STR that doesn't get turned into something else that doesn't get rented by a a skier who comes up every weekend. I think that it's it's wildly effective. Maybe not in every single case, but I think that it can be

and I've seen it be. No, and I I I agree with with what you said. that um would it be more effective if it were aimed at you know in the affordable housing range um you know serving a different group? The what it does is essentially uh impacts you know the finance ability and the economics associated with building that house that too

that's what it does. I mean if you know if I could raise the price on u you know AMI restricted house and just go up AMIs you know continuously you you get more money you have more revenue flowing in and so it's it's much more financable it's the economics are better and that's why people would build them so they can make money doing it. So if they exist because people can actually build them then absolutely increases that's important too. It is it is

another thought that I had on the same thing is that expedited review and the value of affordable housing and or workforce units is greatly increased in green and to some degree yellow zones. Imagine if someone actually did deed restricted housing in the green zone. I mean, yeah, obviously they're taking away a lot of potential income by not doing being able to st uh taking away the STR ability and it would seem like we would need to get that even a possibility. We would have to change the incentive because I can't imagine anybody offering to do at least affordable housing in the green zone knowing that they're really undercutting their ROI. Let's just say for lack of a better word, I just see a bunch of discussion points with this. I know it's a more of a administrative action, but it made me think about things uh especially just seeing them all lumped together in one straight shot. And whether it's something we discuss now or gets addressed later, I don't know.

Well, and they're and they're important things, right? I I love the conversation you guys are are having about it. What I guess I'm curious about is in context of this ordinance, is it to the point where you'd like to see changes or additions before this is kind of the thing? Or is this kind of well this ordinance is doing basically just adding the the application types, but it's not substantively changing how we define affordable housing versus workforce housing and if that should change over time. or are you saying now is the time you want to have that conversation?

Uh, I'm not sure. I wanted to see what the reaction was. I mean, I understand it's not black and white to me. I understand you're saying, Clay, that there's there is some value in workforce housing units. They're certainly not as uh as valuable as affordable housing units are. Can't say that they are equally valuable. just just modifying my opinion because uh what Clay says is absolutely true. If if the builder could not make money by charging market rate, then they wouldn't build it and it wouldn't be there. Well, they're getting there's also there's also like parking parking reductions that

well discussion which reduces the overall I mean the one parking reduction I'm vehemently opposed to. All right. Well, I am but that that addresses what you just said though they're limited on space. Oh, let's convert one unit and we need we need one less parking spot. Looks like we've seen that. I I think we're doing this so that we meet Prop 123 requirements. I understand. That's why we're doing this. Yeah. Which raises

other thing is we don't have we don't have policy discussions anymore. When else am I going to say I mean if we have one then I'm going to have to remember the hundred things that I complain about all the time at one meeting. I'm going to say it now. Maybe it'll ring somebody's bell and they'll say we really should do something about that. Um and that's why just like with the institutional discussion it's like there's something about it that I didn't get completely and it was time to speak up on it. One thing I'll mention I I misspoke earlier. The state does have requirements for affordable units. Um they require or they will provide funding for is that what this is for for 60 the requirement for the expedited

for the expedited review is for 60% AMI for rentals and 100% AMI for owning. Our program is broader than that um as we set it up intentionally. They also um require I think it's 50% of the units be deed restricted. ours requires 30% so it's better. So we are asking for um expedited review for um more more units. I'm not sure I understood that. Can you help? I know I was like that that you made it sound like workforce housing you have to meet up to 50%. You have to have more in order to be able to do the expedited review is what the state says. And you're saying no not even that. I must be saying it wrong because I think that

we'll get you to expedite it even sooner because we're even more trying to incentivize it. Right. That's the That's the bar that's being lowered, I guess. Yes. Improved. Yes. Okay. And what about the the AMI portion that you mentioned though that came from the the Prop 123? I can't say that I can speak to that very well. So, I apologize.

Let me try. And Brad's going to run up here if I get this wrong. So the state requ the state is requiring that we have an expedited review for certain types of housing. So though that would apply to projects that provide at least 50% of either rental units that hit the 60% AMI mark or ownership units at 100% of AMI. Oh, I see. We when we initially adopted an expedited review process a year plus two years ago, it was in 2022 and I think we did it not exactly in conjunction with this process that they're doing now. So we're trying to align with theirs, but ours was ours was actually ahead of theirs. So

we were ahead of the game. So four years ago as uh a with the intention of trying to incentivize affordable and workforce housing we created our own expedited review process and at that time we set the threshold at 30% um rather than what the state is saying 50%. So more projects are eligible under our re our code for expedited review. We also allow for workforce units, not just incomerestricted affordable units. So, we're being um less restrictive, I guess, to be eligible for expedited review than what the state is requiring us to be. And that's fine,

Brad. With all with all of that, but before you go off, because you go off and you give me more information, I'm going to forget my question. Listen, so I'm going to add this. What does that process look like in starting to talk about this? Is this planning commission discussion, which of course as a member of planning commission, let's make it a planning commission discussion. Is this um the ad hoc housing committee discussion? Is this council? How do we where does this conversation really belong?

Uh Brad Coward, planning staff to gave a I will riff for a second and just try to touch a couple of these things. Um the the Prop 123 sort of AMI limits uh of the 60% for rental 100% for owner are honestly about financial or pro unit eligibility like base case for the state to invest in a project. Those are the income limits uh that you have to target for us to then count the units towards our Prop 123 commitment. So, we just submitted our commitment, our sort of unit count to the state. They would only count units that were either 60% AMI on the rental side or 100% AMI uh on the owner side. So, there there's a very relatively narrow view of what affordable housing means through the lens of the Prop 123 because that's it's established in statute. There's actually the legislature is talking about it this year about changing uh those AMI levels. And to make it even more confusing, on a projectby project basis, if you are pursuing Prop 123 uh funding, you can make a case that that 60 to 100% AMI doesn't actually work in your market. So like that's the type of thing that gets the rule, it's called a rural resort petition. You can say like really AM 60 to 100% AMI doesn't work in the high country. We have to think about different AMI levels. So, I mean that's apologies that that that's but that's the um again there's there lots of ways that that kind of comes into the conversation where this conversation is you should start the convers this is a good way to start the conversation. I just like I probably Rebecca has seen that text already. The thing that I would mention is we have we have to update our housing strategy uh this year and one of the things that we have to sort of do is ask ourselves are the existing programs and initiatives that we are pursuing yielding the type of affordable housing

outcomes that we want and so this is a natural type of conversation uh for that. I mean, even Toby sort of was alluding to this. Um, we started a process internally to evaluate how is expedited review working and we kind of paused that because like we knew this was coming down from the state and we're like, well, we we're going to have to change it based on what the state is suggesting or at least that probably is a probable outcome. So, let's do that and then return to that. But that was one of the open questions that we had is if we're just yielding or the primary units that are being delivered are workforce only without an AMI restriction. Is that really what we were trying to accomplish uh by having an expedited review process? That's an open question uh for for folks to talk about. Um can I can I give my perspective on workforce versus income restricted while I'm here?

Okay. Um in a that was a question, right? I'd answer this. Yes. Yes, please.

Uh, in in a community where your AMIs are so untethered from the realities of the local economy, in some ways like workforce gets you better outcomes uh because you know that that person is going to be employed and tethered to the local economy in some way versus our AMIs that are so skewed by essentially nonwage income uh from uh from individuals in our community. it it it's sort of AMI's broken in this community as being a real reflection of um you know really what people earn uh when they are working uh jobs in this community. So in some ways that local workforce is a market condition or a market solution that simply just makes sure the rent is tethered to what people in this community can can uh can afford. Uh because if you think of 80 100% AMI for a single person household in this community is $91,000 a year. Average wage is $55,000 or something along that. Like that just tells you the gap between those two things. Uh and so what a 100% AMI person can afford essentially twice what an actual average uh worker can can afford workforce does essentially yield affordability.

Actually, I think that's pretty good. You're essentially saying the the marketplace is set by the workforce itself. Yeah. You you can only set your rents based on what members of the local workforce can afford can afford. Yeah. I mean I agree with that to a point. Well, right. And I get into the system is broken again even in in that point. Right. But I I definitely like I understand where you're going and and my my point would be like we we need them all. we we need both income restricted even if it was on the owner side up to 200% AMI like there there there is a case to be made uh even for that depending on the unit type and we also need

relatively light restrictions that just absolutely ensure that that unit is going to be filled by someone who is working locally great thank you appreciate the opportunity to opine

yeah always you any additional questions Can I just summarize what I think I heard is our requirements are this bucket. Prop 123 fits into this bucket as a subset. And so that's that's the question that was asked is is where does the AMI where does that fit? Well, it's inside the bucket that we have. Then the question going forward is as we are reworking the housing plan this year, do we want to change that? And that's that's a question I'm not sure we got the answer. Maybe we did. Does that start here? Is that a separate group that's will be pulled together to revamp the housing plan? What does that look like?

Sorry, one more. Uh I think it's more sort of an all the above. Uh David, but uh the one thing I will add is um we currently have what gets called an ad hoc housing advisory committee that was formed in 2024. Klay is on on that. It has a relatively limited charge. It is it was let's get an RFP out. Let's figure out how we are going to invest STR tax funds in the delivery of near-term affordable housing units. And then after we have done that, what is our plan going forward in terms of again how we make those investments to deliver uh affordable units using the the actual financial uh tools that are available to us. Uh and my scope of work like literally next quarter is to create uh a new housing border commission. Uh that would that would be something that council considers that is probably the logical venue for many housing uh related conversations. I would not be surprised if there are issues going forward that are both planning commission and that new border commission are involved in that conversation. But that that's the table I'm I'm working uh to get established that that feels like the logical place for that conversation uh to happen. But again, this there's ultimately a CDC solution here that you're thinking about as well. What and obviously that happens uh around uh this table as well.

But you're saying it's imminent, which is kind of the optimistic takeaway as well. not only the who but the when. So that's that's wonderful.

Yeah. I mean so we so as as mentioned we uh we have you know we we talk about this a lot internally as staff the the pace of the of the change of state requirements is almost unyielding like we are constant our practice is changing really as a department. We are now going to have to do uh or have the opportunity uh to do a housing plan every six years uh including a housing needs assessment. The housing needs assessments have typically been done by the housing authority as you all know. We now have to do a housing needs assessment that includes uh both that and the housing strategy evaluating what you've been doing asking yourselves again is it yielding uh the outcomes uh that you want. So that will be things like your regulatory uh solutions, your incentive uh solutions and your financial solutions.

Terrific. Thank you. Other questions? I'll just say I don't care that much about the expedited review process. I I'll be honest. I just wanted to stir the pot a little bit. I mean, I did care a little bit. And obviously the state saying we don't have to have expedited review for workforce housing because it doesn't doesn't meet their criteria for what's included, but I don't really care that much. I I care a little bit, but not enough to push this ordinance back or anything like that. I needed to raise some ideas and some concerns. Um, and I'm happy with I'm relatively happy with what's been proposed.

I want to I want to say that I agree with you, but I want to say it my own way. Can I do that real quick? I I wonder 6:15 time in the world from a timeline standpoint. And of course, I I couldn't know the answer to this as much as well as I'm sure staff could on kind of what expedited means versus not. But I will say I have lots of anecdotal evidence uh uh in my area of work on people who are thrilled with how quickly you can go through planning and building department processes here in town versus many other places

without the expedit. most other places without expedited and and we are not exactly at a place where you're waiting a year but at least you can expedite it to 3 months kind of a thing. So when we talk about expedited I like incentives for affordable housing or workforce housing. I'm not sure that that's the one that's really the sticker. Of course people will always say that can we go faster but broad scheme of things I think there are many other things that are are more incentivizing and and I I'm excited for that process that starts to try and explore more than just expedited review. But that's my addition.

Yeah. Um I mean my my feelings about this text amendment is we need it to get in line with our new community plan. We need it to get in line with state statutes. And there's a much broader discussion that we need to have and we probably don't have the right information in front of us tonight to even really have an educated discussion about balancing workforce versus affordable housing. You know, it it needs to be done. It always needs to be done and sounds like we're going to be doing it every six years now. Um, but you know, kind of like Rich said, I don't really have any major concerns with this text amendment. Um, I think it looks pretty good.

Cool. I have a question. Um can you tell me the purpose of I think it's item number six um the amendment to section 107B development team procedures adding yeah adding that

yeah so that's related to the expedited review changes so um the expedited review process lives in our what are called our DRT policies and procedures so there is one piece of that um one piece of the process that lives in the CDC that we are updating for the state and the rest of that process lives in the expedited review um policies and procedures which we adopted um I think initially in 2020. Um so we've had those in place for a while. What we realized when we were doing this amendment to update um all of our documents for the fasttrack review process for Proposition 123, we didn't actually have a process statement in our CDC that says that the DRT will use those policies and procedures even though we did. So, we are adding that um to our process to our procedures section. We have a development review team section in the CDC that says what the development review team is and generally what we do and then the detailed work of what we do is in our policies and procedures. So this statement um ensures that the DRT uses those policies and procedures and then the one above it actually gives the director the authority to create those policies and procedures. So we missed those steps on the first time around. And then similarly, can you give me an examp or either an example or just the purpose of adding the 24 through 26 um in reasonable conditions being imposed on conditional use conceptual development plan and development plans. Uh adding the community plan to that.

Yeah. So we have a reason a conditions section in part of our processes and procedures in the in the CDC. Um so those sections that are being added for conditions are just to kind of apply the conditions across the board. We often have conditions where we put conditions on a project. Um but not all projects required that. So this this this language allows us to apply conditions um to them. So the reasonable conditions

I guess I just always understood those conditions had to be tied to the CDC like st like something about the CDC and maybe there's enough in the CDC about the long range planning that maybe this is appropriate. It just seems like a little different from what we've been told in the past for what those conditions can be. conditions can as it as some of the like the black text in that amendment say that conditions can be added to also mitigate impacts. So it doesn't have to be specifically related to standards in the CDC. So where the conditions um sections are being added um we've also added some applicability and criteria for approval statements that say you need to com further further your the project needs to further the community plan. So this is just kind of following up. So if you've met the criteria for approval, it also allows us to apply those conditions where necessary and where applicable. So, it's just kind of making that connection to the community plan through multiple development um process types is what we were trying to do.

Can I maybe tell you my concern and you can tell me what process stops this? Um my concern is that we sit and uh debate a conditional use and one of the commissioners says, "Well, we need affordable housing." So if you make one of those units workforce housing, I want to put that condition on your project. Is that like that's my concern? Is there something stopping that from happening now that we can impose reasonable conditions to meet the community plan?

I think we are already able to oppose reasonable conditions. They have to mitigate an impact. So if if someone if the planning commission requires um a condition, it has to be associated with a specific impact. So um the pro the use in the project also have to be just generally consistent with the community plan. So I don't think that we would be able to I don't think a a reasonable condition would be to implement some aspect of the community plan. That's what we are trying to avoid with this amendment is to put the community plan at a sort of a higher level so we're not applying it on these smaller project byp project basises. So I think um that just cannot it in our mind it connects the vision of the community plan with the impact that we're talking about in the condition so that all of that is reasonable. So that we're we're talking about an impact with our condition and whatever that impact is from that use should also generally be consistent with the direction of our community plan. So both of those should be consistent. But I don't think it would require that we could condition something to make the community plan happen. I don't think that we any of us have that authority.

So

it's interesting with you that I had that written. I love the question. That's what I had written as well because that's how I read it too is exactly what Toby you just said it's not meant to mean which is it sounded like well if the community plan says it then reasonably we can say oh but you have to do this because the community plan is kind of encouraging it and because the community plan is so um theoretically high level compared to the CDC how could something so high level be a mitigation to an impact and and then it can mean anything because it's too high level and is that more scary to the applicant than than descriptive to the applicant on what we're we're trying to do. And that's the way it read to me as well. So, if that's not what we mean, is there a way we could wordsmith it to not mean that or is it just Kelly and I? Um, we can try and um can change we could try and words smmith that language to eliminate that. But again that the condition has to initially the condition has to be reasonable and it has to respond to an impact. So our hope with these uh changes is that those conditions whatever they may be respond to those impacts as they had to always and then they're also still just consistent and not contrary to our community plan. So should just keep us in alignment. I don't I don't think it um gives us the authority to not make reasonable conditions that are not anticipated, not in response to impacts. Um but we could look at how that's worded and see if there is a better way to do it.

Yeah. I I think that one what when one person sees an as an impact like that that's subjective, right? Like some people might think that something's impactful that others disagree with and I could just I can see the conversations now like you're building 30, you know, luxury condos, you have to do this to to reduce the impact of that per the community plan. Or I don't know, I can think of a thousand examples, but maybe that would be unreasonable. But who's who's deciding what's unreasonable at that point? I guess is maybe my concern.

Maybe another Yes. Right. And maybe to tie or to add on to that is because we don't really have any evidence that that's being done currently with conditions. We're never seeing conditions like that.

Yeah. And I guess where where my head was at as I was reading it is since we don't ever see any of that then what is what was staff envisioning this is solving that wasn't already being solved like why make the change essentially like maybe maybe we are limited in conditions in a way that this makes things better this will change the way that staff will do conditions this won't I mean why you know there's usually an impetus for it is that the word for Yeah. And uh and what was it? Does that kind of help kind of clarify like why why do we want to do this? Does that help Toby? Like what were you guys thinking when you were kind of deciding that these

again? We were generally trying to align our um criteria approval um which is in each of these sections. So that's in the

other part of the text amendment above this. So each of these processes has criteria for approval. um that mentions the community plan. So, it was just trying to see a line through those processes from criteria for approval to conditions to make sure that all of that is consistent um with with our vision for that area. Um so, alignment with the community plan is a criteria for approval for all of those development types, right? I guess I would just argue that maybe this is maybe that being added to those sections doesn't add much value. It just adds confusion to in my opinion. Um because if it doesn't add value per the community plan, it's not getting passed. Like if if they can't show that there's no value, um yeah, it just adds concerns for me. I feel like um you know it it's already in there that they're reasonable conditions to be imposed and the community plan is pretty vague on specifics. So it would be tough for either a planner or a commissioner to be like, you know what, I like trees. I think you should put more trees on your lot because the community plan says we want a green community. Well, it doesn't say you have to have a certain amount of trees. That goes into the landscaping plan which is codified. And if you meet the standards there, the applicant could turn around and say, "I've met the standards and the standards follow the community plan." So, you're making an unreasonable request pretty objectively. I I agree with you except for how about the recent conversations we have had

where there's been argument that the CDC is behind and it it's it's not actually furthering the community plan in some area. Let's say the community plan says we should have more trees than the current CDC but we haven't adopted it. So now what what do I do as a landscape architect? Do I put in the more trees for the community plan or do I do just follow the CDC because that's our requirements or is it okay? That's really the the the end question. I mean, does it not matter? Is this overthinking it? That's

I feel like if an unreasonable condition was proposed, you could fall back and say, "Well, I've met the code standards." Even if they are lagging, those are the code standards and this is an unreasonable request. And I think that's a pretty valid argument. You know, we can't just sit there and say we think you ought to add three more affordable units to your development because the community plan says so. We are talking about conditional use. So,

well, we are in one of the three cases because that's I'm sorry to jump on your sentence. We are in in 24 we are and it makes a lot of sense what he's saying. But in 26, for example, development plan, well, no, wait a minute. We followed the code. We don't even need a conditional use or a variance, but now we've got a new imposition based on the community plan. Hey, wait a minute. I mean, that's fair, but I still think that the code is what when they're reviewing it against staff how there I mean I think staff agrees that the current code does have shortcomings compared to the

area plan. We know but in the past it's always been what you said if it meets the code the area plan goes by the wayside. Are we now elevating the the the Canvas community plan to a higher level where meeting the code is not enough or will or will staff continue to be reviewing applications the way we have in the past? I don't think that was the intention at all, but Toby and I were just chatting and I think that we'll take a closer look at that just to ensure that we're not um suggesting that there's some authority to um require conditions above and beyond what we have authority to do. So, I think we'll take a closer look. I think we hear planning commission loud and clear and our our intention was not to grant ourselves authority that we didn't already have.

So we may just need to check that language again and make sure that everyone understands that. Other questions? I have one more. So what's the recommendation then if if staff has said, "Hey, we need to go back." Is it should we table this um at this point? But you need this to move forward. Um with the prop 123.

The only thing I would mention is if you consider tableabling it, I would strongly encourage that you allow the expedited housing part of the amendment to move forward. That helps us to get an incentive from the state and we are on a timeline. Uh the rest of it can wait. So we can we can He smell it like that. Approve certain points and not others.

On how the group feels, but or just Steph is I mean very clearly just yeah let's you know they're hearing us. They already said they heard us loud and clear. Are they going to work on it in good faith? Do we need to hold it up hold up any of this tonight or can we suggest that that's something that they should word before council sees it? I wouldn't hold it up. That would be my suggestion. my vote tonight. I'm not going to hold it up even though I had that concern on those three. I mean, if we can if we can hold parts of it, I would not be opposed to that at all, but I don't want to hold up the parts that are important to keep moving forward.

I would side with Cala because I'd rather this body approve the what we think should be approved rather than than saying staff work on it and then take it to council. But the Prop 123 piece needs to get through now or needs to get to council if this body believes it's ready. I'm okay with I mean staff feels that they can make adjustments between now and the city council hearing

that yes they know what our fear what our fears are. I mean we're talk to some degree there's there's an intent that has been established by staff. They told us what they want and they don't want what we're fearing. So unless you think that you can word smith better than them, I'm fine with pushing it all through and let and letting them live with the deadline. Well, we talk about this all the time. You know, somebody's intentions are wonderful when you trust that like I I trust that what staff's saying is is completely accurate. What happens if 10 years from now we have this exact same code language and we have a new planning director? We have new planners that completely

interpret it differently the way that I'm interpreting it which

feels like a big deal like feels like some stuff I and I also just don't understand what condition would be applied based on the community plan versus Yeah. what what condition would be applied based on the community plan? If it's none of the things that we're concerned about, then what's an example of why that language needs to be in there? I don't think the the we would apply a condition to implement the community plan. Um the goal of this language was to make sure that any condition that we do require um based on impacts from a project is contributing to the community plan. So it's not just mitigating impacts, it is also contributing to the community plan. So it's speaking to whatever condition. It's not to um make something happen. It's to respond to a an impact. So that's what the condition is for to respond to an impact.

Just adding and since ands and ors are so important in our code could just adding and make that distinction. So the words before it are the use is compatible with the zone district and surrounding properties and contributes to the vision. Is that what you're thinking?

Yeah. So it's not as a separate line item. It's a combined thing. I'd be okay with that. I think you can't just pull it straight out of the community plan. Oh, maybe I'm not. I don't know. How does that change it? We do have time to work on it. Um, our council meetings are April 21st and May 5th. Um, we have very busy uh planning commissions between now and then, which is why you're hearing this tonight and it's not going to council for a while. There's very busy planning commission and council meetings. So, we have time to make the changes. Um, I was trying to think. I'm not sure if we quite have the time to bring it back to you, but we might be able to bring back our comments to you as a director's report um at some point to see where we ended up. I don't know if that helps you at all. Um, or we could just leave those particular we could leave the rest of the amendment together and leave those particular items out of the amendment and work on those sections and bring that forward as another little amendment later if that's another option for you if all of the rest of the references um work for you. Um, but you can you can do whatever you want.

I'd prefer that route. But I also have one more question that's not a it's just a point of clarity on another item. Do does anybody else have more to say about that? Just real quick, do you guys want to strap hole on how you would like to treat those items? Like who would like to hold up just that based on this conversation too? Who you'd be okay moving it forward the way that Toby's talking about? Words smithing would be the other option.

Mhm. So that's probably the voted direction thing. So if that is the voted direction thing, then at least what was in the back of my mind is that they have the opportunity to word smmith that we don't have the opportunity to change our recommendation as it is on record kind of a thing. But I think that you know council will have a meeting on it and discussion and public comment and we can hear what they've come up with at that time and they've heard all of our minutes by then. I think that they've been informed extremely well at that point that I don't feel I don't feel nervous about it getting to a good place for them without having to hold up something and and create more discussion that I'm not quite sure is necessary just because of how our conversation has been so thoughtful tonight. So that's that's what I think is the positive avenue if we don't do what you were thinking. But let's move on with another question then. At least we put that one to bed for now. Uh item number 39. It's uh we're deleting the part that says um that a community plan amendment is required for any zone map amendment where the purpose proposed land oh my god proposed zone district is inconsistent with the land use designation. Does is that just not a requirement any longer because of the way that we've done the future land use map? Yeah. So, the way that we amend, so we do have um we still have some language that say that review can be prior to or concurrent with the zone map amendment um in the procedures section. Um but it's not going to be required. So, I think the way that we had done the amendments to the community plan in the past, they were very small on a property bypropy basis. So um that caused a lot of problem at a lot of levels um because it needed to you know if we had followed

the letter of the old plan we would have had to get route county planning approval and county commissioner approval for a one lot zone map amendment and community plan amendment. So we always sort of said we agree that we don't need to do this type of amendment. So we are sort of like I said bringing this to a higher level bringing it up to the correct orientation. So um the zone map amendment criteria does need to meaningfully contribute to the community plan. So we've strengthened that criteria for approval when you're looking at a zone map amendment to really ensure that when we're changing that zoning it is really consistent with the um future plan. So, we think with that change to to strengthen the zone map criteria, um that allows us to still change the community plan, but we're not going to be changing it on a property bypropy basis. Our this community plan is also set up different than our old one. The districts are much broader and the edges are very fuzzy. So we would still have the opportunity to look at a zone map amendment for its consistency with the community plan future land use district on the fuzzy edges where we're not quite sure what the exact boundary is. We had more exact boundaries previously. So we did sort of remove the requirement with every zone map amendment. Um I think that that was the incorrect orientation. So, um, we can still look at certainly what that future land district land use district says for a property when we're looking at a zone map amendment or any other um project where we've got a community plan um criteria and that's any project with a variance, any project with a conditional use, a PUD, any zone map amendment, definitely any annexation. So, we still have that ability, but we took it to a little bit

higher level. And this the community plan process um is going to be probably for larger community plan amendments. The community decides that we need to do something or we find an error in the community plan, but a an applicant can still make that request. Um, we think that those again might happen on those fuzzy edges of the districts where we may not have it exactly correct. Um, but we we would anticipate seeing a lot fewer community plan amendments um with the structure of this plan. Thanks. Any other questions?

Great. Um, do we have any public comments online that would like to speak to this agenda item? Okay, seeing none, um, then I guess yeah, do we want to make a a motion or any internal discussion? Well, the motion would be to approve with CDC caveat that staff will rework some of the comments that were provided. Theoretically, it could it could include that. It could include the vision question I brought up and the AJ question just to be as descriptive as as possible, but I know that Toby and Rebecca have heard it all anyway. But, uh, yes.

Okay.

I just want to be super clear that I'm going to vote no, but not because I have any issue with anything else in it. I think everything's fantastic and I totally trust that you guys are going to do it, but I can't say yes to something that isn't I don't actually approve. Two, three pieces. And I would say listening to the conversation, I'm okay moving forward, but within the minutes that um one thing Commissioner Calla said that rings in my head is making sure that the plan does not equal go to equal footing with the code as a result of these of this language. So look at the language to ensure that the code still rules for lack of a better term.

Did I Oh, that that sounds like what should be in the motion. Yeah. Go ahead. Make the motion. You're good at that, Lou. That's all right. Um, let me pull up so I can read. Are there other items besides that if I can ask commissioners to include in the motion? I think that one's bro.

Like I said, we brought up a couple of things that might that staff mentioned that they might change clarification things. I'm not sure if that's worthy of being in the motion. Okay. So I move to sorry move to recommend approval of PL 20260037 a CDC text amendment um with the direction to staff to ensure the language regarding those items does not elevate the plan above the uh CDC second. Great motion a second. Any final discussion? That was great discussion. I'll call for a vote. I no. Yes. I

I That recommendation passes 5 to one. Thank you, Toby. I think uh does that bring us to a do we have a director's report tonight? I have nothing to report tonight. Okay. We also don't have any old business. Uh does anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. We have a motion second. All in favor? I I Great. We're adjourned at 6:42. Everybody