Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello. Wow, I've never sat so close. Okay.

Well, good good evening everyone. This is our planning commission public hearing for March 12th. Uh, can I start with roll call, please? Klay Cruz, Brian Adams, David Box, and Gavin, are you there? Yep. Gavin Oul. Perfect. Uh before we begin agenda items this evening, is anybody here who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Come on down, give us your name and and um your comments. Uh good afternoon, good evening. U my name is Andy Benjamin. I'm a resident of the town of Oak Creek. Um they want to put it on the record. So yep, getting are you getting it?

Yeah, res. Thank you. So town of Oak Creek. Yeah. Thank you.

Um, I've been in Steamboat Springs since 1999 and have been um, primarily focused on residential landscape design and installation in many different capacities here. And I'm here tonight just to make some brief comments about um, in the email that I received regarding some of the changes that you guys are considering. Hi, Rebecca. um to changes in your code and um performance standards, which I 100 I just want to say I 100% support everything that you're doing. I've actually advocated for a bunch of these changes over the last 10 years, so I'm very appreciative of that. Um I was not involved in this email thread, um but I I did receive it from one of the consultants that I work with. Um, just briefly about me, I have a degree in landscape architecture from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, which primarily focused on large-scale planning. Um, and right out of school, I did educational campus planning, um, and construction documents for Planet Hollywood, Worcester Straight, State Track and Field, numerous, numerous other projects in the Northeast. Um I also have a degree an associates degree in landscape development which is primarily focused on residential design with a an emphasis in horiculture and construction. Um on your email there was a comments about water conservation, wildlife defensible space and some of the calculations of landscape areas, plantings, plant list selection, and some of the minimum requirements for plans. And I'll start with the minimum requirements for plans and asking for clarification. I see that you're considering having all drawings be stamped by a Colorado licensed landscape architect. um if that will be um applied to residential design as

well. Um a lot of people in this area who have been doing this for a long time don't have that degree or that stamp um and they do good um good quality design. The other question I have is about the uh irrigation plans re requirement to be certified by an irrigation design professional. There isn't a clear definition of what that is. um the ALCC, so um American Landscape Contractors Association, Association of Landscape Contractors, um or there's an irrigation association. Neither one of them have clear uh understanding of what's going to be required. One of them has a $500 to $10,000 minimum donation to become part of their association. um those those um could could cause some problems with design and irrigation design specifically. I think oftent times really requires information that's not available until um we start building where we can test pressure and flow to ensure proper design. Uh I see that my time is up. I have more things to talk about if I can have a couple more minutes. But

well, or or better yet, if you've if you've got all of this written down and send it to us as an email, I think that's even easier for us to take that information and and dwell on it and see what actionable things we could do with it. So, I'd encourage you to to send us an email kind of with the rest of your thoughts and absolutely and I'd love to be involved. Um, again, if you've been here for half a second, you've seen my drawings, you've approved them. Um, I'd like to continue to be a part of the process, but this isn't just about me. It's about the people who are coming behind and how they're going to have to work in the code and and um work within the system. So, thank you so much for your time. I really

Please do send us an email. That would be I will Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for your comments. Is there any other uh general public comment tonight? Is there any online seeing none uh we will go into our agenda items. Our first agenda item tonight is PL20250339 12th and Yampa residences is the applicant here for a presentation coming up and and give us your presentation.

Hi there. Um first I just want to thank you guys for time and dedication and service to our community. I know it's a pretty thankless job and no matter what decision you make, someone's always angry at you. So it's not lost on us. Uh and so we appreciate your time and consideration. Um this project represents two years a little over of dedication by vertical arts architecture landmark civil and the city staff uh to bring this uh before you. And uh basically it's just been my dream for quite a little bit. I've been here for 16 years now. Um and I've I view this corner as uh truly a unique part of of what makes Steamboat Steamboat. and uh having Little Tootses Park and the river there uh obviously weighs heavily into what we're doing and what we're we're trying to convey. Um breathing new life into that corner I think is important. And uh you know we're not out oftowners. We're we live here. We're raising our four daughters here. We employ over 100 people here. Um we're not out of state out of town developers that are coming in to make a quick couple million bucks off of selling some condos and we're going to leave. We're here and we're going to be here. My youngest daughter's two, so we're not going anywhere. And uh and we we look at this building as a as a lasting part of of what makes Steamboat so special that we all know and love. And so, um you know, as we move forward through this, uh I just I think it's important to uh consider not just the the CDC, but also the envisioning documents that have been passed by by council and and approved overwhelmingly by our community. and uh just ask you to keep that in the back of your mind cuz I know you've got uh uh comment from the public that uh maybe doesn't contemplate those things. So with that, I guess we'll jump right into it. But we just really appreciate uh you guys considering all this.

I need to ask. Hello, I'm Chandler Diamond. and I'm with vertical arts architecture uh working on the 12th and Nampa project and representing uh Colin and the team here. Uh I would like to share my screen but it says I need to send a request.

They will hear you and they should let you do it in a minute. Let's try and thank you. Sorry if I can get to the view here. Just one second. All right. Once again, I'd like to thank the uh planning staff for all of your hard work. Uh Rebecca, Toby, and Bob for helping uh work with us through this development. Um and wanted to give you a little up uh give you a presentation here on kind of what we've done. Uh the project site is located at the corner of 12th and Yampa where the existing Orange Peel and old double Z building is. Uh along with the project, we have acquired uh a piece of city land there as well that was right on the end of the the site that was just part of the parking. And so we worked with the city and acquiring a parcel um right along 12th Street as well. Give you some context in 3D here. Yampa River is here towards the uh bottom of the page. Wateride Village Condominiums is next door. 11:25 Lincoln at the top left of the page and then Tootses Park to the left. Some of the surrounding context here uh downtown that's similar to our project is Wateride right next door um the Emerald at Tenth and Yampa, House and Place 608 Yampa and the Olympian.

The project that we've designed has activated the front and corner of the building by having a restaurant along the lower level there. Towards the 12th side, we have the entry into the residences and to a lobby space. And then along the alley towards the back, we have parking, enclosed parking, and the residential units on the second and third floor along with a rooftop deck. What we tried to do was use the there's several guiding documents for this project. There's the downtown development plan, there's the community plan, there's also the the downtown uh streetscape standards, and then of course the CDC. And we tried to use all of these guiding documents as part of design in this project. And each one of those things brought up things like, you know, parking in the area is a problem. They wanted streetscape activation so that the downtown area feels lively and vibrant and has plenty of activity throughout the year. Infill developments. One of the big things that the community plan and the downtown development plan both brought up was infill developments. using existing existing sites to develop new projects instead of going out expanding into other areas that are outside of the city limits or larger zones, sites that aren't readily available that need infrastructure put into place, sewer, gas, water, etc. Preservation of the neighborhood uh character. Um enhancing the mix of economics in that area. Uh, one of the big things in the community plan was, you know, having residential downtown, having things like retail spaces, restaurants, etc. Once again, trying to mix each one of those so that it's vibrant and economically um, viable as well.

And then the design vernacular, you know, maintaining the character of the Oldtown neighborhood and doing that through quality materials, design, massing, um, to complement that built environment. So to continue with the streetscape activation, the main goal was to along the bottom here create a outdoor seating space for the restaurant as well as views into the restaurant that showed life activity all year round. We've designed the exterior to have aviation windows so that those windows can be closed during the winter time, still allow for outdoor seating to be seen, and then on days like today where it's nice and warm or we get that southern facing light sun, we can open those up, get that vibrancy moving to the outside. We've also done activation on the 12th Street side by having the entry to the building, having the balconies on the second and third floor as well, and then the accessible ramp along that side as well to get into the restaurant and into the residences. Sorry. One of the things we wanted to do to make this building a quality building was obviously quality materials. Each one of these materials speaks to the current character of downtown. We've got stone in there, wood, metal, fiber, cement, different pieces that speak to the character of all of the developments, including old and new developments in the area. We've also provided screening to the parking garage so that from the street and from driving down 12 you don't see into that. So some of that screening is using wood slatting. It's using uh perforated metal

to block those cars from view and uh areas of activation. So, some of these are just perspectives giving, you know, context to what the design looks like uh in relation to Wateride Village next door. Some close-ups of the building showing the entrance and street activation into the restaurant uh without outdoor seating and indoor seating that you can see from the street. This is showing the building more from the uh north side of 12 looking kind of from Little Tootses Park area and showing the alley area. Uh one of the things that the community plan also requested is you know bringing in um public art and we felt that this corner uh with the public art that's represented uh can be a good representation of that and also activating that alley space and not just having it be a forgotten area. We do have a few variances on the project. Um the first variance we had is a height and plate height request. Uh one of the determining factors in the height and plate height on this project is that we are in a 100red-year flood zone. Um due to that in order to flood proof the project we have to be 1 ft above base flood elevation. And this site in general has a slope of about four feet that goes from the alley uh at the north side down to the south side. And so when we um work through getting this floodproof, there's two ways to flood proof a building. One is by dry flood proofing, which is getting that floor uh one foot above the flood plane elevation. The other one is using other means of flood proofing that require human interaction. I.e. you can put in gates. you can have um different things

like that that can flood proof it when your floor is below the actual flood plane elevation in that particular instance when you start to do that um because it requires human interaction if you do have a flash flood humans may not be warned in time and therefore you can cause flooding of the building. So, in this particular instance, we chose to go with the dry flood proofing method, which brings that first floor up above that flood plane elevation. And I'll show you here in kind of the the next slide, that red dash line there represents our our first floor that is 1 ft above that flood plane elevation. in. And as you can see there on that uh 12th and Yampa corner that on the left hand side that we're about 4T plus or minus above that existing grade with our finished floor. So when we look at the overall height, we're 41 ft uh 6 in above the existing grade. um which although is above the 38 ft that's allowed in the zone district is still under the 42 ft that is allowed for um municipal buildings. So like your new uh building here across the street that one could be 42 ft when other buildings in the zone district needed to be 38. Um so we're although we are above that 38 slightly we are within that 42 feet of uh building height. The other thing we wanted to point out is that in the um with height that height varies in the CDC and it gives you height variations and setback variations based upon up to 28 ft and then above 28 ft setting back. And in the diagram here on the right from CDC section uh 219B um shows that that that second floor is

typically in line um going up with the first floor and then setting back from there with the third floor and above. We also had a setback variance and that setback variance is uh requested based upon um aligning with with wide uh to the east of our site. Wateride having a zero setback. Um it also goes in line with what the CDC and the uh community development plan have requested. The community development plan actually talks about um in the current one with future land use mapping and new zone districts of having zero setbacks within this district um to activate that street frontage to get buildings the maximum width of the lot. And so we we followed that as guidance within that document. And like I said, aligning with um with uh wateride to the right of us once we go up above because we have these decks inset in and out. Although we are at a zero lot line, some of those set back 10 ft, some of them are 17 ft, some of them are 27 ft, 25 ft. And depending on where you are on that site, it helps with that mass not feeling like it's 41 feet tall or too close to the setback, but allowing that to to to step back and give some relief on the building. One thing we also wanted to point out is that at the current Yampa Street side, that sidewalk there is about I think it's about 16 ft wide. So even though you are at a zero setback when you actually are standing at curbside uh that feels much further back just due to the existing sidewalk and existing rightway that's there.

Our next request was for F increase and this one's really unfortunately more of a technicality. Um the current CDC uh includes parking garages or anything that is enclosed within the building footprint as part of that F. The actual community development plan and um requests or suggests to exclude along with the downtown development plan exclude parking enclosed parking garages at main floor uh from the F. And if you look here within the chart, you'll see that on the left with the um parking included, we're at 246%. But when we subtract out the parking on the right hand side, if that were available within the CDC, we'd actually be below the full uh we would be below that 200% allowed by the CDC. These last two uh the glazing um variance requests these are really kind of a technicality. The first one is that we're using as calculated glazing uh at our parking garage uh the mesh and the wood slatting that's hiding the parking garage but allowing open air in the parking garage so that we don't have to mechanically ventilate it. Um, this is a technicality because the CDC looks at glazing and light as coming through windows but doesn't mention things like um like grading or these wood slats that also hides uh parking structures. The second one is the east side of the building. The CDC also does not recognize this, but because you can have zero lot lines on the sides and we have a building to the right of our building, wateride,

we can't technically have windows in there without having a further setback due to fire ratings, etc. and life safety. So, unfortunately, the CDC does not address this in zero lot lines, which can affect this whole downtown area. Um, and you'll also notice in your staff report that they noted that this is probably something that should be addressed in future updates of the CDC to address conditions like this. Uh, this one's also kind of a technicality. The downtown stand or the CDC requests that the building be broken up into 25 ft increments. Um, and that is a specific 25 ft, not 25 ft more or 25 ft less, it's 25 ft. So, if we were 14t, we wouldn't meet the standard. If we were 19 ft, if we were 24 ft, we wouldn't meet the standard. But what we did is that we did break up the building through use of different materials, the decks, the areas of ramp, uh the the change in materials at the parking garage to give the feel of that 25 ft. But unfortunately, uh due to the CDC's specific requirement of 25 ft, that's not met in this location. Um but we feel that the way we've broken up and and designed the architecture that we fully comply with that um with that standard lot coverage. So out of the community plan once again using that as one of our guiding lights because it is referenced in the CDC. The community plan does state uh the most recent one actually states that we should have zero to very small setbacks. Um we align the building with street frontages to activate it to fill the full width of the site per

request of CDC. And with this uh we are in compliance with the uh community plan and we are in compliance with other buildings that have been designed and developed in the downtown area. As shown next door, Wateride had a zero lot setback at the front of their building as well. So once again, we would like to thank the planning staff. We would like to thank the planning commission. This time we'll take any questions that you may have. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Toby, do you have a staff report for us as well? Sure.

Toby Stafer, senior planner. Um, so as we've talked about, this lot is at the corner of 12th and Yep Streets. It's zoned CY2. It's in the STR green zone. Um, it is made up of three recently combined lots. Um, and it's got about 17,500 square ft of property adjacent to Wateride Village. Uh, across Ya Street is the Yampa River and across 12th Street is Little Tooths Park. It's generally flat. Um, it's within the 100redyear and 500year flood plane for the Yampampa River. Um the project is three stories. It's mixeduse building, eight residential units, a restaurant, enclosed parking, and streetscape improvements along 12th and Yampa with variances to overall height, average plate height, setbacks, glazing, F, building massing and lot coverage. Um those variances altogether could lead do lead to a larger building in mass and scale. uh the proposed development um we are finding that it is consistent with our current plans but the plans are still guidance um until we have some specific code amendments that are adopted by council to achieve those visions. Um regarding the height variances the community plan does describe a greater building height than has been considered previously. So while the proposed building is similar to some other buildings in downtown um the plans and the CDC have so far maintained a distinction between CI CY and CO with each zone district having different dimensional standards to ensure those streets have a different character for the setback variances. Um the existing building setbacks on Yampa and on the numbered streets are varied from 0 to 10 and upper story setbacks are also varied. Um with the result being that there's not really a typical building character on Yampa Street. Um and CY2 uh again the community plan doesn't indicate a preference for zero foot setbacks. Um and the downtown plan

mentions upper story setbacks relative to historic structures. uh the overall character of this area could be achieved with changes to dimensional standards, changing the land use, changing the building design, but again the CDC hasn't been amended yet and the plans are still some guidance for us. Um regarding F and lot coverage, uh one purpose of these standards is to reduce the mass and scale of the building. Existing buildings are varied on Yampa Street and in downtown including those that are recently built or under construction which have been approved with variances to exceed the maximum F. Uh the building this building includes some elements that mitigate those impacts of scale and mass but again the combined impact of these variances increased F lot coverage height and setbacks will result in a building that is larger and potentially more in fact impactful than what could um than what's currently expected or allowed in these areas. Um we do find that the project meets development plan criteria and it has characteristics that are similar to other um downtown development. uh the property was pre previously development developed should not have negative impacts on the environment um and the development is providing parking to meet its needs and the other CDC standards are met. Talking about some of the variances specifically the overall height and plate height variances provide an acceptable alternative to the standard as the development is addressing flood prevention to elevate the new building out of the flood plane. A similar building that meets flood prevention standards could also be built with each floor being reduced in height by one foot for a total reduction of three feet, bringing the overall height and the plate height down to meet standards of the district. Uh, regarding the zero foot setback, uh, one purpose of these front setback standards is to allow space for pedestrian interaction and interest at the street level with some articulation and invitation to the building to create an approachable

scale. The proposed design um includes some seating areas for the restaurant that articulate the front of the building on Yep Street that create interest and activity at that street level. And then there is also an interest on an entrance on 12th Street and accessible ramp to create some articulation and entrance on 12th Street for pedestrians. So we find that the intent of that standard is achieved uh by this building without strict application of the standards in the circumstance. Um, regarding the upper story setbacks, we have received some public comment on this variance. Um, the that indicates that the Yampa Street should be should transition in scale relative to Lincoln. That's um some language from our older community plans. As we've noted earlier, our code and plans um they do express a desire to separate Yampa from Lincoln right now. Um although our new plan, our brand new plan doesn't have that same distinction. Um but we do that through the different dimen dimensional standards. So that's what we've had in place for a while. Um though our current plans express a different direction at this point, we haven't again amended the code and so the separation of the character of those streets may still be a relevant concept for us to consider in the future. Um however, our analysis does find that one purpose of the upper story setback is to articulate the building and reduce the mass and scale. And the proposed design of this building does have varied upper story setbacks and meets the intent of the standard without strict application in this circumstance. Uh for the glazing variance on the east side, as Chandler mentioned, um we find that this standard probably needs an interpretation and we might exempt circumstances like this as the glazing requirement would probably be only applied to the open or the viewable sides of the building. However, we haven't written that interpretation or changed the code yet. So, while this is still a variance, um we can support it um with those with some of the

reasons that were mentioned in the staff report and by the applicant. Um for the glazing variance on the west side, half of that ground story does meet the transparency standard um for 12th Street and the other story is screened um screening the parking and providing um screened with materials that provide interest and that's similar to transparent glazing. So we find that that design is an acceptable alternative to the standard um and it also allows other standards um particularly to provide parking and screening the parking to be met. Um regarding the building massing we do find that the building is broken up into increments that meet the intent and purpose of that standard. And then finally, regarding F and lot coverage, uh, one purpose of these standards is to reduce the mass and scale of the building and again allow for pedestrian interaction at the street level. Um, th this building could be reduced in size to get closer to these standards. However, the proposed design does include articulation interest and activity on both streets that do mitigate the impacts of the scale and the mass. There is also some explicit direction in the downtown plan to eliminate parking from the F calculations and the development standards require us to provide require uses to provide off- streetet parking and the design standards require uses to screen parking. So this project meets these standards and the intent of the downtown plan. Um and then as was mentioned the area for the building um if you remove the parking does meet the standard for the for the CY district. Um though there are a couple other ways to develop this property. Um we do find that because there is some street level interest and the other standards of the CDC are met that this these variances provide an acceptable alternative by improving some other standards. We did receive two last minute public comments that were provided um that speak about the massing and scale of this building and that it may be more appropriate to keep the

existing buildings and reuse them to be consistent with the downtown character. So, those came in a little late. You may not have had a chance to see those. Um, but with all that information, we do find that the project meets criteria for approval for the development plan and for the variances and we recommend approval with the conditions that are listed.

Thank you, Toby. Any questions for staff and the applicant? Yeah, Toby, the applicant mentioned, and you talked about massing, and one of the reasons to have our code to potentially reduce massing is to allow walkable uh walkability. The applicant mentioned that the sidewalk along Yampa is approximately 16 ft. Is that is that accurate in your estimation? And then what about the sidewalk along 12th?

I think that that I think that that sounds accurate for Yampa Street. It is bigger and we recently redid Yampampa Street to improve those sidewalks. So it is supposed to be sort of a walkable active, you know, restaurant entertainment area. So I think that that's accurate. I think the sidewalk on 12th would have to probably be at least 10 ft if I'm remembering the standards correctly. And I think um it may some of that may be there currently, but with the recent land exchange and this development, I think there will be some improvements to that sidewalk, it'll formalize that. It's kind of hard to envision, but if you've been there, there's kind of this no man's land that exists there now of sort of some grubby spaces that'll be cleaned up and some of that that 12th Street right away will be um improved. So, just the the feel of it should be better and it'll be more consistent with probably what's across the street and what leads to uh Lincoln.

Yep. Okay. Um I'll pause for now. Other questions? Toby, you mentioned that um there was a difference in um opinions on the measurement of average plate height. Can you explain that? The applicant proposed one measurement and you

So when we measure average plate height um you're supposed to take the um plate height of the highest elevation and get your average from that highest elevation. So um when I measured that I think in the staff report it was about 389 or something 399 was what I found when I measured the highest elevation and the plate height for that elevation and I think the applicant had mentioned a 383 which is on another elevation. So um I didn't I I do have the different elevations but I think each of the elevations would have does require a plate height variance. I just wanted to indicate that there's slightly more um more elevation there to to consider. It's not it's not even all the way around the building and it is a little bit taller in parts.

Are um are there any minimums for ground or for floor height? I know sometimes there's a ground floor height minimum. Are there any floor height minimums for There is a floor height minimum for the first floor um in this zone district. I think it's 12 to 12 to 15 I think is what the floor heights can be or are recommended to be. So I think in this um development they've got the ground floor at 13 ft. The other floors don't have a minimum. So that would just be based on the building code. Okay. I've got more questions, but I don't have to keep talking. As much as you guys want to. We can cycle around however you want to chat.

I'll finish these then because they're all about height and then we can move on to wherever anybody else wants to. Um, and maybe this this maybe this is for the applicant. I'm not sure. Can somebody tell me what the ceiling heights are on each level? I I think I have an idea, but uh the first level it will be end up being um right at 11 ft. Uh once we get the mechanical systems, plumbing, all that stuff from above and then the upper floors for the residences are are programmed to be somewhere between 9'6 and 10 ft. And we don't know exactly yet because once we get mechanical, fire protection, plumbing, all that, it could vary a little bit.

And is there a reason that maybe I wouldn't see that those couldn't be lowered slightly to come in the standards?

Well, what has happened over the years are levels of expectations for residential projects. And as we all know, some of those things have changed. When you and I grew up, 8ft ceilings were quite common, and we were all okay with that. Then it went to 9. Then it went to 96 and 10 ft. And so what we're trying to do is design that so that these have that expected height for each one of these buildings. Um and for each one of those levels and for the level of design that we're providing for these condominium units that 96 to 10 ft is an expected element for that. Could they be 8t? Absolutely. But it's not for this type product. If this were, you know, different product type, that could certainly be a lower ceiling height.

Thank you. Would it need to drop all the way to 8 foot in order to come into compliance?

Um, well, like I said, with a 12T floor to floor right now, we're at 9'6 to 10. And so, if we dropped each floor a foot, then we would be more like that 8'6 to probably nine. So once again, you know, in reality, I mean, part of the reason that's driving it is that flood plane, uh, for the height that we're at. I mean, if I could drop that that front, um, the restaurant, etc. down that 4T and get it at street level, that would also help. And we could have stepped the building going up the site along with it as well. And I know that you you didn't um I'm going to build just jump onto your thing because it's I have the same question. Yeah. Uh

I know that you didn't use um strictly hardship. I mean, you talk a little bit about floor uh flood plane height, but uh you have different heights around there. Even dropping one of the ceilings by 6 in on one of the floors or both of them by 3 in would bring three of your four walls into compliance. So what is the what's the justification within the like acceptable alternative that says that that's a need for the plane or for

the want for the for the ceiling heights to require this variance. Well, one thing we'd like to point out is our relationship to wide. If you look at this current image that's up as well, we are the same height as wide currently. Um, the want, yes, there is a want there based upon the product that we are selling for that. Uh we feel that being that a municipal district building can also be within 42 feet and we're under that 42 feet for the building height, we still feel we're well within the context of the building of the uh established building heights for this zone district and still meeting the wants of the project as well. So yes, you're you are correct. It is a want. it is, you know, but also within existing standards of building height. And with the new community plan, if that was approved, by the way, too, that that that's a height limit of 45 ft. Um, so we're well underneath that 45 ft as well with the current design.

Thanks. I stepped on your question. You wanted to talk about other heights. No, I'm I'm good. Okay. Gavin. Gavin, do you want to take a turn? Yeah, this can be for Toby or the applicant, but just so I make sure I understand things properly, the parking entrance and exits are from the alley and on the 12th Street side, it's just that venting. Correct.

That is correct. Yes. I'm going to get that plan. Just one second. So, the two garage entrances come off of the alleyway. Uh there is no garage entrance coming across 12th uh or across the sidewalk at 12th. It's using that existing alleyway entrance. Thank you.

I'll jump on that thought too. Uh Toby, you explained it and I very much apologize that I need to ask you to explain it again, but help me understand why it seems like the F is a technicality somehow within the code that we're including parking and not just the inevitability that parking that's above grade will contribute to building massing and we have a building massing maximum. Yeah, I wouldn't entirely call it a technicality at this point. Um, so our F requirement does include parking. Um, that's how we calculate the floor area. Um, and how we calculate the floor area ratio. Um, however, in this case, um, in downtown in the downtown plan, we do have a specific um, direction that says we should not include that parking into the floor area ratio is we should change our standards to do that. So, that's kind of the only technical piece of this. We don't usually have a recommendation that's that specific to change our code. Um, but that was provided to us in that downtown plan, which does allow for um parking to be achieved by downtown development and hopefully screened and and and look nice so that we can have it and then the the developer isn't penalized. So that was I think the intention to provide some more development downtown. So if we had changed that plan, we adopted that plan in 2019. So if we had adopted those changes now, this building would meet the F standard as it's as it's proposed now. So that's also sort of the minor technicality. So while again while those plans are guidance, we just have one very specific recommendation in that plan which helps us to support um this intention because that intention was very clear in the

plan and we haven't implemented that yet. It is always up to up to debate up to the decision makers at the time on if they want to do that. As we know we've tried to adopt some a few things in the downtown plan recently and they failed. So you know we may not agree with all the things in that downtown plan. So

well and kind of what is and what should be within the code I know has been discussion over many projects over many applications. Um, and I feel like this maybe seems different than I remember staff's position being where usually it's just but that is the reality of today kind of um direction versus well this is what it ought to be so let's just do that or is that why the variance exists or why you support the variance I guess

it's why we're supporting the variance here. Um we do look at each project and our landscape changes as we adopt plans and as the community creates new vision. Um the floor area um does meet the standard. So we count parking as floor area. That's probably debatable on if we should count that or not. It does it is wrapped so it does add some mass to the building. It does add to the presence of that building on the corner. So that's probably the relevant question there. Would it be better or different if that parking was open? if we just had some pedestals there. I think our code and our standards say that we probably don't want it to be open because it doesn't look very nice, but then it would meet the F requirements. So, it's a little bit of a, you know, six of one, half a dozen of the other if you wanted to look at it that way. That's we're just kind of trying to lay out the terrain for you. We're in a a pretty gray space right now with our updated community plans and what is kind of our outdated code or our code that's implementing different plans. So, we'll probably be in this trouble for a while until we can implement some of those plans.

That helps a bunch. Thank you very much. And and if I may, Adam, we actually explored early on a year ago, putting the parking lodge below grade. Um at that time, in order to enter and exit that, due to making it work on the site and the constraints, we had two elevators that the cars would go up and down within the elevator. And at that time when we presented that plan to the planning department, they felt that that was not a great solution uh for the project that if the elevators broke down, etc., we would now have cars trapped within the lower level of a parking garage with no way out. Um secondly with that the water table on this site is like 2 ft below grade. Um so it's very close in there. So it would have caused more environmental uh issues as well with having that below grade and trying to dewater and do all these other things with it. So we we proposed if it was below grade, it actually wouldn't have counted towards the F because it would have been in a basement. So just so you're aware. Thank you. If we stay on parking for a moment, the main level floor plan, I think this for Toby is designates six spots for restaurant. Since this is behind inside the building, is that up to the city to enforce that or is that the building owner or their manager? would be the building owner or manager. Those spots would be available for whoever. I mean, I'm sure that hope that the restaurant owner and manager would want to make sure that their patrons could could come. Um, but that does meet the standard and when you when you go to a restaurant in downtown, you're there for the vibe and you know, there's lots of different ways to get downtown or you figure out a way to park. So,

thank you. Other questions? No. No. I'll keep going. Gavin, did you have any others? I'm good. Thank you. Um, help me understand also uh similar to my F confusion, I had lot coverage confusion. Um, I understand that the Yampa has setbacks and that it should build to the width of the lot or as I always thought that meant the width of the setbacks. But how are we successfully supporting going from 85 to 95%.

They're sort of connected. Um the F and the lot coverage. Um again, we're trying to meet some of the the intent and standards. Um those design standards, they they so the design standards to fill the front of the lot. So we would want the building to fill the front of Yampa Street and the front of 12th Street. that could happen at a 10- foot setback. So, that would reduce the mass and scale of that building, would probably bring the lot coverage down because there would be 10 feet in front of that space. Um we don't have a very clear indication of what the purpose of that standard is but we believe it's to again invite pedestrian interest and activity along Yampa Street um and to distinguish it a bit from the CO um district which has a zero foot setback. Um so we do think that the um the building is providing that interest in activity. So with the the restaurant and the porch and the deck space on Yampa and then the entrance and the accessibility um entrance on 12th Street. So we do think that those the intent of that standard is met with some interest and some activity, some articulation to invite people into the building and there's a little crossover in the in the F um with the parking being added into that calculation. there's floor above that space. So that adds um you know sort of to the lot coverage um even though it's it is parking. It wouldn't necessarily be included if it was open air parking if there wasn't building above it. So there are different ways that they could develop that building. um it is a small factor of of the other standards that they're varying, but we do think that the um the purpose and the intent of our standards to provide some mass and scale and articulation are met um by this design. But that's why we've kind of

brought up all this information for you to to chew on. It's um not completely cut and dried. It's not completely clear. So, yeah, I appreciate that. And and what it

I think comes what it builds off of is then my next question which is how we're doing the the front setback uh variance um both both applicants analysis and staff's analysis seems largely based on well everybody else on Yampa did it. My understanding is that we shouldn't base variances on patterns that may or may not be correct, but based on intent and current standards, which might be in a new direction from what previous standards may have been, no matter when buildings may have been developed in the past. Shouldn't we be judging this on its own project, no matter what the next door lot is even doing, and saying that the Yampa standard is this for a reason? Yeah, that's how that's how we've judged ours. So, while I did mention that there is some variability on Yampa Street with other buildings, our our justification for this um set zero foot setback is that it does um there is some interest, you know, the decks and the interest on Yampa Street and then the the building entrance and the accessibility entrance um on 12th Street. those areas provide um interest and pedestrian activity that can happen on Yampa Street that may and that's how we find that this um this project meets the intent. So the specific standard would be to have a 10-ft setback to invite people onto the property and to the building. Um it does allow the setbacks also include a 5-ft deck. So if you had a 10-ft building set back, they they want a deck to come out. So, we think that that might have meant, you know, seating like you can envision in some of the buildings. And there are some buildings like that that have a 10-ft setback and they have their seating areas, open air seating areas on Yampa. There are other buildings that have um a zero foot setback, but they have some articulation in the same way

that this building does. So, I think we have found that that impact is mitigated or the standard is achieved in various ways. So this is another way um to potentially achieve that intent. So whether it meets that goal or not is for you guys to decide, but we find that it does meet um the intent of the standard by providing some of those activity areas on the streets.

Thank you for your answer. Um did you want to add on to that? Yeah. And if I may, the the community canvas plan once again that future land use map um does talk about buildings in this district having quote buildings in this district should have zero or very small setbacks from the lot line to maximize the lot coverage and facilitate a more walkable built environment. And we understand this is we had a conversation with staff about this. This is the confusing thing for staff and planning commission and everybody right now that we have these guiding documents that say one thing right with the it should have this but the CDC has not adopted nor accepted that yet. So um we were using that community canvas as a guiding document as stated and that's kind of how we're along with staff kind of looking at that um setback variance.

Okay. Thank you. I have a couple or maybe even just one more. Do you don't need to keep getting answered in the mix. Okay, great.

Um my my last one. Um there's a whole can of worms. I apologize that I'm going to jump into this, but I'm going to jump into it. uh the the roof deck, the elevator, hallway, stairs and everything that are getting you up to the roof deck is being called into pertinance and being left out of the overall height. I would like to better understand why massing space that houses people uh is not being included in an overall height just because of a word that's being attached to it. Yeah, we have um that standard in the code which allows pertinances um and I can find that language, but anything that doesn't necessarily have usable square footage, chimneys, elevator towers, stair towers, um that provide access, we have interpreted that and have those words to say that they do not need to include um be included for overall height. though they're supposed to be sort of decorative and nonfunctional elements. So, um we have seen development probably including this one that is pushing those boundaries a little bit. We have identified here and with previous projects that we need to revise those sections of our code or at least look at them better, find some better def definitions there. Um but we have um fairly consistently applied this um this section to exclude a pertinances for elevators and stairs. Um and there is sort of some walls um that screen mechanical screening that um that are included in this pertinance. It does meet our definition. Um anything that's above the height uh can be up to 10% of

the of the roof area and be excluded from the height calculation. So these um things on the top of the roof do meet those meet that exemption uh in our code. So it is tricky part but uh that's how we've applied it to this project and other projects. Would you say so you did apply a maximum roof area that could qualify as this at 10%. Mhm. Do you qualify in in staff's interpretation in any way what height that a pertinance could be 80 ft?

We do have a limitation on that. Um, I will have I'll have to look at the the exact words for that, but it can't it can't be 80 ft. I think it has to be like less than 50% of the height, but I can read that off real quickly. Um, so it says building a pertinances may exceed the maximum height limitation if the pertinances in aggregate do not cover more than 10% of the total roof area and the height of any aertinance does not exceed 50% of the overall building height. So, it's pretty broad, but they could be 17ish feet tall by our code if they were found to be a pertinances. And the pertinances are they include but they're not limited to unoccupied architectural features including domes, koopas, and spires, monuments, screened mechanical equipment, and parapet walls. So I think we have some unoccupied features um some parrot pet walls and some screened mechanical equipment in the impertinances on this building.

Okay, I appreciate your interpretation. I disagree with what occupied means. I mean from a building code standpoint, it's unoccupied all day long. From a massing usability, who's going in and out of there? Who's using that to get to the roof deck? It's very much an occupied part of the interior space, heated and conditioned space of the building. Those are two very different things. I would have easily accept, you know, been able to like uh um well, I'll say that in my comments. That's not a question. Thank you. Thank you for answering that. I think that's all I had for questions. Yeah. Did anybody else have any questions on top of that?

Well, yes. Now, um can on on DP 2.7, you guys have a roof of pertinance um diagram, maybe you could call that. Um measuring something, but I can't tell what that's measuring. Doesn't seem to encompass what's being called a pertinances. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the diagram. One second. Let me just pull it up.

Yeah. So the orange itself uh let me maximize this. So the orange areas itself are part of the appertances. Um so what counts towards that pertinance is anything above that 38 ft or the building height line. So in this case, the center portion here, that area is encompassing uh stairs that go up to the deck for the back two back decks. The mechanical in the center, so all of those uh squares in the center are mechanical units for the building. The two other squares there are the elevator uh openings. There's a egress stair in the center and then the space outside of those elevators that's enclosed because of problems with water intrusion to the south. One of the things that counts is that there's a fire pit there. And so that element counts. And then the thinner orange line that's running all the way around is a parapit which sticks up above that 38 feet which we can have up to um correct me if I'm wrong to be like 40

four feet four feet tall and we're like 8 in to a foot tall. So the the orange area is supposed to be circling or calling out all the areas that are above that height. Correct. That's correct. Yes. I'm just cur confused why it doesn't actually encompass Oh, maybe it does. Maybe I'm figuring out my own. It doesn't appear to the the floor plan of that roof area is on the page above that. And it doesn't appear to circle all of that, but maybe there's just an extra line. Uh I think there's an extra line there that you're seeing that's causing that discrepancy.

Yeah. Okay, I see it now. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? Devin, did you have any other questions? Nope. I think other commissioners have mentioned them.

Okay. Um, then we'll go to public comment for a moment. Uh, is there any public comment on this agenda item? Not seeing any in person. Is there any online? You can raise your hand on Zoom and we can call on you. All right. Not seeing any there either. Um, first we'll go back uh before we close uh this. Is there any final um followup or comments that the applicant would like to offer? I'm seeing no. Okay, great. Or from staff? No. Great. Or any last questions?

I can tell you want to ask. Let me ask one question of the applicant. Perfect.

So, in in your comments, you me you talk about back to the roof, you talk about um a screening um for some of those items up on the roof. Can you talk a little bit more about what that screening is, the height um you know, when I look at your rendering from, let's say, from Yampa, it's it's pretty it's a lot up there. There is, but it depends on how you're looking at it. So based upon if we look at the elevation it's very prominent but once again you never see a building in flat elevation. We live in a apparently not a flat world. Um and being in Colorado we also have lots of elevation change. So, one of the things that you'll actually notice in the image that you see up on the screen right now is that even from across the street uh at at the kind of that in intersection where there's the crossing path and bike path uh on the south side of 12th and Yampa, um those pertinances will most likely not be seen uh based upon that view due to the where the building comes out and the location to where those aertinates are located more in the center of the building. Um, could you see them further up the hill on 12th as you start to turn onto 12th and come off of Lincoln? You will probably see the back side of that, but once again, due to elevation change, building massing, etc., it's not going to be like shown in an elevation. So, if I go to that actual elevation, that's where it's always deceptive because we will never see a building in

true elevation. So when we look at those those elements are taller. Um but once again due to the massing the location even if you're on Yampa Street up against the building and walking down Yampa Street on the north side of Yampa or even 12th on the on the east side of 12 you'll never see those. You'll have to be further away into Tootses Park or potential other locations within the within the area. Okay. Thank you. Great. No other questions? No. I'll close our public portion of this agenda item and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

Who wants to go first? I kind of think maybe we should go through each variance like talk about each one before we get totally confused. I don't know. That's my take. Sure. We don't have to. That's great. Just thought it was a good way to do it. Oh, do you want to delete it or do you want me to delete it? Go for it.

Uh, well, I guess the first one we had was overall height variance. Um, I I'll start for myself and this was just part of my uh my soap box, my last line of question at the end. Um, I was going to offer that In my world, I would have considered this not in a pertinance being interior movable uh almost public space. Um that being said, even if it had been um considered that and had accounted into the overall height because of as the applicant was just saying at the end, uh because of the way that you can't really even see it from any of the streets, there's really no vantage point that could see it and it's kind of almost perfectly centered and hidden within the center. I actually could have accepted that still as an overall height variance. So, it's more of a technicality that I'm that I'm hung up on more than anything. Um, but that I think would have been more correct and that would have been something more uh easy to to support and kind of identify at least for me as a as what the overall height variance was and what we were approving. This this seems like it's missing a key component to that and that's that's what I was kind of hung up on there. Um, which is very different from what they were actually asking for. Um, anybody want to talk about what they are asking for and you have any comments or how you support it. There's a lot of right word. Um, a lot of commentary around, hey, this is how other buildings in downtown are throughout the staff and the applicant.

They use the terms is directly to scale with the adjacent wateride village condos, which is actually slightly higher. I'm not sure about that. um that's does not exceed the visual scale already and some other comments. You got to look at the project and I think Brian you were mentioning this you have to look at the project how it stands on its own and yes how does it fit in with other things around it um took that into account um actually agree with staff's analysis here um but that's not can't be the only reason why I don't know if that makes sense.

Yeah, I this one definitely gave me pause. Um, and because we're in that strange space where we have a community plan that should be guiding some things, but that's not what our code says. I think that is where um I think I'm I'm finding my my yes on this variance. Um, but this one also plays into the next one. So, it's it's yeah, it's kind of interesting. It's it's difficult. And I and I do appreciate that it

matches the scale of the building next door. I think that that makes perfect sense. And I I think that there is a reason to be talking about that because it is one of the criteria for approval whether it you know kind of goes handinhand with other things in the zone district and it seems to and uh yeah so I think I I agree with staff's analysis on on this variance but I mean the point you made we have a code

and we have this new community plan but we've had examples as was stated earlier in our downtown plan for 2019 that the policy makers said no we don't want that. So how do we balance that with a community plan that's not in code? We have examples that the policy makers have said in something else no we don't like that or don't want that's not approved better said it's a hard one to balance. Sure. Yeah.

I guess I I like that we're going through um these individually. I I will you're acknowledging that.

I will. Well, the the issue is is that as an aggregate there's they're kind of adding up to what I think is a different um issue. Um, I think that essentially like individual questions about, you know, did that need to be a 9 foot 6 to 10 foot ceiling height versus a 9 foot 3 to 9 foot n ceiling height? And if you did 3 in on each floor, could you have met the average plate height? If you had done that um a as well, or maybe even more so, could you have met the overall height variance? All of these are very minor. Same with the setbacks that weren't met. Same with the the um higher upfront setbacks that weren't met. Um and and same with the lock coverage. Um all of those together seem to me like if the building was scaled 95% instead of 100% it would have met all of these and and are they just asking for too much in height and too much in setbacks and too too far pushed to the front that could have been stepped back uh farther and the building been smaller and actually met the standards. Um, is it a gorgeous building? Yes. And is that making it all of a sudden acceptable that they're asking for too much? So, they're kind of That's why I kind of hesitated on kind of going through individually is individually, well, that's probably fine. And but all of them together are kind of, well, the building was supposed to be 95% of that size or what, you know, whatever that number is. um and and and actually would have met those and still looked amazing and still been able to um have 95% of everything in there

still be a beautiful and still be a a beautiful building. And so is this just not been designed to the zone district. Um but then the which are very different than function and beauty and aesthetics and meeting the like the 25 uh foot increments the the glazing uh understandings how they're doing the different materials right it's a very different conversation from those which I actually think they did very well and I can easily support those variances but these other ones seem like a scalability issue together so we can still go back through them but for each one it was going to be me saying that exactly same thing. So, I'll just get it out of the way now. Yeah,

but that was one of the reasons I asked the question around what is the sidewalk width because the wider sidewalk could still meet the um the spirit of what a setback would be because you've got that walkability, you've got that separation between the road and and the structure, etc. um just the lot's different in my that's

which I think is interesting and kind of ties into that question that I I was trying to ask which is kind of you know um existing conditions of of the public space along there versus what are the dimensional standards of today and do those even argue with future um uh direction from the downtown plan. So for example that F and parking versus not I I understand that with the future direction I understand how that looks like a variance and that seems acceptable but I'm not quite sure where the direction is that well as long as we can show that the sidewalk is wide enough then the front setback doesn't need to apply. I'm not quite sure how to make that tie. Sure. It's but it's information it's information that the purpose for a setback and correct me if you disagree please is partially is to have the building well I'm going to be stupid have the building set back. Um, but if you've got the lot line already moved back in from because you have a wider sidewalk, you're meeting that um what may be an expectation or a requirement through that. And that's where I'm saying do we are we meet doesn't meet the code, but are we meeting the spirit because we have that wide sidewalk and then you have that activation because the build you don't have to walk further for the building. you've got the activation in.

What's really tough about that is is the lack of of description of intent for the front setback. I mean, one thing we know is that it's intentionally different from uh Lincoln Toby brought that up today. Uh other than that, what is what is the purpose? And if we tonight can't identify exactly why it was created, are we just then to ignore it? It it's or do we just interpret it and move on? that it's a tough question. That's I'm only pointing out that it's a tough question. That's all I'm really got at doing.

I think I'm coming at it si similar to David where I think there's a lot of different ways you can come at this and since there isn't necessarily there's some conflicting direction um you know and you're trying to straddle a few of these different things. The the way I look at it is there's nothing drastically, you know, off with with this. And I think it is a a good-looking building. We're not trying to cut corners. Um, you know, where there are the variances, I think there's reasonable justification for that. If it was, we've all seen the proposals where something's just out of place or the the variance just there's not a reasonable justification for it and it's just a round peg in a square hole. Um, this I could see that building there. Um, I could see it. Um, the benefits of mixed use, which we always promote. Um and and so that's how I come kind of come at it with that broader justification just like we were saying, you know, maybe these things add up to to go against it. I think we could come at it the other way too and say, hey, all these things combined kind of make it a a a reasonable fit.

Thanks, Kevin. Yeah,

I think we've spent a lot of time talking recently with, you know, the community plan and trying to find places for affordable housing and trying to like just trying to figure out what the shape of our town is going to be in the future. I think we've talked a lot about density being one of the ways that we get to some of those goals and I think that can't come without mitigating the potential side effects of that. And a lot of this is about really trying to get every square foot off of this lot and more, right? And I don't necessarily disagree with them doing that. I don't necessarily disagree with them basing their project off the community plan rather than the CDC, which is based. Um, but one of the variances I don't see justification for, and that one is my my hangup, the plate height. I don't I I can't find criteria met for all four criteria met, mostly the last one. Um, yes, they're raising the building to meet FEMA standards. Absolutely, I get that. But I I don't get the we need this but we also want all these things with it. Like there someone has to make sacrifices and I don't think it should be the buildings around them. I think it should be them. So the ceiling heights for me are my hard stop. Um the rest of it I think they do meet the criteria for everything else if you look at it one by one. But that one I just couldn't I couldn't find them meeting the criteria. Great.

Good commentary. Uh can always make a motion. We can keep discussing. Um keep discussing. How do you balance? So how do you balance then the comment that the community new community plan talks about 45 ft

height? Yeah. I'm I'm fine with the height. I'm talking about the plate because that affects the the whole mass of the building and we're already asking for every single massing standard to be varied and that one like when you stand next to a building that the plate heights are that much higher. It's just makes a bigger difference than like you know a something like a peak being higher or you know something that's being articulated being higher. The plate heights actually make a pretty big difference when you're standing next to a building like that. May May I add something to the plate height? Sorry. I know. Thank you though.

Uh we can keep going through if there if you had other discussion points or or that's that's there you guys. That's my whole punch line. All your stuff. David. No, I I didn't get stuck on that because of thinking about the overall massing and how everything works together. I do think the com the questions that were being asked around are basically could you give three inches here and three inches here. I mean that's what I kind of took from some of your question where you were headed with average plate height. Average plate height. Well, that's all it would have taken. It was kind of its own point. Not that

more couldn't be done, but that's Yeah. Yeah. Um, sure. Gavin, do you have more to add?

No. Um, you know, the the other way of looking at it, we have seen a lot of proposals to where we want the the mixed use and people are trying to put lower ceilings and and things like that and we're we're pushing against it. this. I don't know visually if the floors are a few inches higher if it really makes a difference to anyone's perception of the the building who's walking by on the sidewalk or across the street or at the park. Um, but I think it is an appealing building. It is a prominent location and I think it fits in well with what's around it today. I know it needs to stand on its own, but I think it does fit in with what what's around it. And that's a lot of what our planning and zoning does is says, you know, don't put a skyscraper next to a, you know, a single family home. Great. We don't need to make everybody make us sit here and and uh ponder if we want to make a motion and and

I'll make a motion. Being an expedient make a motion to approve PL 20250339 subject to the 13 conditions in the staff report. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Oh, shoot. No, you you can second it and vote however you want to move it forward. No, I Okay, I can I can vote against my motion. I second. Yeah. Okay. Second. Um, remind me again, we only have four people, but being that this is a recommendation only to council, then a successful motion in any direction doesn't mean anything. Is that too depressing way to put it or is that fair?

Three is three is your quorum. So, you have you have quorum. It doesn't need a successful approval in order to go to council anyway, right? That's correct. So if we can't pass a motion, that would be what's on the record for council basically. Right. We have taken a 22 before. Is that what you're trying to suggest? That's kind of what I'm getting at is that is But I would say if the current motion on the floor were to fail, I would suggest that you try another mo like I I don't think it ends there. I would request that you try to pass a motion provide recommendation. Okay. Okay,

that may have been my confusion from a couple meetings ago. Thank you. So, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion on the motion? I I want to put out there that I think it's a gorgeous building and a really cool project. I just think that there's one spot that it's a little too much. So, yeah, that's plate height. Yeah. Perfect. Um Yeah. And for me, the same. I mean, honestly, I think it's and uh and they did a great job honestly with their their renderings. all things considered. Uh really sell the building, show what it can be, show show how they're going to use the materials. Very well-designed building for sure. Um and I don't I don't think we Sorry, sorry to interrupt.

Oh, no. You you can build on it. Um I I think the materials they used for screening of the garage is something we've never not seen in this town. And and I hope that's an example others can use when they're building this quality of product.

Yeah, absolutely. Um, my point is I would only take yours and I extend it to a few other components as well within the setbacks and and lot coverage that it's the same. It's 5% too large that that could have brought I think even more than just average plate height. Um, but some of these other standards uh closer into uh conformance with the code that we have today that that is the code we're we're beholden to. It's the word I want to use. So, just expanding on that, not to not putting words in your mouth, just my own. Uh, Gavin, do you want to add anything on that? And then we'll take a vote on it. Or maybe you already have.

No, I'm I'm ready to vote. Great. Then I'll call for a vote. No. No. Yes. And Gavin? Yes. Perfect. So then that doesn't pass due to we don't have enough people here tonight. uh want to make a different motion or we can just not successfully make one and then we can just send a 22 vote to um council. I don't see anything else going any other direction. I mean what other motion could the motion to denial and that may turn out the same way

between the four of us unless somebody wants to actively change their their vote right now to a different uh vote. I would say that's probably where we're at today is a failed motion at 22 and there's no value in tableabling if it's going to go to council anyways. No, I think it it should be a robust conversation to council and kind of if they see a justification within those or or how or um how that works. Hopefully they'll get at least good dialogue from us. So, um, unless I miss something from a a process standard on us failing that motion and saying that it's a failed motion. Oh, we can they'll have the minutes. We'll provide that information.

Yeah. So, hopefully it's valuable to them. Should be great. And of the applicant. Yeah. So, with that, thank you for your time. We don't have a, you know, we have a two two vote and, uh, best of luck at council. Thanks. Uh, our second agenda item tonight is, uh, going to be real quick. Uh, we have a recommendation to table PL 202530 uh, to April 9th um, based on just property notification type stuff. Is that correct, Toby or Rebecca?

Yes, that's correct. I have a question though. I can't vote on tableabling this. You can do it with three. Three. We can. Yeah, three is a quorum. So, I need to leave the room to vote on this. Just duck under the table real quick. No, I'm just kidding. Does anybody want to make a motion to table? Motion to table PL 2025300 to the April 9th meeting. Second. All Yeah. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Great. Then we will get to see that on April 9th. Um, do we have a director's way this evening?

Um, I have two things. One, just real quickly to follow up on the question about with only four commissioners present, what vote, how many members would be needed to pass a motion? So, um, I just pulled up the municipal code really quick just to double check myself. The board of adjustment has explicit language that talks about needing a majority of the members to vote in favor of an applicant. Um, so for example, when the board of adjustment only has three members, they have a quorum, but they would need a unanimous vote of that quorum. So that, you know, a majority vote of those present wouldn't count. Um, the planning commission, our code language surrounding the planning commission does not include that same language. So, I think it can always be a majority of those present. Um, given that you all have decision-making authority that you didn't have when the code was originally written, that might be something I'll chat with the city attorney about whether we should update that, but I don't know that it's actually all that necessary given that all of your decisions, final decisions, can either be appealed or called up to council. So I I mean I think the code language is fine, but I just want to clarify that it it should always be a majority of those present. Um and you only need three for a quorum even though you're a seven member board. We don't like to operate with only three. It's a little I mean four even tonight four gets a little you know you get these two two votes but um and then

couple um can can I expand now that it's hypothetical at this point? Um in years past I remember am I remembering wrong? Uh that we at planning commission had voted to deny a project and it had not even ever gone to council because that project had been denied at this level and so it doesn't even make it um to council. That I swear has happened a bunch in the past especially before all of that new kind of planning commission authority stuff started to happen. Um, so I guess I'm I'm wondering how that changed and how we ended up getting to a place where it almost feels like there's like things that can be public hearings for decision can be appealed but the ones that are recommendation there's no appeal process because there's no it not going to council and so our vote

well because you're you haven't made a appeal only decisions can be appealed. you don't appeal a recommendation.

And so this whole process like um you know formal process of making a motion and getting a majority kind of a thing is is almost moot. It's it's really just shared opinion at that point because our votes our votes mean nothing more than an itemization of what our our meeting minutes are saying that we talked about within the the meeting. Do you know what I'm saying? like a vote is lackluster it feels at that point. Not that that's a problem, but just like are we even like is a vote even necessary when we're not really a formal decider on these recommending? I would say well I mean historically planning commission has always operated with motions and voting and I think it's very informative to council when they see a 70 vote 61 vote versus 43 22 it's a very different conversation and yes they always have the minutes I know they review the minutes but to see that bottom line vote I think is super helpful for them.

Yeah. So it's again it's more it's more information informative than actually formal at that point. Is that fair? Yeah. I mean I think we treat your votes as being formal but yeah it is a recommendation. You're voting to make a recommendation. So

I see I see that's the formal is what we as a group are recommending to council. Okay. Thank you. That that's the context I've been searching for. you know, you operate and make recommendations as a body of seven voting members. Um, yes, you're all giving your individual sort of opinions as planning commissioners and that's all reflected in the minutes and in the discussion, but you are making a formal recommendation as a collective body. So, that helps. Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to figure out. Thanks. Sorry, you had other things to

I just had one other thing. Um I've been asked to solicit from planning commission a volunteer to be a representative on a stakeholder group um for the design guidelines update. I want to be super clear at planning commission all of planning commission will be involved in that process and have opportunities to engage. Um, but there I think in the work program and the schedule which I wanted to have for you this evening and I don't think we've received it from the consultants yet but um there is room for um a specific stakeholder group that would have one or two meetings and we would like to have a planning commission member on that. So, I would suggest you either nominate someone who's not here or you can look at it like you're the four lucky ones that get to buy for the job. And again, just be really clear, you all will be planning commission is a is will be a stakeholder body that we will work with on the project.

Gotcha. As well. Gotcha. as somebody who still has dreams about it from three years ago that we would get to do this someday. I I'd certainly be willing to uh volunteer, but does anybody else have I would also love to, but I feel like you've put in a lot more time, so probably should should take it. I I mean, are you are you sure? Yes. I mean, we can and I can make sure that I, you know, use up our work session time and stuff like that to make sure that you guys are all very informed on it. Fantastic. But I mean, I'd definitely be Yeah. You should absolutely do that. But ask that, hey, here's how it's going. Here are some things we've talked about.

Yeah. Here's some areas of what do you think? Mhm. Okay. If that's if that's good for real. Yeah. Okay. Definitely. Gavin, you're on mute. Sorry. I think you'd be great for the job, Brian. Perfect. Hope hope so. Call that unanimous. What do you call that?

All right. I I'll happily do it. That's great. Um yeah, Rebecca, was that it on what you had for us tonight? Great. We had one quick uh meeting minutes uh from October 9th. Um any changes or do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I I. Great. And that passes. And then that's it for us tonight. Um do we have a motion to adjourn?

Can I ask a quick question? And I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask it or not, but it's more of like a process question. Um, I recently just heard a comment from a developer randomly that was like it on at other planning commissions they've presented to in the country that at the end of our discussion period, they get a chance to just explain anything that like was maybe misunderstood during discussion, which I've seen happen many times. um just a complete misunderstanding. And I don't know if that opens up a can of worms or not, but I wasn't sure if that's even a possibility. It seemed like a great idea as someone who's been mis misunderstood or something about the project has been misunderstood, but I didn't know if that was something that even like fits in the rules of how this is supposed to go. definitely with you like just from an empathy standpoint I'm with you on kind of making a decision based on something that I that that's not what I said is is you know stress inducing for sure and I get that I

not that I understand that that would be a good idea but I don't know

I mean I it's allowable there's no we don't there's no set in stone um sequence of events we certainly generally you know we've made we made a decision a number of years back to um switch from switch the order in which we gave the presentations. If you remember staff used to used to present first and then the applicants would stand up and say they did great any questions and we flipped that because planning commission had a desire for the applicant to really do their job presenting their project and let staff speak to code compliance. Um, so I think there's opportunities for you all to talk about how you would want to how you want to conduct your public hearings. I think the chair has probably a lot of discretion, but I don't there's nothing in the municipal code or in any rules or bylaws of the city that would prevent you from doing that.

I guess the gray area, the tough part, right, just to try and play both sides of the coin because I I appreciate that is and trust me, I get this even more. or I'm going to pick on council because they're a body who's not here to defend themselves. And it doesn't even need to be this council that we're talking about, but like you know, um public comment will happen, let's say, and then uh uh they'll they'll start discussion and it'll be on a completely different topic that I didn't know if that was going to be a concern. Would have public commented on that kind of a thing. Like missed opportunity is is real kind of a thing. And making sure that the applicant has the opportunity uh to to make sure that there was something that they didn't say cuz they didn't think they needed to. But now if we're going to all of a sudden go on a tangent and talk about that that they have the opportunity to share it. If you open that up after you've like closed the public portion, maybe we don't even need to do that anymore. But if you don't and then they can come in and interject and interrupt and kind of participate in our discussion that is trying to get to a recommendation. I'm not quite sure how that feels like it's a commissioner discussion and now it's a commissioner and applicant. and now let's just bring in the the public commenters too. Let's all discuss together. That's not what we're doing kind of a thing. Like there's a certain point where it is our responsibility to be informed and and do the best we can. So like how do we

how do we stop that from happening if we were to try and open it up? How do you how do you ever curtail that? I mean, I think that if it belined or like took a left turn into something really crazy, like you'd always have the opportunity to shut it down, right, as chair. But I don't know. I I don't I don't I think that I tend to make decisions based on what could be a great thing versus like how it could go wrong in a thousand ways and see how it goes. And if it isn't working, then

stop or figure something else out. But I think it could be neat for misunderstandings. I could tell that there was something that they felt like we very much misunderstood. And I personally would love to to understand what it is that I just misread cuz you know, you can read plans and they can put as much information on there as they want to, but something can get missed. I mean, we have five days to look at it and they've spent months or years putting those plans together and know the project intimately. So if there's just one single misunderstanding like I don't know I'd love to know that.

Yeah. On a previous commission I served on we defined public as not the applicant and so we opened and closed public comment but had the opportunity for questions to the applicant after that also which we do have now. But I guess the question is is like I mean how many times has like I've even stopped Rich and didn't want to but kind of felt compelled to where he's like well I have another question. Can I clarify that with Toby or Kelly who whomever

uh uh is associated with the project? Um and it's well no we're kind of done with that. And it's like should we just open up to be able to ask people questions at all times until we actually vote on a motion? I think it's I think it's great that we do like the insulated conversation and do everything. I guess it would be like a very small container 2 minutes or 3 minutes if that's just the number we tend to use. Like if there's anything that we just misunderstood and if they start going off on a tangent about like why they why we should approve the project and not something that was misunderstood then cut it off. Like what did we misunderstood in our what did we misunderstand in our conversation? Did we misunderstand that the top two feet of those ceilings was all mechanical and you need drop ceilings for some reason? Like that I would want to know that if that's what I misunderstood, but if it's just trying to convince me to like the project again, then I don't want to hear that if that makes sense. And I think it would it would take a lot from you holding them to that container and that may not be something you're up for.

It doesn't sound like fun, but I mean sure if that's what we're doing. I mean, you know, if somebody gets up and they're like, "But let me tell you how beautiful the blues going to be." And I'm like, "You know what? Can you just stop right now?" That that's not a great experience. But yeah, sure. No, I get it. That's okay. I mean, but especially if we kind of kept it more to kind of more even almost like we do right now when we're doing questions is like, you know, I'll I'll ask a question to Toby like I did earlier and and the applicant, uh, Chandler, right, was his name, uh, got up and and he clearly wanted to say something and he didn't just blurt out and interrupt. he kind of showed he was interested and I called on him and said, "Do you want to answer that too?" Like that's the question. That's the invitation. And essentially, we're just doing that more during our deliberation.

Um the big thing I don't want to do is kind of blur the line of kind of questions and factf finding versus deliberation. And that that's what I think gets really icky, right? If we keep trying to like, well, now that we've deliberated this, I want to go back to factf finding. or now that we're still just asking questions, it's all been blurred. I'm going to start spouting my opinion at this point. I'm not quite sure that that's beneficial. I I mean, you have more experience on different ones. What are your

I mean, but if if you're spouting opinions and the opinion is actually factually incorrect, how do we have an opportunity to clear that up with asking a question of staff or the applicant? um in the correct thought the appeal process was for which is such a pain in the butt versus being able to during a meeting but I thought that that's what the avenue always was but that is extra step and extra it is an extra step cost extra step extra time what's your expert thought on this I definitely want to hear

yeah well um there are times that I really love that you are like you've heard from us and you're done with us and we can just sit here and let you all make the hard decisions There have been other times where and I know Brian you kind of give me the like side eye like where I'm like no really I got to say this cuz you guys are wrong and it's important. So, you know, I'm I will butt in if it's like there's something like just wrong that like we have to fix. And I don't think

if it's something we know and it can be clarified in a meeting. I don't think that's what the appeal process is for. like the appeal, you know, every decision you all make, even with a perfectly written code, there's still going to be subjective decisions, right? Variances, conditional uses, all of those things are still going to have a level of subjectivity in them. And that's typically where you're going to see like an appeal where people are going to say, you know, they aired in their decision and this is why my opinion is better and they're going to take it to the, you know, the next body up and get a second chance at it. U but I would hate for someone to have to appeal because you're literally just reading the code wrong or you're basing it on an incorrect notation in a plan set or something. So, I do think if there's something like that and staff picks up on it, we do usually try to like like I know when Brian's going to give me the side eye and and I so I don't interrupt very often, but when I do, it's cuz I feel like it's really important.

Um, but for what it's worth, I only side eye because I'm always worried about like like I said tonight, I don't want to just talk another hour and make everybody sit here because we like to talk and let's just grab a cup of coffee while like there's a point where we got to stop doing this. Yeah. And and that's really the only reason why I ever kind of worry about um going back to something. But quantitative information, I'm always in support of if that can be not taboo. I And I have seen and I think you do this right after public comment. You'll ask staff if we have any followup. You'll ask the applicant. Um especially because that's always an opportunity for really incorrect information. Yeah.

Information to show up and giving everybody the opportunity to do that. Um but should that happen into forever? Maybe we're all imperfect. The more information the better. I agree though if you don't have I mean it can go on. You're going to have applicants and then you're going to have someone in the audience who's going to be really upset because they're not getting a second chance to make their point and to clarify. Um so it could it can be a slippery slope, but it als you know I think I got the gap. I mean we can we can I can run a good meeting. I mean theoretically, right? Like that could be okay if we want to open that up. Yeah. And you I'm sorry. Go ahead, David. No, no, no, please.

I I was just going to say you can also put a like you have two minutes or three you like you can keep it super succinct, not just and and also we don't want to hear another pitch, but like is there anything you need to clarify? It could you could ask the question specifically.

Right. Right. I hadn't even considered the fact that sometimes staff I mean I've I've seen that where we just have a piece of code 100% wrong in our discussion and obviously we want to be corrected on that but then if that's if you you can butt in even if you don't want to have to do it like I feel like if we don't understand something I would love I yeah I would love to hear it from both from both. It's maybe more based on invitation during deliberation that you know if if staff is like hang on are you guys willing to hear what I you know and then you can I don't know if I want to be able to or them kind of getting up

I feel comfortable with staff saying hey let me say this and and

and maybe even the applicant like you might be on a that's not actually what the plan set says or is it only staff who can do it at that point? No, I think it would be like a specific container at the very end of the conversation. Like I just want to clarify the ceiling heights you thought were 12 feet and you said that the whole conversation were are actually 10 ft or are actually 15 ft. And that's it. Factual like are there any facts that we had incorrect during our conversation? Please, please let us know. But not like like the handholding and like somebody walking up to the podium in the middle of our conversation like I'm I'm not a fan of

that will not end well. No, that's then they can interject anytime they want and just try and be part of that's where my coming from. This is this is really helpful. Yeah. But is there then the opportunity and and I'm brainstorming for the applicant to ask staff, hey, do you have a minute and we may we may uh break for a moment.

I hate if we open the floor at the end to the applicant, it could it could really go the wrong way because the applicant knows which way the vote's going to go mostly based on our comments, right? I guess that's why if it's another pitch, like it just needs to get shut down. What? There's no value in another pitch. No, that's not what we're asking for. I think it would need to just be factual. The code you The code you keep quoting is wrong. The statistic you keep quoting about our project is wrong. Actually, at 12th Street, not 11th. Yeah. Yeah. You're talking about another project.

Um, I'll go think about that for two weeks. I'll come back. Yeah. Yeah. Just wanted to think about that. Yeah. Put it out there. I think that's a great question. Even better. That means not all in you, Brian. Yay. Great. Thank you guys. Yeah. Thank you. Uh now, should we adjourn? So moved. Uh second. Second. All in favor? I. All right. And we're journ. Can you motion?