Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, what a beautiful screen. That is crisp. It is crisp. All right, we all ready? go ahead and get started. This is our February 12th planning commission public hearing and I start with roll call. Klay Cruz, AJ Summers, Rich Levy, Brian Adams, Luttor, David Box. Before we begin agenda items, is there anybody here uh that wishes to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda?

Good evening. Walter McIll, FourPoint Surveying and Engineering. uh tonight. You know, if you've been around a while, we've spoken to it before, but I want to reiterate uh C dot access plans and there's a C dot west access plan, a C dot east access plan, and the city council approved these plans probably 2016. And at the time, it was discussed that there should be some kind of easement put on these properties so people are aware of it. and working on some projects right now along South Lincoln Avenue that you know there's no pending project right now so I feel free to bring it to your attention. This will come up during the presentation on tonight's project as well but you know the and the staff tries to and staff does enforce these cross access easements. We're working with some attorneys right now to say that, you know, because these items don't turn up in a title commitment, a title research or any of that, that this does not make it a real easement and an enforcement. Now, question becomes, how is this different than open space, you know, because that's not an easement either. If you do a property, you have to give 15% open space. But the open space is in the is in the community development code, so it's an enforceable provision. Last time I met with public works, they said the access plan is in the community development code. It's not. Did a search of it. It's not in there. So the C dot access plan standing alone does not create a public interest or serve as public notice for people that there's going to be this recorded basically taking and we've gone through it with staff other times. I'll bring it up again tonight. You know that they want 30 ft. They don't want 24 ft, which is your standard parking alley, which is is a little more more easily accommodated. They want 30 ft. And in places like Sunlight Crossings, they've accommodated the, you know, Yampa Valley on their projects for an affordable housing project to go down to 24. But Colorado law, easements, and other interests that

encumber real property must be properly executed and recorded in the county real property records in order to provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers and to be enforceable against the property. In the absence of recorded instrument, there's no legal claim affecting title to these properties. Now, you're aware of the navigation easements that are all over, you know, do places where we do airport disclosure forms, but this cross access easement doesn't show up in people's title. And time and again, you know, I'm telling people that you have this cross access easement and it's going to come back and bite you on this. You're going to have to give up property to people in the city. And uh I think that we're looking, you know, probably have to do a lawsuit or something like that. So some of the clients are putting together some money to kind of join together in this as we work on US40 this south access which goes from Central Park. No, what do we call that? the liquor store which could be the dinosaur Sinclair and that liquor store down to the gateway property along that corridor which is all unplatted. So then need preliminary plats as well as access easements. So look to hear more about that but I want to bring it to your attention. So

great. Well thank you very much for your comment and Gavin's online it looks like. Oh Gavin are you here with us as well Mr. Oul? raised his hand. He's raised his hand. If we could make sure that he has the ability to uh turn on his mic and video, that would be amazing. There we go. I got un unmuted. I'm here. Perfect. Um we we're going to need him on video though. Thank you. Yeah, you got that. Absolutely. If you could turn on your video as well, just so we keep

remembering that you're you're there. But thank you, Rich. Appreciate that. There we go. All right. So, we'll jump into our agenda items. We have two agenda items tonight, both for decision by planning commission. Uh the first one is PL 2025 0089. It's Toro VJO Takaria uh preliminary plat. I believe is the applicant here. Excuse me for a presentation.

Yes, I am. Walter McIll, fourpoint serving in engineering on behalf of Tori Viejo. Um, and we are here tonight talk about a preliminary plat. Toby has a small PowerPoint presentation that I'll go through. Uh, this property is next to Steamboat Motors, west side of town and parallel with the west side of County Shop Road. Uh, you've been here over a while. It was a a taxiderermy shop. There's a car quest there. It takes you back to UPS. Toby, would you go to the next slide? The That's the current building there. Um, so the project was under enforcement for a while this past year summer uh for being used as an excavation yard that's been cleaned up and removed. It's an unplatted parcel. It's one acre. Now, this is the same kind of thing that it it had a cross access easement on the e on the access plan. It had a blue arrow. Blue arrow apparently equals a 30-foot easement. However, on this property to the north when YVA ampal electric put in their parcel, they did provide another access grade for Steamboat Motors. We went through this and we weren't able to achieve that. The property had been previously approved in 2019 for the same concept that expired 2023 during that approval, but there had been a preliminary plat development permit and construction drawings. Uh, different reviewers, different people, different changes, same concept. Uh next slide please. Is the preliminary plat as Toby wrote in the report the preliminary plat can stand alone. It uh created the development plan has open space on it. The preliminary plat did not create open space. This is the existing conditions plan. Shows Steamboat Motors. Shows all the recorded easements of record and gives a look at the access. gets kind of uh busy down

the bottom there with some of the taxiderermy and things like that. So uh that's demolition down in the lower corner where the hatches are used. Uh next slide please. This is the plat itself as I spoke to it talks about some new easements here. So there's a new cross access easement required by public works. As I mentioned in my public comment would have been a lot better at 24 feet. The debate goes back and forth that staff wants 30 feet for snow storage access. Well, it's going to have snow storage anyway since it's in a parking lot. So, a 24 foot aisle works fine in my viewpoint uh for a cross access, but they keep wanting 30 ft. So, you get into these bottom lines. Client wants to move forward. You take what they're going to require. We have a drainage easement for the development plan in the lower north souththeast corner. We have on the west side that's a 9- ft drainage and access easement. The north we have a 7 and a half foot drainage and utility easement. That would be the plat. The plat's going to go with the development plan for these easements are in regard to the development plan being approved tonight. If the development plan expired and they still record the final plat, these easements would stay on here as well. If anyone wanted to do a different development, they may have to vacate these easements for the new development plan in future years. So, uh, other questions for the preliminary plat. I'm going to keep going and give you both presentations. The development plan, Toby, would be the next page, second page. That's the cover plan with the vicinity on you. So, one more page for the site plan, please. Thank you. Uh, we have two buildings here. It's mixed use. It's kind of fun idea that the front building brought to the front for CS zoning brought up there trying to get it as close as possible with a 20 foot maximum front setback to US40. There's a lot going on in the US

40 corridor there. uh from water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage perpendicular to the highway, existing street lights, uh the idea to get a pedestrian corridor through there as well, and pull the building to the front with entry corridor landscaping. So, that's a lot in one package. As you can see, the lower part of this drawing, and you've had time to look at the drawings in your packets, I'm not going to beat them up, but it's uh it gets intricate, Toby. The next page has this kind of same with utilities uh utility plans, but this just shows the intric intricacies of the drainage there where we're getting all putting a new inlet and trying to tie in the uh storm water quality pond which is in the southeast corner as well as the existing ditch on US 40 uh and the existing ditch and a new ditch and covert coming down county shop road. Uh it's two buildings. The front building, as I said, has residential on the second floor. And then in the back, we have office space on the lower floor with some residential above. Again, we have a up in the northwest corner, a little bit of storm water quality. We've brought the parking along County Shop Road. Um, we have kind of a trickle channel going down the middle. That trickle channel is for storm water treatment. get the storm water back over to US40. Um, water and sewer coming along the front a little bit and then to accommodate both the rear and the the rear building and the front building. Uh, worked with staff to come up with the location of the dumpster while accommodating this cross access. uh two dumpsters, the parking for the two facilities, handicap parking, snow

storage along County Shop Road is the majority of it. Uh along that area, we also have a sidewalk along County Shop Road. Yes. Um the next slide, I have a couple renderings of the buildings. So, this is a rendering of the front building pulled right up to US40 here. Uh, a little bit of a deck and that shows kind of the uh glazing along the front. We actually don't think we have a glazing variance on this project. Um, and that's for the restaurant. And then the next slide and the last slide is the rear buildings facing along the west elevation on the north side and the north sorry top of the page is the west elevation and that shows how it would look from county shop road and then the proposed southwest elevation there as well. So uh they'd like to start I think the rear building and might do both buildings are probably a year out from breaking ground right now. So, looking for an approval tonight and here for any questions.

Thank you very much, Walter. I hadn't asked Walter or Toby before we started if you wanted to just do both of them at the same time. Walter went ahead and did both. Toby, as long as you're okay and and fellow commissioners, as long as you're okay with that, we could hear everything all at once. And of course, we'll have two separate agenda items to vote on. Does that sound good? So, if you just want to tell us everything as well, that'd be awesome.

I can do that. Um, I will start Toby Soffer, senior planner. I will start with the uh subdivision. So, as Walter mentioned, it's a one lot subdivision. Um it's an unplatted vacant property um on the corner of County Shop Road and Lincoln Avenue. Um it's owned CS. It's relatively flat. Um subdivision will include demolition of the existing buildings and site features. um property is being prepared for development and processed with this development plan, but the subdivision is not dependent upon the development plan and the project can stand alone as a one lot subdivision. The lot is developable. It meets all standards. Um site is served by utilities and can be developed consistently with the CDC. The size and shape of the lot are consistent with the surrounding area. Several nearby properties have similar characteristics. So, future development of this lot should be compatible with the nearby properties and able to meet CDC standards. Um, there are no special conditions or environmental hazards that affect development of this property. Um, and we are recommending approval of the subdivision with four conditions as listed. Um, regarding the development plan, um, it is site development for two mixeduse buildings, including residential office and restaurant with parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and other improvements. Um, as Walter mentioned, there will be um, along Highway 40, there'll be a restaurant with a residential dwelling unit on the second floor and then a mixeduse building towards the rear of the property with office spaces on the ground floor and residential units on the second floor. There's no variances requested with this project or with the subdivision. Um, however, it does include a conditional use request to allow the multif family residential use in the CSON district. Um, the multif family residential use is always a conditional use in the CSON

district. Um, regarding that use, uh, the future land use district for this property is the mixed use is mixed use. So it describes an area where residential and commercial uses come together. Uh the residential use on this project is consistent with the character and density and the long range planning considerations of the district. Um the CSO district does provide areas for higher intensity communitywide commercial uses. It does indicate that residential uses can support those commercial uses. And in this configuration configuration with the residential uses um connected to and sort of above the commercial uses on the property, we believe that the residential uses could um hopefully make these commercial uses more viable. Um and we find that the proposed uses consistent with the CS zone district. Um, regarding impacts, a residential use in a commercial area can introduce use conflicts with a commercial use that could discourage commercial activity. Um, residential uses may be impacted by noise or odor that uh can be common in commercial areas and they're not necessarily felt by other commercial uses. Uh, this area includes a mix of uses that can be compatible with the proposed residential use. Again, the residential use is above the restaurant. Um, and that's intended as employee housing. So hopefully the impacts from either use can be anticipated and accepted by all parties. And then the residential use above the offices while those um are going to be separate spaces um they can be compatible with office uses. So we find that the residential use um should be acceptable in this uh zone district in this area and hopefully the impacts can be anticipated and not uncommon from what one would would expect. Um, regarding the development plan, um, there are several properties nearby that have similar buildings and mix of uses. So, we find that this development is consistent with the nearby properties

and the uses will complement other uses in the area. We do find that the development meets standards, including those for drainage, storm water management, water quality, and snow storage. Um again, there aren't any notable features or environmental conditions that require additional consideration um for review outside of the CDC standards. Um the project will provide adequate vehicular access and um other site development including sidewalks on Highway 40 and County Shop Road. um the access easement that was mentioned and parking and loading are adequate for the uses um as well as refuge management and other service areas that meet CDC standards. Um we do find that the development plan and the conditional use are consistent with the criteria for approval and we recommend approval with uh nine conditions.

Great. Thank you very much, Toby. Do we have any questions from commissioners on either application? Richard, I have a kind a little bit offkilter one. Uh, is counter shop road a city road or a county road and maintained by whom? I believe it's a city road um and maintained by the city. Okay. Because I've always seen just county snow plows on that road and there's still a red sign indicating to me that it might be a county road. And I just wondering if if it was a county road, does access or anything come into play with this product?

I don't believe so. Um I I know that that's I think where they store some plows up up the way from that road. So that might be why you see them there, but um I don't think that there should be any concerns with access um to this property. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I have one. Um, this feels like a relatively low density development for commercial services. Is there any lot coverage minimums or F minimums? There's not. No. So, we only have maximums and uh this project is meeting those maximums.

And I have a question for Walt, too. Um, have you checked if your trash trucks can turn around and that particularly in the southerntherly trash enclosure? It looks like the curb's awfully close for him to be able to turn in there, grab the trash, dump it, turn back around, and get back out of there. Yeah, I think they cighted it. I can check that before final drawings, but I'm I'm not sure if aside on that one. Just looks a little tight.

Yeah, no, some of those at 16 by 12 get tight overall, you know, with the two dumpsters or rolloffs in the back, too. So, make note of that. Thanks. Other questions? No. None. Um, my only question was, uh, Walter, if you could help me understand the residential parking places. I was maybe a little confused. I think I saw six parking places are within the garages on that residential office building. But then the parking places for the

for the units above the the Takaria are those like dedicated within the parking lot or or are they separate? I I couldn't make heads

not make a separation or a dedication for parking spaces. So employees could, you know, to the detriment of their customers, they could park as close in the rear as they wanted to to the back of the parking back of the restaurant. So we did a residential count and provided spaces based on the square footage of the restaurant and based on the number of bedrooms and the square footage of the offices. So that's what's on the site plan there. I'd have to pull it up to look at it in more detail, but currently we don't have designation there. You know, another thing that's not in the development plan is if these are sellable units as well, because typically we do a condominium for that rear building and you could almost condominiumize the front building as well uh with the same plan, but we didn't that didn't come up during the development plan process. So,

okay. Thank you. Um Toby, so the followup for that, I had asked kind of a similar question on a similar project nearby. um over by the uh the brewery across the highway there um about you know when we have the minimums are the maximums right ongoing conversation that we have and when we're kind of reducing from what we expect these typical uses to have are we creating a scenario where the residences don't have a way to even um park if it is a nice busy restaurant that evening and are we creating a conflict with this minimum s becoming maximums. Um

we do try to look at that when we when we look at the um look at the development. There is um for the residences that are above the offices there are two garage spaces that again could be used um by the residences. I think that's how it was portrayed in the in the materials. So those residences would have dedicated parking and then the the residential use above the restaurant does not have any specific dedicated parking. So um we do allow that maximum. We might have a parking st uh parking conflict in the future but that is what our code can allow. um there is enough spaces on the site, you know, that they could dedicate some spaces to the residents. But again, hopefully with the residents, again, it could work out however it works out, but it's intended as workforce housing um or employee housing for connected to that restaurant. So hopefully those um those users and the tenants would understand all the implications of that and hopefully be able to manage that. Um sometimes there can be fewer cars if the if there are shared uses um on that site. But

do you see a negative from dedicating a couple of spaces knowing that that's kind of what the parking count was kind of was accommodating in any way? No, I don't think there's any um negative to that. I think it ensures then that the residents above the restaurant would have some dedicated spaces um and they could also dedicate the spaces in the garages and the other building for those residential uses. um they could they could do that but I think it the development works either way. Great. Thank you. Any other questions?

Well, you open up the pano worms there, Ryan. So for staff, since the commercial side of this NCS has only a maximum, is it possible for them to propose a development of this with only the eight required spots for the residential and no parking spots for commercial? And how would staff review that? Well, there is a minimum. So, the minimum is just the maximum. So, they need to provide a minimum number of spaces. Um, I think they would have to provide some number of spaces for the restaurant. I don't think that um they could just provide spaces for the residential uses.

Does that minimum need to be justified in some way or if they said two and because everybody's going to ride the bus there? I mean what what's the what's the criteria for determining minimum? We have that we have those st parking standards in our use chart. So the minimum is based on the square footage uh with the with the restaurant and office uses. So um I think that well I think it's both the minimum and the maximum. So I'm not sure that they could provide less. I I I would imagine that we would question anyway if they said that everyone's going to ride the bus. I I would think that we would say that that's not feasible. we might not support the project um even if it met the standard in that way.

Okay. Nothing to do about it now. Any other questions? Kevin, do you have any questions on on Zoom? Hopefully you heard me. Think he's muted. Not letting Oh, is it not letting you unmute? Maybe we could. He's raising his hand. There we go. There we go. I'm unmuted again. No questions. Sorry. We got to ask one now, Gavin. Come on. Yeah. Right.

Um All right. Thank you, Gavin. Um I'll go to public comment. Uh do we have I don't believe we have any public to comment. So, we will skip or close public comment. Walter, did you have any follow-up that you want to give us on either item?

Uh, Brian, to your comment about designating parking spaces, I was here the night we talked about Storm Peak Brewery. You did that. I think it's a problem. It's not in the code that way and it's an enforcement issue. You know, that are you expecting that, you know, who's going to tell these people they're parked in the wrong spot? we're going to put a big sticker on their window that can't be peeled off and try to remind them that or what. So, I think it's, you know, it's kind of a private party issue and we should leave it as a private party issue. You know, I get into that a lot in my thought process with snow storage that the city wants to accommodate all this horizontal snow storage two for one, but I can stack snow on my property. it would seem like, you know, when I need to, if I'm the property owner and I don't provide parking for my tenants or if I don't provide snow storage for my tenants, they're not going to come down to city hall and look for a solution. They're going to not pay their rent or they're not going to, you know, go to the restaurant. The restaurant owner is not going to have money. But I don't think requiring a sit a sign to be put up with no enforcement powers is a solution on these private property issues for parking. should follow the code and if the code needs to be changed and we should modify the code. But I don't think it's after the fact because now I'm here to say, well, I'll accept anything you do because I have my project pending or I'll have to take a table and go consult my client if they want to put up extra parking requirements. So, it's an additional restriction we're not expecting and I don't think it's it's difficult to enforce to to work right. So, thanks.

Thank you, Walter. Toby, do you have any final followup? No. And any last questions from commissioners? I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for a discussion and a motion. I'll move to approve PL 20250089 with the four recommended conditions of approval as presented. That is for the preliminary plat, our first agenda item. And so we have a first and a second. Any discussion on that agenda item? It's pretty straightforward. Pretty straightforward.

Okay, fair enough. I'm not sure there's much more to add than pretty straightforward. It meets all everything it needs to meet. Doing great. All right. Any other discussion? Doesn't look like it. I'll call just for that one, right? Just for that agenda item. For that agenda item. Uh and Gavin again, did did you have any I want to keep giving you the chance. Is it making you ask to unmute every time you mute? Yes, it is. No additional questions. I think it's straightforward, too. All right. Thank you. All right, then. I will call for a vote. I I I I

I should have left himself unmuted. Yeah, you might just want to stay unmuted. Yep. Uh I Perfect. Thank you. And that passes unanimously. Um, do we have any discussion or a motion on our second agenda item PL 20250088? I'll just say that it seems like it also pretty straightforwardly meets all the criteria for approval and I'm glad to see a mix of uses that includes some residential in a mixeduse area.

I'd agree with that. Also, I would have liked to see maybe a little more density, but it meets it meets what it has to meet and something's better than what's out there now. So, yeah, I agree. It's I mean, it seems a really good use for that area.

Can I uh about the density? I know the number looks really low, but if you look at the site, like where else do they put stuff? They've got their snow. I mean, maybe a couple more parking spaces. They could add like a little bit more, but really the densities, the maximum densities that are in the code are wildly wrong. We couldn't get there to provide all the parking and snow storage and everything. I just don't think it should be a negative necessarily. I think it's supportable still. Yeah. Incur.

Right. Oh, motion to approve PL 2025 00088 the development plan N and the associated nine conditions. Second.

We have a motion in a second. Any other discussion on it? I'll go real quick. Uh a little bit echoing what you guys are already saying. I'm there's a lot of things I'm super excited about on it. In fact, almost all the things. Um the ground floor ceiling height. I can I jump up and down real quick? I'm I'm really excited about we're not talking about glazing. We're not talking about roof slopes along the highway corridor on the west side of town. I Well done. Well done to the design team. I I'm ve I'm very excited about that and I'm very excited about the mix of uses. I think that's what I've been hoping to see with with many projects that we've seen come forward. This is a great use or mix of uses. um almost made me want to call into question whe whether or not I thought it was silly that we needed to talk about the conditional use that is residential being that the future land use map is suggesting having multiple uses. But then I I really do decide that that it's in a good place right now and I'm glad that it came before us in case it was um something that did have a significant adverse impact against something else that was unforeseen. I think it's it's great that it had to come before us. But um I think the main reason why I thought it was uh I'll use the word again silly is that the way that this is designed I think has mitigated any adverse impacts that those different uses could have with each other and it's just a well-designed project um all around. But I have a problem with the parking. I have a problem with the way that the parking was going to work on that Storm Peak Brewery one, which we keep picking on only because it was a recent project that most people here had seen and we can kind of relate to. They are definitely different projects. Um, concerns about how the residents are allotted the spaces that we expect to be given to them because that is what is part of the development plan is a concern. And I

have seen other developments around town. Um I guess I won't name names that have had to have internal battles that were battles because they didn't have anything any any leg to stand on. And so how do the residents fight for something that isn't really given to them? Um but should be. Whereas dedicated parking places, they can come if they're not being offered it. It's no, you can come. The city will back that up. the city will support that the landlord has to make sure and uh and I think that there is something to that on making sure the residential spaces are given the the minimums that we expect to see uh even on busy office or restaurant uses. So I have a problem with that. I'd love to see those two spaces dedicated. I think it would minimize um conflict in the future. How would you respond to the applicant's comment around enforcement though? Because it would be diff it is difficult for the city to enforce dedicated parking such as that. What would that look like?

I don't imagine that it would be difficult. So, I'm I'm a little confused at that. I imagine that it's no more difficult than if a tree gets cut down. that was part of the development plan and the city can enforce that that needs to meet the approved development that that these two spaces being allotted to the to the residences um can be enforced just as much by the city.

I guess a city could enforce that their signs that say residents only, but having to police the the car has a sticker on it seems cost prohibitive potentially in my opinion. I think it has more to do with um you know we've talked so much at planning commission about how enforcement is more complaintbased anyway for any of those things that may or may not be following a development plan or something like that that it's more if this is an ongoing problem then that resident has an avenue that would be a complaint that says you know that they can come to the city. Yeah, it's probably a lot of work for them but that's not their fault. at least they have some work that they can do to to make sure that they get those spaces that are allotted to them. U so so it seems like an easy thing to add that wouldn't steal from anybody because that's what the parking plan is suggesting anyway. It's just saying hey these two for sure so that we make sure that they have those spaces.

You do you would you recommend that we look at the code and change the code to require dedicated spots? Nope. I would recommend that we add a friendly that put another condition in the two spaces be dedicated uh with signage. So the but the only time that would become an issue is if someone from the commercial side is using everybody's space. A really busy night. I come home and I have no space and that's when you would complain. Mhm. because I'm supposed to have a space

now. I don't know if that's in their lease or how would they know they had a dedicated space. I have no idea, you know. So, I think that's what Walter saying is this is like a calculation. We should have enough spaces in theory, but you might not is what you're saying. And I think it where it gets tougher is in these areas where this maximum is the minimum. And of course, I'm very excited to look at getting rid of that part of the code, the nearest possible opportunity. In the meantime, the fact that

both the office and restaurant are not providing the minimum that would be required everywhere else in town but here means that we're already noticing that there's a shortfall of the other two uses. So, so doesn't that suggest that they would probably even be be even more likely to be trying to find extra spaces when those uses are popular? But, but why wouldn't you change that in the code then and say you have to have a dedicated if it's a mix mixed use, you have to have a dedicated spot for residential and that

No, I'm I'm really enjoying all the all the questions. I mean, I'll I'll answer you things and pretend like I know all the answers all night. Okay, great. Um, I think to Rich's question that he was asking uh Toby, I probably can't answer it as well as Toby can, but my stab on it is that that is the inherent difficulty is when the maximum becomes the minimum and and an applicant provides less then somehow need something needs to be reviewed to understand what the justification is for providing less and how much less is being provided. I think the best way to get past that is to recognize that there shouldn't be overlap between the different uses, the parking of the different uses. But

I mean, if we've heard this term before, the maximum is the minimum. But if that's the case, then why isn't the parking a variance since they're below the maximum minimum? Say that again. Well, because again, the the concept is if you if you have a minimum, then if the minimum is 10 and you provide 100, you met the minimum. So if you make it the maximum then if the maximum is 100 and you provide 10 you've met the maximum there there it's all arbitrary any number below that right we get the alligators out anything that is less than the maximum is meeting the the code at that point because there's nothing else that's defining that information.

This seems like an argument about what the code should say and not an argument about whether the project is meeting the code. the project meets the current code and there's nothing that requires them to dedicate any residential any any of the spots to any particular use. And I imagine that's something that possibly the the land owner will need to manage. Maybe maybe they have an idea of how many parking spaces they need for their restaurant. Maybe they've done this before. Who knows? But ultimately, it is on them because I don't think the city's in the business of enforcing their own like a private property owner sign. Even if like if they took away parking spots and the development plan was approved with a certain number of parking spots, sure, I think the city could come in and say, you know, you're not meeting your development plan, but I don't think they care. They have no code basis to say that they we have to designate spots. And so, they're not I don't think that they're in the business of enforcing that either. So, I I just don't think we have any leg to stand on codewise to say that they should or should not do something like that.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying that the the conditional use, you're saying that the impacts, one of those impacts being a park parking conundrum is a reason to be considering designated parking. Just to spell it out, it is a legal band on. I see. And then needing to follow it is just as much as you know the glazing that's provided, the roof shapes that are provided. I mean you know this is the development plan needs to be followed. The eight spaces that are residential need to be followed that that's what they've presented. Isn't the question though is if the residential use is going to have negative impacts on the commercial use. Isn't that the question we're answering or No.

Is it broader than that? Both ways. It could be. I mean, well, it's all the criteria and the conditional use part of the application. Sure. I don't want to spell that out. The question that I think that would fall under.

But anyway, that that was my whole uh I appreciate the the vibrant discussion on that would be my reason for not supporting it just as is. And that I think clarifying the the residential would make it a stronger project. And I'd love to see that friendly. And if I'm outvoted, that's great, too. Well, everything else about it is a great project and that's my uh I mean I would I I made the motion, didn't it? You did. So I would So if somebody wants to make a friendly to that effect, I I would I don't know if the applicant would be interested in that friendly because it is a condition uh an added condition of it would be an underlying and I don't know if I if yeah, everybody even agrees with me. Okay.

But that that would be our our avenue. Does that have any momentum or am I alone on that theory? I think it's I think a it's confusing a minmax thing. Use your microphone. Sorry. A I think it's confusing. Um the you know the whole minmax thing and then you got the overlay of the conditional use that kind of changes the game a little bit. So, I um I'm not sure it's a battle for this project in my mind. Can you say that one more time? I

I'm not sure it's a battle for this project in my mind. I mean, I'd rather take us take a look at the code because I think having dedicate you could describe the situation and have dedicated force, dedicated boarding, you know, in certain circumstances. Great. Any other discussion then on it before we I have a question for staff. Is 300F don't usually do right now, but we can. I know. Well, is it okay with other commissioners if I ask for a clarification of the code? Yes, I'm all right with that. Thank you. Sorry. 300F1A the the

controlling definition for the parking standards for CSON district or is there some other place I'm supposed to be looking? It's a big paragraph.

Um I think is a section and I think I misstated it. So yes, you're correct. 300 F1A. um which does say I'll I can read it out. Parking standards uh contained in the permitted use matrix are minimum requirements except in various zone districts including CS. Parking standards are maximum requirements for commercial uses unless the parking study demonstrates additional parking necessary to serve the use. So um what I should have said is that um there's really no minimum for commercial uses. So the parking that's available can be for the residential uses and it's the commercial uses that would have to suffer as has been mentioned that's an enforcement issue. Um but we allow that for commercial uses. I think the intent of that is to not have too much asphalt, too much parking. Um so we can ma meet some other standards. So it's one of those trade-offs that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. I guess since we're there, uh, what what is it that what is the trigger that the planning director may require a parking study or that parking study will is needed to demonstrate additional parking is necessary. The applicant's not going to provide a parking study generally that says we want to build more parking.

Typically, that study would be uh triggered for maybe a use or combination of uses that is not quite clear in our code. Um, right now an institutional use as an example. An institutional use could be a wide variety of things, a nonprofit, a church, a city organization. So, if we don't have a a very specific um in the box standard for a use, then we might require a parking study. These parking numbers do come from um a variety of sources that have been studied over time. I think the engineering IT standards plus general parking standards. So they're not based on nothing. They are based on some substantive facts and what those uses typically require. They can be based on traffic studies, but if we had an unusual use, the hot springs was one um because that has such a variety of uses. We had a parking study specifically for that use. So um for these uses that are um fairly typical residential office and restaurant um we didn't feel the need to require a parking study for this project.

Thank you. Any other discussion on this agenda item? Gavin, do you have any? I think I'd echo what most folks have said. I think it's a good project overall. I think it will um combining uses is good. The parking is maybe not perfect, but I think maybe that's something more broad to address somewhere else. All right, great. Thanks, Kevin. Not hearing anybody else, then I'll call for a vote. I I No. I I

Kevin. Hi. And that passes 6 to one. Thanks, Walter. See, we have I guess first, do we have a director's report this evening?

Um, the only thing that I wanted to share was that we had our consultant team in town for the last two days from code studio kicking off the design standards update project. Um, so we should have a more like a detailed project schedule and public engagement plan and some other uh project materials back to us soon and we'll make sure that we share those with planning commission. Um, and we'll be looking probably for a couple of you to participate in a stakeholder group and some other opportunities for work sessions and such. Cool. Sounds exciting. Get excited.

Yeah, very excited. All right. Uh, and then looks like we have one old business. This is public hearing minutes for January 22nd. Uh, anybody have any changes or do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I I. Perfect. That's it for us then tonight. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I Perfect. February adjourned.