Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. All right. Let's go ahead and get started this evening. This is the planning commission uh January 22nd public hearing. Can I start with roll call, please? Klay Cruz, Kevin Oul, Rich Levy, Brian Adams, David Box. All right. Uh before we get into any agenda items, is anybody here um who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda?

All right, seeing none, uh we'll go into our first agenda item. This is public hearing for recommendation to council. This is PL 2025309 Marshall House Development Plan. Uh is the applicant here uh for a presentation for us? Hey, good evening. My name is Chansy Keenan. I'm with Mountain Architecture Design Group. I'm the project architect for this project and I'm really excited to talk to you about the Marshall House, which was just last week designated as a local landmark, which is pretty exciting. Um, Caitlyn did a great job with her staff report. Um, so I'll just go into a little project overview and obviously answer any questions that you have on the project. Um, we'll talk about the history, today's status, and hopefully the next chapter of this building's story. Um, I've got a timeline up here. It's a little bit difficult to read on the screen. Um, but the Marshall House was built in 1889 by the GPC subtle families. Um, interestingly enough, it was a log structure. Once we got into um some of the discovery and demo on this on this project to move it um log structure that was then clad in um in wood mil in the what we assume is the subtle the subtle mill in 1889. That was kind of an exciting discovery. Um the GB family sold the home to the Marshalls in the mid40s, 1944, 1945. And um the Marshalls owned it up until very recent history history and raised um a lot of kids there. In the mid-50s they did construct an addition to the Marshall House, the original footprint um that comprised of a bathroom and bedroom addition. They

also enclosed several of the existing porches to occupy those as rooms um as their family grew. Um, then in 2018, the Marshall family sold it to the Guller family, who then just a few years later sold it to Chusa LLC, which is the developer that currently owns the Marshall House today. Um, the house was moved from that original location to its current location in 2024. And the last couple of years we've couple of years that sounds like a long time. The last year and a half or so um we've been working on the historic designation of the house and the um the plan for the next chapter in its history. Um let's see. So a little more recent backstory. Um Joela West, the current owner of the property, reached out to us when she caught c got word that this house was available um to be moved as the developers wanted to clear the site for future development or sale or what whatever their plan is for that existing um existing space. Sorry, I'm trying to move my slide here. sure why we're not switching. Um, so Joela reached out to our team to um perform a feasibility study to see if the existing structure would even physically fit on her site behind smell that bread. I wish I could get this other Sorry, give me one second, this other slide to show. There we go. to see if the um if the building would even physically fit on the site. And the answer was maybe. The site um has significant constraints um as it is located along Soda Creek and um has many other challenges associated with that. The site is um like I said bordered on

the rear property line here. This turquoise shaded area is Soda Creek. Um we're also in the flood plane and this blue shaded area represents wetlands and the flood plane area as well as um you know the pink shaded area is built represents building setbacks. We have a water body setback of 50 ft from the high water mark. Um we have a spaghetti bowl of utilities underground. We do not have an alley to the site and we also have very steep topography from Oak Street and the pedestrian way down to the creek. Um, so in looking at the site and whether the house would fit, we identified, you know, what are our primary goals with this project? And it really is historic preservation of a local resource that is predominantly intact. Um, we identified the strongest element of the project as the cross gable Victorian roof. Um, and looked at removing the 1950s additions and the porch enclosures. Um, in doing so and looking at the wetlands and the flood plane, we were able to fit the project on the site if we push up against some of our property lines. Um, so that was exciting news to know that it would physically fit. Um, the angle that we see on site today when we drive by is a little bit more severe than the final angle that we will place the house at, um, which is shown on the site plan here. But just for worth noting, when we drive by that is a little bit more severe. the house will move one more time. Um, so once we decided that the discovered that the house will actually fit, there was a lot of urgency to move the house from its original site to where it rests today. I'll go back to that other slide here. So that the red dot on the top is the original location of the Marshall House along 12th Street and Oak Street. And we moved it around the corner to where it currently rests today. The lower red dot on the right, which is behind Smell Bread on that same property. Um,

so we, um, once we were able to move the house to the site, we were able to take a breath of breath of air and really start digging into the planning aspect of that and worked closely with planning staff and Caitlyn as the historic preservation staff member, um, Todd Carr at the building department to do a technical analysis of the entire project. Um, we were, you know, we still didn't know what the use of the project was going to be, what the floor plans looked like, um, how to deal with structural systems. We need a basement underneath the structure to support it given the steep site topography um which comes with construction logistics as you can imagine and sequencing. Um we're looking at zoning and the entitlement process which is where we are today. Modern mechanical systems for an old house, accessibility with the ADA and Secretary of Interior standards for preservation of existing buildings. Um and the result of that is uh were some floor plans that we're pretty excited about. The main level floor plan on the right will be at the street level and that is the existing Marshall House as it is today. The plan on the left is the basement level which will have a separate business in it. The two businesses will occupy the darker shaded areas. So, we'll start with the main level at the ground um at the the sidewalk elevation. We the sorry um the main entrance to the home historically and as proposed is via this front porch which will face Oak Street. You'll come into what is historically the living room which will remain furnished as such where you can be greeted and either shown into the tavern on the main level which we're calling a speak easy or you can um head downstairs to the cigar lounge. The lighter shaded areas are kind of common public spaces um available for tours and also just support spaces like restrooms and custodial space um mechanical rooms that kind of function. On the main level where the speak easy is shaded, we have the original dining area which will have

tables and chairs to enjoy beverages. And then where the historic kitchen is located back here in this area is where the um the bar will be located to kind of represent that original function. Um, we also have what we assume was a bedroom on the lower level here, which we have furnished as kind of a piano lounge. I think it'll be kind of a fun speak easyy function that we don't currently have in Steamboat. On the lower level, we come downstairs and we have the cigar lounge in that darker shaded area. Um, state requirements do do require us to have that space be fully enclosed. We don't have any operable windows. There are no operable doors. And again, those are requirements. So we don't have any air escaping from the building to um you know to potentially be a nuisance to neighboring properties. We also have been working with a mechanical engineer to provide a really robust air infiltration system so that we um we can handle any of that smoking lounge air so that none of the other spaces are impacted by that use. Um and then I think maybe most exciting for Joela is that this is again going to be open for walking tours. Um, so those those three functions are what we were able to identify. Moving to the exterior, we have the the historic photo on the lower left corner of the page here. Um, which is really exciting for us. We don't often have photos of these historic structures. Um, so we are able to to take our existing intact resource and just um improve that and repair some of the areas that are deteriorated or reconstruct some of the elements that are missing. Um but in the end it will the idea is that it will look very similar to the photo that you see on the left there. Um the basement is not historic obviously. Um so we want to treat that as a um as a modern element.

We're proposing a light colored sandstone for the um for the exterior that would kind of nod to historic foundation um sandstone that was ciried locally but with a rectal linear pattern and a smooth face. Um the windows also have steel headers and just some elements to really differentiate the construction period between 1889 and 2026. So, we're all excited about the direction this is heading, but um as we discussed earlier with the constrained site, we do have a laundry list of variances associated with this planning application. Um however, we feel that the integration of this historic resource as a prioritized goal of the city easily justifies these requested variances. The first variance that we're requesting is for a front setback encroachment. Um, as I previously noted, we pushed the structure to the front property line to stay out of those environmentally sensitive areas along the creek. Um, we also looked at, you know, the rhythm of the street and alignment of the adjacent buildings. And again, this is kind of a small photo up here um or a small screen, but on the top right, you can see the adjacent buildings and how the placement of the Marshall House is in line with those, which I think really meets the intent of the front setback and is um is consistent with the rhythm of the the adjacent structures along this street um from the public way. So, the perceived setback, I think that intent is is indeed met. The second variance that we are asking for is a front setback for the accessory structure. That's the trash enclosure that is located in between the Marshall house and the existing smell that bread building. On the top left photo, there's this red box that you can kind of see here and that is pushed up pretty close to the front setback line. I think we have 1 foot one um inch separation there. Um, we'd met with a refu service

provider to come up with the best solution to provide refu and recycling management for the property. Um, and this was really the only location that we could identify for the trash enclosure. Um, we clearly don't have an alley for traditional trash pickup. Um the trash enclosure is designed on elevated posts with a bridge to grade because the topography is so steep. And that is a shared facility between the Marshall House functions with the tavern and the cigar lounge and the smell that bread building along with the two condominiums that are currently located above the smell that bread building. Um we have an an intentional design for the trash enclosure to be functional but also attractive. the doors face um the side property line as opposed to the front property line um in the public way. We also are using materials that would kind that would simulate a um a historic you know backyard or sideyard shed structure. The third variance that we are requesting is to the side setback and that is on the northwest side um side of the building over here. I apologize that this is so small. We have a small orange shaded area that's also part of the exhibits in your packet that shows the encroachment on the side. Um, we placed that setback at 5T which is a magic number for building code separation reasons. Um, we know that we're already in a dense neighborhood and really the the portions of the building that are encroaching into that side setback are a low low porch roof and um the low massing of the existing bay window can maybe pop back. So on this rendering that we have on the lower lower image, it's this lower roof of the bay um part of that and then this lower porch roof are what encroaches into the side setback. Um worth noting that the grading will all be within the property boundary and not impact the the

neighboring property back here. All right, our fourth variance that we're requesting is for parking. Um, I will start by noting that the condominiums that are currently exist above the smell that bread building um do have off- streetet parking accommodated right in front of the Marshall House. This um aerial image shows that and so do the two site plans. Um there is historically there have been off- streetet parking spaces there that the condos have used but those were recently put into a formal agreement with the city so that they can continue to use those parking spaces um which are technically in the right ofway. So the use of the Marshall House as a tavern and cigar lounge um in conjunction with the square footage of those spaces redesed in 1.06 parking spaces being required. Um, as we know, the zoning require the zoning code, um, or not the zoning code, the community development code requires us to round up. So, that 1.06 parking space now becomes two parking spaces. Um, we feel like that practically is more closer to closer to one, but it is technically two, so we'll stick with that. Um, but I do want to point out that we do not have any overnight parking associated with this new use. um and the walkability of the site which is encouraged through our community plan. Um also the pedestrian activation of this sleepier end of Oak Street I think is encouraged and um the bus stop nearby will also um help in supporting that parking variance. In addition to the walkability and the transit aspect of the site, we also have um these technical constraints that make parking impractical to physically construct on site. Um we do

not have an alley to locate the parking in the rear. We have a very steep site. We also um do not want to Okay, I'll wrap it up. We don't want to back onto the street or across that pedestrian way anymore than than is currently happening. Um, so we feel like it's contextually appropriate. We're also meeting the community transportation goals to reduce reliance on vehicular trips and the benefit of preserving that important local resource outweighs the one or two spaces that we're asking for. Um, our last and final variance that we're requesting is the water body setback. And I will point out in this graphic on the lower left that the two green shaded corners are the area of the site that are located outside of the water body setback. And you can see that those are in the building setback. So um we're really have very little developable space on this property without the variance. The uh the development within the water body setback is consistent with neighboring properties all throughout downtown. The structure itself is located outside of the environmentally s sensitive areas of the wetlands and the flood plane. Um, also in good faith and industry ethics, we are proposing that the design meet floodplane requirements and that's how we've proceeded today. Um, in closing, I think it's important to note that we have a community member among us who is passionate about historic preservation and willing to go through the arduous process to retain this important resource. We also have um a site [clears throat] that complements the original context of the Marshall House. It's located along Soda Creek as it was originally. It's in the same neighborhood. The um the angle that we are required to set it at actually nods to the historic angle of the property. Um and it's already on the route for historic walking tours. The resource is also predominantly intact which is a huge benefit. Um, this variance process exists for a reason and this is a

perfect example of furthering the community goal of historic preservation. So, tonight we ask you to help us close the chapter of the haunted house on cribbing and begin the next vibrant chapter of the Gross Marshall House. Thank you for your support. All right. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have a staff presentation as well?

Yes. Thank you. Caitlyn Barbe Smith, historic preservation planner. I'm just going to walk you through a quick bit of history about the Marshall House and then briefly uh restate some of the variances that Chanse touched on uh with staff analysis provided. I am going to refer to it as the Marshall House rather than the Gross Beck Marshall House. Um, as noted in the staff report, uh, following the historic preservation commission meeting on January 12th, uh, the chair of the HPC reached out and we have new historical information that showcases a different builder of the Marshall House. Uh, so that builder is actually David Crowwell and we have done a little digging. Um, it's not fully in your packets yet, but I think it's fun information to share. He is one of we'll say route and Moffett County's earliest residences. Uh he moved here in 1883 from Virginia. Helped start the international oddfellows lodge in Moffett County. Um and he was a local builder until he retired. Um so one of the earliest, I guess you could say, residences of our surrounding counties. And so both Katie and I are going to look into the potential renaming of the Marshall House. Um, and where that where that lands, I'm not sure. It'll likely go back to HBC, but just for the name. Um, but of course, the grow specs are still important uh both to Route County and Boulder County where they moved from as well as the Marshall families. So, just a quick note on that. Uh, the Marshall House is historically significant and architecturally significant. Um, it is our newest local landmark on the Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places, which means

that it any physical change to the alteration of the exterior must follow uh section uh 111 within our CDC, which also requires it to follow uh federal and state standards and guidelines, specifically the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. Um, and so some of those are touched on in regards to staff analysis for the variances requested. Uh, the Marshall House was originally located at 134 12th Street, so just around the corner. Uh, that lot was purchased a few years ago, I want to say March 2024, by developers um who intended to redevelop the lot and therefore um chose to demolish the historic home. Uh we had quite a few community members interested in moving the Marshall House to a new location. Um but none actually followed through other than uh the lot owners that it currently sits on uh Overlook Development. So it was uh temporarily moved and placed there in August 2024. In order to do that uh the planning department, we had to go to city council and request an ordinance. Uh our code does not allow for the temporary storage of a structure. Rather uh we do allow for the temporary storage of construction trailers um and other storage uses uh in our land use code but not structures. Um so that is why the Marshall House is allowed to sit there today. Uh we were hoping that this development plan would be complete within the agreement that accompanied that initial ordinance. Um, however, as you know, development plans are challenging, especially with a challenging site. Uh, so we did go back to city council for a second ordinance

to extend uh the temporary storage and use um which will allow the home to sit there until the end of December uh so December 31st, 2026. If uh the development plan and subsequent future building permits are not approved and issued prior to that date, I believe we actually specified September uh 2026, then the house will have to be relocated and potentially demolished. uh given that it was difficult to find an open uh parcel of land or any sort of infill spot, uh that would be challenging. Um, if it were to be potentially relocated outside of the city limits of Steamboat Springs, that would also be detrimental to being able to tell the history and the story associated with the home and its context right here in downtown Steamboat Springs and particularly its placement along Soda Creek. Uh, the lot that it's currently sitting on has been given the address 1133 Oak Street. Uh so I may reference that a few times. It is in whole uh with the smell that bread building 23 acres. Um so when we calculate lot coverage F um that's looking at that entire uh plat of land there which is plotted as a condominium. Five variances are being requested. A front principal setback uh with a standard at 10 ft. What is being proposed is 1 foot approximately 1 foot 3 in from the property line resulting in an 8 foot 7 in encroachment.

Uh and I'm going to group the first uh four variances for you all given that the staff analysis for them is quite similar. Uh the second variance is a front accessory setback. Um the standard is 15 ft proposed at 1t 11 in from the property line third which is a 13t 11in encroachment. Uh the reason why the trash enclo the trash enclosure um in order to meet refuge management needs uh required uh you know strict accessory setback variances because it does have a roof and four walls. Right. So we do consider that an accessory building um even though it also it serves the purpose and use as a trash enclosure. And then the side principle setback to the west side the standard is 10 ft uh what's proposed is 5 ft for a 5ft encroachment and then a parking variance. Uh the parking requirement for the CK2 zone district is one space per 900 square ft which the exact calculation results in a requirement of 1.02 parking spaces. Uh but given you have to round up to the nearest whole number uh that sets the required parking at two spaces. the requested uh variance is to limit that um to zero spaces for parking. Um as you'll see in the site plan, there is right-of-way parking um directly in front of 1133 Oak Street. Uh for many, many years, there's been a handshake agreement uh between the city and the owners of Smell That Bread that

that parking could be utilized. um and it has been before the relocation of the Marshall House. Uh for parking spaces, I believe three, as well as for placement for the current trash enclosure. Um just this past year, the owners overlook development were granted a variance um to officially use that right-of-way parking from our public works director. And uh that parking is required in order to maintain the parking requirements not just for smell that bread but for the two living units above smell that bread. Um and you know staff specific to the parking uh variance requested does feel that that is in line with um the proposed use and the availability of parking along the street and then as well as with public lots. Uh so for those first four setbacks um you'll see in the packet that staff analysis um does find the variance to be consistent with the criteria for approval considering that those four variances do not injure or adversely impact legal conforming uses of the uh vicinity and surrounding area is compatible with the policies in the comp plan and other plans. plans and I will list those out in just a moment here. Um, and then you'll see that staff really made the determination through analysis that the request only partially meets um unnecessary hardship given that there are special circumstances of the property and of the lot. lot size, topography, sloping, um water body setback, but the owner is

making that decision and that choice to move that structure to the lot. That is their choice. Um and so when looking at both unnecessary hardship um that is found to more fully be met um accompanied with acceptable alternative. Um and the acceptable alternative is met as it does further the CDC section 111A and B. So that is our historic preservation program policies and goals. um specifically maintaining accordance with the Secretary of the Interior standards as well as other federal standards that are laid out in the Code of Federal Regulations specific to historic preservation tax credits and the moving of properties. Um I'd like to touch on that really quickly. Uh so the code of federal regulations title 36 67 chapter 4 section H um very specifically says that if a property is moved in its historic it must a be historic in its original location and b you must find to whatever degree you can a lot in which you can mimic the surrounding environment. because a structure interacts with its environment, right? And that's how you create that overall historical context. And so the placement as the preservation planner, I feel quite lucky that this lot was open um for infill and and placement of the Marshall House. uh particularly because Soda Creek runs right behind it uh which is a very key feature from its original

context at its original location at 13412th Street. Um and so the angle of the property also mimics the angle of the property and the bay window particularly in relation to how it was positioned originally when it was on 12th Street. And so we do feel that looking at both the unnecessary hardship of some of the properties, special circumstances, topography, lot size characteristics and the acceptable alternative in furthering other CDC plans and policies is consistent with the criteria for the for approval in regards to compatibility with other policies uh in the comprehensive plan and other plans. We did just approve, city council adopted our historic preservation plan. Um, and we do have preservation specific policies and goals outlined in the newly adopted 2025 comprehensive plan. Specifically, the values that uh this project brings forward in the community plan align with thriving community, diverse economy and identity, sustainability and resiliency and then emphasize and honor heritage and culture and a vibrant culture. Uh the key initiatives under maintain the community are number two promote growth, promote compact growth, adaptive reuse and infill development. We're promoting the reuse of an existing historic resource with infill on a condo platted lot. And number six, architectural standards and historic preservation. It meets the goals and recommendations and strategies within the historic preservation plan as well as federal and state policies and goals. uh key initiatives fund the future.

Number three, be a strong regional economic partner. Uh this project does support the economic development in the ecosystem as the proposed use supports a business lending activities in historic preservation with community tours of the space. Uh the downtown plan which was adopted in 2019. This project supports land use and zoning goals. Number one, maintain land use that contribute to street level vibrancy and critical retail core. Uh land use and zoning goals. Two, encourage a diversity of land uses that support locals and tourists. This proposed use does just that. Number three, support existing and potential local downtown retailers or improve experential retail. Uh the arts, culture, and heritage goals in the downtown plan that this projects meet include goal one, preserve and protect the existing historic structures in downtown. Number two, strengthen downtown as a historic district. Um, this project actually will enable a potential historic district with both the Smell That Bread property, the laundry building next door, and then the Marshall House, which would potentially be one of our first uh commercial historic districts at the local level, which is pretty important. Uh number three in arts, culture and heritage goals of the downtown plan, support and promote and manage events in downtown for the benefit of locals and visitors. And then for the historic preservation plan, amplify the historic character of Steamboat Springs through identification and protection of significant historic and cultural resources. Uh, and goal number two, prioritize the continued use of local landmarks and support their listing

to the Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places, particularly promote the continued use of local landmarks. Uh in regards to the water body setback, um I'm not going to go in detail um into all eight of the criteria for approval. Overall, each were found as consistent. I would like to highlight that this is the least modification. Uh this does not of course injure or impact any other legal conforming uses of the vicinity. Um the variance is necessary due to the lot characteristics particularly. Uh if you look at what is buildable um outside of the 50oot water body setback, you have about 4.5% of buildable area. Um if you look at the placement of the structures in the surrounding vicinity on that same side of Oak Street, um they are all also sitting within the 50ft water body setback. Of course, they were likely uh built prior to that. Um, and then I'd also like to highlight the disadvantage of reasonable economic use for the property, um, if it were not able to be permanently placed in the water body setback. Uh, in regards to the conditions for your consideration, conditions of approval, uh, all three of those conditions of approval are, uh, placed from a historic preservation review standpoint. The conditions vary in terms of prior to building permit issuance and

then also following building permit issuance. Um really specific to the section of the structure where the later Marshall House edition was removed. Um, I think it's important that, uh, Chanse, when she digs in, hopefully after a building permit, is able to get in there and find where the original windows were and what the size of those windows were. Um, and you know, you can't do that without a building permit. And so, I've touched on that. Um we're also proposing uh the requirement of materials testing and analysis by a professional um simply in terms of recreating any uh wood trim or decorative features. Um if we can utilize the same type of wood that was historically utilized, that would be great, right? Um and then also with paint analysis. Um there are some pretty wonderful technologies out there. um for quite reasonable prices and it could actually help us match what exact colors were used um and at what points of time across history they were used. Uh there's also a condition specific to um a variety of building features uh that staff would like to be able to continue to review um if this project is um approved by both planning commission and city council uh prior to moving into building permit. One reason for that is the way that our code is written. Um once a development plan is approved, our historic preservation commission is not able to review future building permits and so we want to make sure that there is still some sort of um staff oversight

on on that work. Thank you. Great. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any questions from commissioners to staff or the applicant? Come on. Add a girl. No, go ahead. I'll be here all day.

You're going to make me go first, aren't you? Okay. Um, my questions are primarily about the parking varants. Um does smell that bread have any parking on site? Um the parking that is utilized in the right of way um is for again staff of smell that bread and then tenants above smell that bread. Um, I'm unsure of how many parking spaces are solely dedicated for smell that bread use, but I know there is parking along 11th Street. I'm going to chime in, but I'm going to ask the applicant team if I get this wrong to correct me. Um from our research on the um when the property was condo platted that created the the two residential units above the bakery. Um there are two spaces I think two parking spaces located either partially or wholly within the right of way that were um sort of approved to for to meet the parking demand or need of the residential units. I don't think there's any parking dedicated to the bakery the retail space. Is that correct? Okay, [laughter] for the record, Joella West. Um, it's a very mysterious and very steamboat site when I and my husband decided that it made sense to buy at least the lower floor where Smelllet Bread is. The thing

had been condominiumized. Um I want to say 2012 maybe. Yeah, close enough. I think um that that parking which I think of as as a weird bumpout was was already there. Um, it was informally dedicated to the two residential units above smell that bread and a third space that is actually used by the business for the the well for a long time for their delivery van. It's [laughter] it it's nowhere recorded clearly as to how those parking spaces came to be. Obviously, they came to be a long time before Smell that bread came into existence, but that is what those parking spaces have been used for since I was first acquainted with the property. Yeah, we did a lot of digging and research to try to understand how the property was condo platted, h what the parking situation was. The records are pretty scarce or non-existent, but um I believe there's a revocable license that has been granted for the spaces in the right of way now.

There is now. There is now. So, we have this is the first time, right? So we, you know, it sort of was informal before we weren't really sure how or why, but it that the property owner has gone through the process to request a revocable license and the city has granted that. So they have the lawful right to use those spaces even though they're um in the right of way for their private parking needs typically.

Or are you on that same topic? I want to follow you change the topic. One more on that topic and maybe it's the same one as you, but typ typically um when we're reviewing a site that has multiple buildings on it, we're looking at everything on it. Correct. Is there a reason that we're not What? How am I trying to ask this question? Um I'm I'm wondering why we're not also concerned about the lack of parking for the other building because to code I would imagine we would need more even just for the condos. Is that

Yeah, that's a great question. So our code actually says so what we have what we can would consider the site to be right now without the Marshall House on it would be non-conforming with current parking standards. Um, but our code says any additional square footage added, you have to make up, you're just looking to make up the difference. We're not asking looking back saying now you have to bring the existing site up to code. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. That's great. I was just going to double check. So, the the reciprocal license, is that what you said it was? Revocable. Revocable. There it is. Um, is that for all three spaces or was it just two for the condo uses? It's probably for all three. I my I apologize. My memory was wrong.

No, that's great. That just helps. I've been kind of wondering why a three parking space driveway wasn't trying to utilize at least one of the three for the two required parking spaces. But you're saying it's because all three are already accounted for, I guess, is the way I'll put that. Right. the three were already sort of there to meet the needs of what's existing on the site licensed for whatever however you want to okay thank you that was all

I don't know how to ask that question maybe this is silly but was there any thought to expanding that up there and adding one more space is there not space for that or was that a consideration or do we not want to expand the parking in the right away. Hi, I'm Sam Gordon. My wife and I own Smell That Bread. Uh just off the top of my head and Chancy will correct me if I'm wrong. Uh since the undergrounding of the utilities, there is now a box and a pedestal where that any additional parking would go to expand that right away

or Ryan can help.

I'm Ryan Spa with Lar Consultants for the civil engineer. Um I also happened to be around in 2009 when this plot was recorded. Um, and what I would say is that it it was just a different time and a different place and the paperwork was not what we do now. Um, and one of the big changes since then is that parking the CDC now specifically requires that parking is on your property. So even there are some utility and grade issues with adding more parking. That would still be a variance for this particular application because it's in the right of way and it's not on the property. But as Sam said, there's some utility challenges and then there's also a pretty significant grade difference there. Um, as well as we're trying to um the the existing building has, you know, that bottom floor is actually exposed there. So that's also part of the challenge with filling there. But if we even if we did that, it would still be a variance.

Sure. Other questions.

Sure. Um, Caitlyn, thanks for the great write up, by the way, and for including the HPC uh, minutes recently. Um, very helpful. One of the discussions at HPC was around the condition and adding the word professional. Can you just give a summary of that discussion and do you feel comfortable using that term and and how do you check that off when it comes to it? Because that's really a there's no def true definition of the word professional, I would think, or it may be wrong. That's a great question. Um, yes, it was my suggestion to add the word professional. Um, for a lack of better terms, in my professional opinion, um, you know, preservation is a very niche field and there are experts out there that have the, excuse me, that have the equipment, that have the knowledge, that I mean, think about it in ter in terms of carbon dating, right? we're not going to go to a CMC intern and ask them to carbon date an artifact. Um, and so I really do feel that adding that that term professional in there best suits the project um and and helps set um set our community up for success and in terms of technical expertise.

So there's no certification or anything other term that could be used? Um, I suppose certification certified could be used. I might want to look up and make sure that they are certified in X, Y, or Z prior to that. It's just a hard one. Um, yeah.

Okay. Thank [clears throat] you. And then one other question and it may be for the applicant is so on the trash and it and um the way I saw the design is the trash is strictly for the Marshall house or is that incorrect? Will that be shared by smell that bread? And if so, how? Because it looks like it's it's elevated and how will they get there?

Yeah, that's a great question. Um, currently the smell that bread trash and the condo or the living units above um use a trash recepticle that's located in the right ofway. So, we're actually we're pulling that a little bit closer to the building and um and it will be challenging. They'll have to take the sidewalk out and around to take the trash out from the businesses. Um but this was really kind of the best solution that we came up with the service provider. We met for quite a while on site and looked at a lot of different options. Um so while inconvenient it meets the intent of the code and the um the practicality of of refues. Great. So restate it is the trash will be shared among the two buildings on the property. Correct. Thank you.

Any other questions? I might have some.

Uh first one on for staff I believe well actually for anyone who wants to answer it. uh the architectural inventory document that is included. Um a notice that that inventory was done with the building on its previous location. How does Well, before I get to that, they said that this building was uh eligible for local um historic designation but not state or federal. Can you tell me what it was missing to reach that higher standard? Uh yes. So typically for let me back up before I dive in real quick. Um just to note our architectural inventory forms that's part of a survey. So a historical survey. Um they're done in a [clears throat] snapshot of time, right? And they're completed by a variety of professionals if we'd like to say. Um it's a requirement of our certified local government. So that's the program that our preservation program is part of to update those inventories. Um some of them are outdated. Um new information has come about and so I just want to make sure everyone's clear that inventory has not been updated since 2012. um at the time if you're to review the information under I believe it's typically section 467 and 8 on that inventory form um there's pretty sparse information about the gross becks and about the Marshall families um not much was documented and however we know that those families and that the house in terms of its architectural and historical importance is significant locally.

In order to be significant at the state level, it would have to have a certain level of criteria of significance and importance for the entire state of Colorado. Um, multiple counties of Colorado. Um, and then again at the national level, uh, the same criteria for importance but significant at the national level. um only the and if you were to pretend hypothetically that that state box was clicked um that's a recommendation that's documented on the form only the state and national uh historian uh who works for the state historic preservation office in Colorado can actually approve that uh eligibility. Um, so if I were to update that form, I would likely check the state box um and would request uh state significance as well. Um, just given what we know about the people and what we're learning to find.

Okay. Uh so does the is this document just a a step that you had to take or does the the information in this document uh substantiate the local decision that this has property has historic sign significance or not?

That's also a great question. Um so by code the historic preservation planner determines local eligibility and significance. uh this form that you have, it's formal term is a 1403 state form. It's an intensive level survey form. Um so it's a survey form that we would complete and actually file with the state for properties that we would like to learn more information about and we'd like to formally document. Um it is not required to determine local significance. Great. Y thank you. Um the next thing I heard you had said you talked about building orientation. Uh the picture both on the inventory and in historic pictures that were included in our packet both highlight the bay window and you said that the current proposed orientation reflects the previous orientation. It reflects the orientation of the footprint of the house in relationship to being parallel um to Soda Creek. So, if you were to be standing on the former lot, I'm going to get my directions messed up here. Uh the the south elevation of its former placement was parallel to the lot. Um, another really similar characteristic of the original lot and the proposed lot is the topography. Um, it was slightly um I mean it was significantly steep. Um, and the topography dropped off towards Soda Creek which is also similar here. Though just to be clear, uh the orientation

similarities do not include its orientation to the street. Uh not fully its orientation to the street. Um if you were standing directly in front of the Marshall House along 12th Street, the home was still at an angle. It wasn't at such a significant angle, but that bay window was not uh directly facing uh 12th Street. But was that bay window visible from 12th Street? Not with the vegetation.

Not with the vegetation. The picture makes it look otherwise, but okay. Um I don't even know where to start. Um the more I'd love to hear more. Um, thank you, Rebecca. Uh, if you're viewing the orientation along Oak Street, not just 12th Street, its placement and angle is also very similar. The proposed placement mimics the original placement in comparison to Oak in relationship to Oak Street.

Ah, okay. So, we didn't just take into consideration 12th Street, um, but also Oak Street.

Okay. Um, gosh, I don't even know where to go if someone wants to jump. Well, I can let me go I'll go back to the area plan. Uh, community canvas key initiative number six talks about and all throughout the uh canvas, it really does talk about the importance of historic preservation. I would not undermine that uh goal. But one of the key sentences I saw in this one was uh that this key initiative works towards the goals of historic preservation. And I'm adding emphasis in addition to the community design standards. Correct. I didn't misread that in any way. Basically, it's saying we we love historic preservation, but we're not ignoring it doesn't get a I'm going to editorialize here. It doesn't get a free pass

just because it's historic preservation. Yep. Go ahead.

So, in terms of our community development code, when we have conflicting standards, we look at what standard is the most strict. And so when we are trying to preserve architectural characteristics, we defer to the secretary of the interior standards which are federal design standards and we also defer to our local historic design guidelines which are adopted by city council. And so typically we wave our community um design standards if the property is listed and following preservation standards. Yeah, let me let me clarify what Caitlyn's saying are in the CDC. The design standards, there's a provision that if it's a historic building, then the design standards do not apply. I think what you're getting at is um the request for variances for the with justification that it furthers the preservation goals. Is that sort of what you're speaking to?

No.

Okay. the the design standards that I'm going to be going to says for for Oak Street, the building should be primarily facing the street. The primary entrances need to be facing the street. Also, the historic preservation code that that I wrote somewhere said that the important features should also be fa should be facing forward. And then also any building should also be the the building lines should also be parallel to the lot lines. And we have this cattywankus placement of it showing to us now. and those three things and also that the primary entrance needs to be facing the main street. Now, while the door itself kind of faces the street, the invitation is not facing the street. It's a long way to walk from the street to get to the actual entrance. And it seems to me I think that this house would certainly look better, if not meet the code better, if the bay window was facing the street. That's the to me that's the visual importance. I'm certainly I'm not an expert on the historical importance, but everything I've read that a lot of the details that were called out that make this a unique building are some of the fenestrations on that bay window facade, which is being hidden in this current orientation. And I see places in their code where it says that's not supposed to happen. Now, if you're telling me we can ignore all that because it's historic, I didn't see that in my reading of the CDC. So,

yeah. So I I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt and that would be it and but you bringing up the variances. I would also wonder how those come into play as well. So I would um be happy to respond to that. So section 435C provides for an exemption to the community design standards. Um and that states that developments approved by the historic preservation commission in accordance with the secretary of interior standards shall be exempt from the community design standards in this division. So that is going to include all of the standards including those CK design standards.

Okay, you just saved yourself a lot of time. um with re I I'm I'd like to just respond to the variance question like sort of um you'll see and as Caitlyn went through um the acceptable alternative is what um staff has relied on for justification of the variance requests um particularly that alternative of that the proposed plan better meets other code intents so it is a trade-off I mean there we will fully acknowledge that as is when you use that same standard for many other um variance requests and other projects. We're saying we could we could say no and this proposed building would have to strictly meet all of the code standards or we can say we um are willing to vary those because we think it's more important because it can better align with our preservation

um purposes and intents and standards um if we allow for those variances. And that's where staff's analysis has landed. Any other questions?

This is for staff. Um, and I'm getting crossed up a little bit on the structure and the use. Um, procedurally how those are linked or independent like will it if this goes forward, will it be the lounge and tavern or could it be a daycare and hot dog stand too? Um so what they're proposing is the tavern and the um restaurant tavern cigar lounge

um which we're considering a retail service type use. So those are permitted uses in that zone district. If those businesses don't um succeed or you know the property sell you know any number of things down the road could happen. Um, if it's a use that the code allows by right in that zone district, the use can change without coming through for approval. If it were to be proposed to change to some other kind of use that would require conditional use approval, then that would come back to planning commission. Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

Does this development plan not require any storm water treatment facility right there in the flood plane? I don't see any. Is that a variance?

No. Uh that this project did not meet the requirements to provide storm water quality. So there was no variance. Okay. Is that because it just doesn't have any hardcape? Is that

essentially and no new parking? Great. Any other questions? I'll ask a couple real quick. Um, just humor me. I I was thinking about different ways that it could have been some of these variances could have been mitigated and I assume you explored these, but help me understand if and how you explored them. The front property line that has this jog to it, you know, caught my eye really quickly. Um, did we take a look at why why the ride ofway is narrower at Smell That Bread and why it gets to 80 feet wide in front of the Marshall House and if the parking already has this revocable license in front of it, did you look at maybe this property owner buying that rectangle in front of the Marshall House and kind of bringing more of the parking onto the site and then the front setback variance would have gone away as well.

Um, I'm going to ask Ryan to correct me if I get this wrong, but I believe that there are utilities in there um within that rightway. The city was not um interested in giving up any of the right of way there. So, why that property line is joged, I I don't know. That's a historical circumstance. Um but there was not a desire to um vacate any of that right ofway. And I believe that there are utilities and easements that would there are utilities there that would have necessitated easements if the they weren't in the right ofway which would have then pro prohibited the building from being placed closer.

Right? Not that the building would have been closer, but the parking would have been now on the on the property and the setback would have been met because the setback and the easement would have been the same. Oh, I see what you're saying where I was coming from. I mean, I guess it could have made some of the math work. Um, but again, it would we would have been, you know, essentially what you see on the ground wouldn't change. Absolutely. So, um, yeah, I don't think that that was contemplated and I don't think that that was something that the city would have entertained. Do you have nothing to add? That's great. No, I was just going to add that uh on the north side of Oak Street there is a corresponding jog. Oh, is there? There is. I don't Nobody really knows why, but so there they do have a consistent 80 ft.

Maybe because of the direction of the creek, they just joged everything. Who knows?

It's fun to guess. Thank you. Any other questions? So, one question given Gavin's question around use, um, the use that's being presented here does include the cigar lounge and this was a conversation at HBC also around and and you mentioned it in your staff report that this is an enclosed area. Um, but I I'm a little confused around the patio on the back that has a door to the mechanical area. Um, so people always try to find a path of least resistance. And I'm concerned about nuisance to neighbors because cigars are very stinky. That's a technical term. Um, and finding ways that folks could go outside um, and making sure those are managed appropriately. So I see this patio um, if I'm looking I guess from the back, cigar lounge is here. There's a patio on the right with a door to the mechanical area. Am I interpreting that correctly, Chansancy? Is that one? Is that the only door to the mechanical area? And is there any way for individuals to get to this patio for potential use?

There is not. Okay. Um the only access to the cigar lounge is through the building from the the ground floor entrance down the stairs or the elevator to this level. There's no door anything from any of the spaces, even the office to the exterior, from the basement level. Um the mechanical room door access was simply um a function of of laying out a business in this really tight space um and having that located next to the cigar lounge. Okay. Is there a different is there an additional door to the mechanical space and this is probably over and above our but I'm there's not no this only access. Great. Other questions?

I'll ask Gavin's question a different way. Even though the staff report represents a speak easy lounge, the what we're approving is a restaurant use. Is that correct? The allowable use is for a restaurant and tavern in which we feel a speak easy does fit inside of. Yes. So any any restaurant or tavern use can go in there, not not just the one that's being depicted by the applicant without [clears throat] further review by us. That's correct because it would not be a change of use.

I understand completely. Um I had another one. Oh, the walking tour thing is that that the I think and I think this is a valuable component that we're talking about allowing historic visit, you know, tourist visitation, whatever to appreciate the historic value. Is that part of the operating plan? What if somebody decides we don't want these people walking around in here anymore? Do we have any oversight with that? We do not. So, it's moot. Thank you. Uh, I think those were my two big questions on that topic. Any other questions?

Um, I have a question about the water body setback. Um, just help me understand that you have a you both staff and applicant have a great lengthy um, justification on and criteria, lots of criteria to choose from. Um, I was curious how I was curious how that works into the direction that water body setback criteria are kind of going and water quality. Um, the city has made a lot of headway with that. I don't think we've put anything in writing and and we're only being required to follow the CDC today, but is this going directly in the face of what those new goals are going to be?

That's a really good question.

I know. Um, I don't know. I mean, maybe, you know, we kind of, you know, we did that preliminary work through the sustainability challenge earlier this year. We do have in our work program. We're going to be seeking some grant funding to hopefully take that to the next level where we actually can start doing the technical studies to figure out what the, you know, what the dis required distances are from different streams. um and then to further sort of um build out those different variance scenarios that we talked about. But again, I mean I to say what that final product will look like if and when it gets approved. I

might be off topic a little bit, but I was just kind of picturing those kind of zero to five setback numbers that we had talked about and that this is really up against um that water quality relationship, right? And I think if I'm remembering right, the the orientation um as Caitlin, you've already said, the orientation is similar from one property to the other, but the distance relationship to the creek has become significantly closer. And so, um, I guess what that turns into my last question kind of related to that is did the applicant consider or did staff require any kind of soil stabilization or plantings or anything kind of within that area to help mitigate how close the building is to the high water mark?

Chie, do you want to respond to that? I'm not aware of any requirements that are in place for that. However, um ethically and through good faith, we did very much intentionally place this building so that it's not encroaching into the delineated wetlands and the flood plane um just to kind of protect those sensitive areas. As far as the water body setback goes, um we are obvious the the entire site really is within the water body setback which would um make this completely undevelopable um from today's standards if we weren't granted that variance.

Yeah. And I will just add staff did not ask for any additional um landscaping beyond what the code would have required. And I you can see what's proposed on Um the site plan I can't read the sheet number. Um that's okay. Okay. Yeah.

No, I understand. I guess where I um you know a few of the criteria were things like you know um injure or adverse impact you know legal non-conforming uses uh of course is a big one but also um I think it's higher up it's number three maybe. No, that's the strict application. Sorry, I'm gonna miss which number it is. We've got least modification. I guess basically is the answer to my question that there's just no criteria that we currently have in the CDC that would require some kind of mit mitigation um of the impact that a building this close to a water body would have if we were to grant an encroachment like this. And maybe the answer is no. There isn't anything in the CDC that could require that. Um I think that if you felt like um you couldn't make the finding for that water body setback variance without a condition of some you know something some mitigating um treatment. I think that's certainly something that the planning commission can discuss um with the applicant and see if they're agreeable to that. But I think certainly, you know, staff found that that the criteria for approval that the what was proposed was consistent with those planning this, you know, it's planning commission's job to make that, you know, next decision. Um, and so if you're not comfortable making the findings based on those eight or so criteria, um, I think that would be an appropriate discussion to have.

Well, like I say, I'm a little stuck thinking about the new potential direction of water body setbacks versus what's currently in there. And I don't want to misremember what is really in our purview today. So I'm I'm trying to be careful, but at the same time, you know, um that is an impact, right? It's pushing, how far are we pushing? 46 feet into the water body setback. Is that right? Um I'm pretty sure it doesn't even matter if I get the number right. Like we're we're pushing it so far in that it seems like that that

meeting the intent of the water body setback somehow. Um, well, I would think that the intent has a lot to do with water quality and vegetation and things like that. I definitely appreciate the applicant's answer, but I'm trying to figure out if is there is there a way to to or is there something that was impacted that staff found should be mitigated? That's I guess my last related question. I think that we were really happy to see that the building was not located. It did was not impacting the flood plane. Yeah. Um or the wetlands in that area. Um, likewise, and I appreciate that that comment from the applicant as well. Okay.

I will add, Brian, that it's a pretty heavily vegetated site. Um, if we'd like to put that out there. Uh, and in the landscaping plan, they do have plans to reestablish the historic gardens and do research about what plants were there through connections with the marshals. And I just want to reiterate what Rebecca said. If planning commission feels it's up for discussion to explore a potential condition of approval for mitigation in relation to what you had said uh you know potential plantings or establishing something there for some sort of separation and protection of the water. I think the owners may be open to that.

Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse too much. I appreciate you're going to give an answer to that. But while you're going to answer that, can you also help me understand the landscape plan looks like most of that heavy vegetation is going away. There's some massive trees on kind of the southwest corner that are staying, but for there's not much else between the creek and the house once it's done. There's a very small piece of land that's going to be left by the time this building is

is put in place. There's no question about that. Um, the intent has always been to at least give respect to the garden that was on the original site. And we have lots of marshals who have fond memories of of what that was. To the extent that any of that is possible, it it's our intention to build that. But having trumped through that lot for what 15 years now, um there's a there's a drop off into the creek, there's there's a whole lot of natural vegetation along there. Um that's not going to go away. I'd be an idiot if I told you we were we were just going to get rid of the vegetation that grows there. That would that would be crazy. So what I see inside here is the vegetation continues to exist there. It's it's controlled at a certain point so that it doesn't take over the entire remaining bit of land and that land is planted. You want to get into the weeds, pardon me, the weeds with this. It's it's uh it's Mrs. Marshall's cherry trees that she harvested with her kids and her grandkids and she canned and she did there's loads and loads and loads of history of what the Marshall family did. Mrs. Marshall loved peies and she had a peie hedge. I have never seen a picture of that but a peie hedge is a peie hedge. That's entirely possible to do if we have enough sun down there. Um, we actually uprooted and brought over and are babysitting have been for the last

18 months Mrs. Marshall's uh uh dillies and they'll go back in there maybe even in the place where she had them. Who knows? It's it's not it's not going to be a major garden. It can't be. It's too small and it needs to be historic. The trees that you see on here are not because we said, "Wouldn't it be cool to put trees there?" It's because those were required by the by the uh planning folks.

Okay. And the beauty, it sounds amazing. Don't get me wrong. What I'm worried about and what I think I'm kind of maybe a little bit hearkening to as well is like those big retaining walls that are by Smell That Bread and Creekide restaurants that are trying to reduce reduce or remove erosion and things like that. Not really water quality necessarily, but reducing erosion. And I'm wondering if we're kind of pushing in to the creek just as far as those buildings are, but not providing soil soil stabilization and then something bad's going to happen. That's ultimately what I'm worried about. I hope we don't even have to talk about building retaining walls there. I think that would be awful. You're going to get pictures here. Okay. I'm I'm I'm not sure what I should be pointing at.

Um I don't have specific pictures to this. I wasn't necessarily prepared to show those. We do have them on file, but you can see in the photo of the the haunted house looking photo to the left of this is where the creek is and there is that thick vegetation still. The foundation for the structure will fall approximately where you see the cribbing. Um so as far as as maintaining those plants that are right along the creek, those still exist today even after moving this house onto the site. And the intent is to stay very much out of those delineated wetlands etc. Um, so thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions? I have another question kind of in followup to one of um Rick's questions. The um sorry, Rich's questions. The the house I imagine I imagine you tried orienting this on the site many many different ways. Can you talk to us about why you wouldn't want to face that beautiful bay window towards the front?

Certainly, because I think we all would love to see the bay window facing the street as well. Um, however, it doesn't physically fit in that orientation. Um, we we spent a lot of time trying to figure this out and in order to preserve the historic resource, this was the only orientation that we could that we could come up with. Um, again through many many many studies that didn't impact the wetlands and the flood plane also those were kind of critical elements that we just didn't want to encroach into. And then getting closer to the creek and having to have retainage along the creek bank to prevent erosion, etc. Um, this is this is where we landed. When you say it didn't physically fit, you mean it didn't fit on the lot in that orientation or the setbacks were similar or it just it flat out didn't go into the lot that direction?

It it's longer in one direction than the other. So when we turn it so that the bay window faces the street, unfortunately that pushes a large portion of the structure into the wetlands and the flood plane and closer to the creek where we do become concerned with erosion etc. So, in staying out of those sensitive areas, this is the only orientation that we could um that we could make the the structure physically fit. We're touching the um the flood plane and wetlands in two two corners already. So, that's that the little wiggle room to get the orientation as parallel to the street as possible. Um, and in doing so and orienting it this way, we had a kind of a fun little discovery like, oh, this is actually the same orientation that it was on the other site. So, that was a little bit of a, you know, we can lean into that and I'll accept it in order to preserve the historic resource. Thanks. Um, chair, staff would like to respond as well.

Sure. Is that all right? You want to hear? Yeah. Yeah, that's great.

Um, in addition to that, uh, this placement was staff's recommendation. um they will be going in for federal historic preservation tax credits and um in regards to the acceptable alternative that really is that federal language in terms of mimicking site placement and topography as well. So, um, again, when you look at the angle and the placement on Oak Street, um, it really does meet that need in addition to if it were twisted, we'll say, angled differently. Um, everything that Chansy just covered is of course in place.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions? I have a followup for staff on my question of the uh the choice to emphasize the historic preservation aspects of our code over the CDC. You said that's a staff decision. Um we're not emphasizing historic preservation over the CDC. Uh our historic preservation program and powers and duties are part of the CDC, right? But specifically the uh design guidelines uh design guidelines they are exempt from I think what you're talking about are other development standards. Sorry I'm not trying to like mince your words. No

the code explicitly exempts them from the design standards. Period. That was that that was not a staff decision.

Correct. The variances that are requested and and included in the staff report are our development standards. You parking is a use standard. So, just kind of to be clear from that, we did not look at um transparency, you know, building design, materials, all of those things. Obviously, we want the to preserve the historic structure. And so, um that is why the CDC would explicitly exempt this building and this project from those design standards. Thank

you. Other questions? Is there any public comment on this agenda item? Yeah, great. Come on down and and please give us your name and address and and uh try and keep your comments at three minutes.

I'm Kathy Bamman and my husband Bruce and I live at 1053 Pine Street. And first I want to say that we very much appreciate that the applicant is saving this historic home. Um Caitlyn's already addressed most of our questions. We do have two remaining concerns. First, since the immediate neighbors, including us, are residential inhabitants, we'd be concerned if ours were late night, possibly causing lounge patrons to be allowed when leaving the establishment. And second, we are concerned with the potential parking variance. Parking during high season is a challenge and there is frequent illegal parking in this area. Too close to stop sign setbacks in front of driveway accesses and in front of the fire hydrant on the corner of Oaken 11th and there is very infrequent enforcement for the illegal parking. The variance narrative from the applicant dated October 30th compared their location to that of the businesses on Yampa Street. However, Yampa has ample parking on both sides of the street. There is no street parking on the south side of Oak 1133 Oak Street. The applicant's narrative also notes that their property is well connected to existing bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit access. However, in order for pedestrians to access public transit on Lincoln from 1133 Oak, they must leave the sidewalk in front of Smell That Bread on 11th Street, walk in the street across Soda Creek Bridge, and then through an angled parking space to reach the sidewalk in front of Creekide. Walking on 11th Street is particularly concerning during the dark evening hours of the winter busy season, especially since cars traveling down the 11th Street Hill from the north don't have a stop sign. I would like to suggest a striped pedestrian walkway that extends south

from the 11th Street sidewalk in front of Smell That Bread, continues over the Soda Creek Bridge on 11th Street, and then turns down the side of the angled parking in front of the Creekide patio to allow pedestrians access to the sidewalk in front of Creekide where that they then they can continue a safe access to Lincoln Avenue and the public transportation. Um, excuse me. There is plenty of room to do this next to the northernmost parking space in front of Creekide. We also suggest adding more no parking signage, particularly for the intersection setbacks, the driveway setbacks of nearby properties on Oak and Pine and in front of the fire hydrant on Oak and 11th. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for your comments. Is there any other public comment on this? Great. Paula Silverman and I live at a 1502 Fish Creek Falls Road, but my husband Richard and I own the property next door, the 1143 1145 duplex. And so I've come to each meeting just because I want each group to to understand my concerns where um there haven't been any answers going forward yet because there's no building permits, but I want to keep voicing them. um the when the excavation was done, it's done close to the property line and then when the city did the underground uh electrical that Sam spoke to, that sits right on the property line. And when they did that, there was, you know, parts of soil and some things that we had on our property that kind of went down into that escavated area. And so I'm we're really concerned for our property in terms of whatever is being done that it doesn't compromise our parking lot in front for our residents there at our duplex. Um, so I did read in all the plans that there plans to be a 4ft rock wall, but right now how it's excavate excavated. It's definitely deeper than 4T. So, I don't know what kind of compactions are going to be done around the lower level when it's finally done, but I

wanted to make sure that the retaining wall between the properties are done. And with the front porch being 5 ft off the property line, then that wall is basically going to be less than that, you know, next to what the property line is. And if you go on down the property line towards the creek, there's an old log retaining retaining wall. And I don't know if that's going to get compromised when things are finally being done or not and and what plans are being made for that. So that was just a concern that um we really have. And then um again, one of you had questioned about exits to the lower level. So my understanding now is that they're not workable doors and windows, but there has to be an emergency exit door. And in the last meeting I was at, they talked about there's an emergency exit door, but it's not a regular in andout door. And I wanted to know which side of the property the pathway is going to be going down to that cuz again that that's going to be very close to either our property line or maybe it's a stair step down by their trash compactor. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, is there anybody online that would like to give comment? You can raise your hand. It's in the react area. I think no. Uh we'll close public comment and first come back to the applicant. if you have anything else you wanted to add or respond to. That's okay. Great. Thank you. Or staff Caitlyn, do you have anything else to Okay, any other final questions?

Last one. Just for the record and for the whoever's listening and the public comment, there were concerns, stated concerns about a commercial property which is completely within the zoning district and just because there's residential units next to it, they happen to also be in a semicommercial district. Can you remind us how what you don't have to remind me. There are noise and uh odor uh ordinances within the city. If there are issues with with those types of things, what is the recourse? Do what is recourse for any neighborhood complaints about that?

Yeah, that's a good question. Um, so this the subject property um sorry, I'm just trying to pull up the zoning so I get it right. But um so this entire block is um zoned this side of the block is zoned CK 2 um including the residential next door. Um the com the commercial uses are allowed by the code. Um and there are um noise ordinances with different hour different noise limits for different times of the day. If there were um to be complaints, we would investigate that there could be potential enforcement action taken if we found that the noise ordinances were being violated.

Thank you.

Any other final questions? No. I thought you had one. And just to maybe I understand every project is unique. That being said, you already kind of answered the question about parking for Smell that bread, but Laundry I don't believe has any parking on site, nor does Creekide, nor does was West. Well, no, West End does. They have an alley over there. Uh, I guess my question is how many There's a lot of um restaurants and uh retail uses around here. They are all utilizing public parking. Is that correct? Um that is correct. That you're correct. Um well there is there is um a little bit of parking behind I think the laundry building that is kind of accessible via that um alley and or the parking lot behind the west and the old west building. I know. I forget what the new restaurant.

Um, but it, you know, whether it meets the code requirements for the two restaurants and any other uses in those buildings, I don't know. Um, and I do know that the the parking at the West End building, I don't think while they have parking in the rear, it does not fully meet current code requirements for all of the uses that are in there in that building. So, there are a lot of non-conforming um uses on this particular block of downtown as well as many other blocks, especially along Oak Street, right? The other restaurants along Oak Street are dependent on that as well, I believe. Um there's not a lot of restaurants along Oak Street. I think Backdoor Burgers property, that's city property, is that parking lot, right? Oh, correct. Yes. Backdoor Burger has no

The kitchen I believe only has staff parking. And I don't think it has any um Yep. Valley Kitchen meets the code requirement, but it's very I mean it's very minimal. They do have you're correct in that I think they use it for staff, but it does meet the code requirement. Thank you. Yep. Now, that was my last question. No other questions. I'll close our public portion for this agenda item and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion. whoever wants to talk.

I um I don't have as hard of a time with the um all the setback variances. I would love to see the beautiful side of that building facing the street, but I understand both staffs and the applicants um reasoning for why that can't happen. Um, I would rather see a variance to add another parking space in the rightway than to have the variance to reduce by two. I'm kind of one two. Yeah. I mean, it's 02 over the level. So, I'd be happy with them just doing one. Um but we've we've had big issues with other um developments that are missing one parking space and not allowed them that variance in very very close to here. So it's it's very hard for me to let because I think that there is probably space for it and there's already a variance for all the parking that they do have. I would much rather see a variance for one more parking space in the right of way than to give them a variance for one less parking space. Does that make sense?

It does. I was compelled though by their their reasoning that to the east of that existing parking lot that that uh retaining wall starts and immediately on the set other side of the retaining wall or the downhill side of that retaining wall, the grade is sloping kind of at at maximum allowable slope. So, if we pushed it over, I'm not quite sure how they would do it without a really tall retaining wall then at that point. And and uh all of that being done on city rightway. I didn't see like I I fell away from because I would have loved to as well like and and like you heard me saying, I'd rather [laughter] get take away from the the public right of way that is has this weird jog in order to try and bring more things onto this property and more parking would [clears throat] be great. I don't see how with the grading that that would end up being feasible though is where I ended up. just for conversation standpoint. I think if it didn't meet exactly the city standards for what a what size a parking space was, you know, you can park more vehicles than city standards say and we're already well outside of variances, you could you could park four cars up there, but in the space their park their sidewalk and their what's there, I think that it's possible if you didn't meet the width requirements, but and we're talking lots and lots of variances, but I yeah, I just wanted to voice that I'm not super comfortable letting anyone have a a few fewer parking spaces than is required. I'd rather it be a different variance.

Yeah. Any other discussion or motion or anything? Yeah,

I'll go. Um front setback. I have no problem with that. Uh the smell that bread building has similar structure, the size of the lot, soda creek, etc. makes that a pretty hard if not impossible uh standard to meet. U front set back for the accessory building for garbage in garbage structure. I have no problem with that in any way, shape or form. Uh side setback, I was a little bit concerned about that. We've gotten public comment of people on that west side that are concerned about the commercial use being that close to their building, but the I don't know if I'm allowed to quote the CK and the zoning district uh goals, but one of them is to have minimal side setbacks and to increase the density along those those zone districts. So, I'm kind of okay with that. Parking uh I don't know what the I don't know what the alternative is to trying to meet that. Um I agree. I I don't like this kind, you know, it's parking is called out in our the community canvas as being a problem through town. Uh their strategy is to start doing more paid parking and not necessarily create more parking. But I think there is a request to do a study to see if there should be more parking downtown and this doesn't not allow not requiring parking doesn't help that end goal of meeting a parking need. um water body setback. Um again, other buildings are all within the that uh waterway as well without being and they did what they almost had to do by not putting it in the flood way. Um and that that certainly is a pretty well disturbed section of creek. I know we've talked about where where do you end where do you end that and where do you begin actually protecting the water? At what point where do you say enough is enough?

And I hear your concerns as well, but I just don't know how to address those. Uh, but in addition to that, to me, this is a square peg in a round hole. I mean, I understand the, you know, and I'm really surprised. I mean, I could have saved a lot of time if I had found the section of exempting the guideline standards cuz I was going pretty bonkers over how how this looks. I mean, the side of the building that's facing the street is a blank facade. We argue against that all the time in any other developments. And we wouldn't certainly never have allowed a building to be built this way. Um, and I really have a trouble with that. All the pictures we see, the focus on the bay window and the I'm not being a historic preservation person, just to me it's a stretch to say, well, the orientation is still along Soda Creek to where it was before. It's like, who cares about that? We want the public to be able to see this. We want people to be able to enjoy our historic preservation. And we're hiding, I think, what needs to be preserved. Um, and this, yeah, so I've had a hard time, but knowing what I know about the code, I'm having a hard time finding where my justification is without, you know, reaching deep into these variances and coming up almost with an excuse to to recommend denial. I hate I hate this. And I've, you know, I've said before, you know, the hardest part of being on planning commission is approving things I don't like and denying things I do like. Um, so I think technically I think they seem to meet the variances. This is one that again I just like square peg and round hole. This is there's nothing I like about this except that we are preserving a historic structure at the expense of many other goals. Many other goals. And the easy answer is, man, this thing would really do good exactly where it was. If only if only they would have allowed it to stay there. Uh, so if we

want to, you know, place what what caused a round peg, square peg in a round hole, right? I I think we can point back as far as we want to. Yeah. Any other discussion on this or a motion or anything? I'll move to approve. Hold on. PL 2025309 subject to the three conditions in the staff report. Okay, we have a motion. Second and a second. Great. Any other discussion on the motion? Do you want to go? I'll I'll talk.

Um I I'm in support of it. I Rich, I hear you. I like how you did go through each of the variances. Um, square peg and round hole. I think that defines us.

Okay, great. I'll go. Yeah, as far as um maybe starting similar to to you, Rich, I agree. I think that the uh the odd jog in the rideway um is creating this building. This building's relationship to Oak Street is similar to the structures on either side of it. even though it has this variance, it's jogged back in such a way that the one that doesn't have a front setback problem immediately southeast of it is just as far away from Oak Street. So, I think the intent there's no there's no like um you know special uh special aotment for this this structure and I don't think there's any special um adverse impact created by that which of course is what I I always worry about when we're talking about uh the different criteria within the variance. Um so I think that is met for both trash enclosure and uh main building primary structure uh setback. The side setback um Rich I think you actually already said it well. Uh I I I agree with you. I think it's encroachment is uh somewhat minor based on the angle of the building. I don't think it'll have uh a major detrimental impact to the structure to the west um or to the use to the west. And I think uh all the criteria provided by both um staff and applicant on that one um I think makes a lot of sense as well. Um I definitely agree with some comments already said about parking and that variance concern. Um because we all know what a concern parking is and I think that that's really the main point is that that's what's driving that concern. But ultimately, I'm not quite sure that I think that the parking impact, the 1.02 parking space impact that this code

impact is to Oak Street's uh overall parking plan, public parking plan. Um I don't think that that is too detrimental to not be able to agree with the um the the findings that staff has on that one. So, I support that one as well. And then you already heard me for entirely too long stink about the uh the water body setback. Um I understand the the hardship criteria of the many criteria that they have that this um actually entire property including where the existing building is now would be unbuildable if if strictly held to. Uh and I think um that they are meeting that criteria as well as others. Um, but the impact that it can have, I'm not quite sure I understand well enough that it's mitigated the impact that it could have to erosion control, like I say, and potential safety. Um, less so water quality, as you already pointed out, uh, Commissioner Levy, but, um, I would hate it if we tried to fit this round peg in a square hole, or let's go with triangle now. It's a triangle peg. um so you know try so hard to fit this on there that all of a sudden it is creating some kind of kind of issue on the downhill side that would be really scary to me that that was my biggest concern u I think I can find support tonight within you know staff and applicants justifications for it but it's scary to me I looks like it needs help uh on the downhill side and that's five of the great the variances. So um anybody else have anything can I just add on is I am concerned from a public health perspective of a cigar lounge. Um that's

not in our perview tonight. That's the applicant's decision to put in a cigar lounge. But um just I wish that was something that we could consider. from a public health perspective. Anybody else? And I will call for a vote. I I a reluctant I I I and that passes 5 to zero. Thank you for all your time. [snorts] Um do we have That's our only agenda item. Do we have a director's report?

Um, I don't have anything to share. Just want to remind you we do have a work session planned for Monday. We will get that packet out to you tomorrow. It'll be pretty short, but I think we'll have good discussion items for Monday. Okay, great. And uh, welcome commissioner suggestions as well, right? is part of Monday's dialogue talking about uh sequencing of of projects that you're working on, right? Policy that you're working on. Yep.

Great. Um thank you. Yeah, we have uh one set of public hearing minutes from January 8th. If there's any discussion or a motion, move to approve if there's no edits. Great motion. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. Perfect. And then that's uh it for us I believe. So uh is there a motion to adjurnn? Some moved. There second.