Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, I don't have any notes. That'll make it easier. All right, I think we'll go ahead and get started. This is our April 9th planning commission public hearing. Uh, can I start with roll call, please? Start with you all the way on the on the end. Just give us your name and roll call. Jonathan Hick. Welcome Jonathan Lutador, AJ Summers, Rich Levy, Brian Adams, Klay Cruz, and online. David, are you here? Yes. David Box. Thank you. Hey guys, before we begin agenda items tonight, is there anybody who's here who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda?

Seeing none, and if there's any public comment that you would like to make online, we would need people online, so never mind. Um then we'll go into our first agenda item. I should say our first agenda items. We will um try and combine presentation and discussion for our first two items today. These are PL 2025397 Hilltop Resort Hotel conditional use. And then for recommendation to council PL2025398 Hilltop Resort PUD. Is the applicant here for a presentation? And Brian, before we get started, I need to recuse myself for these first two items. My firm's on the design team. Thank you, AJ.

Good evening everyone. Um, thank you for your time today. Thank you chair and members of the planning commission for your time tonight and uh the care you bring to these decisions. Uh we know the role is not easy and we don't take that lightly. The opportunity to be in front of you tonight. Uh my name is Alex Smith. I'm the president of Anco Hospitality. We own and operate Hilltop Resort here in Steamboat Springs. Uh along with eight other properties across the country. Uh we've been a part of this community for over 20 years. This project's been in the community for 50 plus years. Um I want to talk a little bit about who we are as ANCO um for the flow of my presentation. Uh ANCO is a certified BC Cororp. We care deeply about our values uh people, planet and profit. It's a commitment that we have uh along with the certification. We log over thousands hours within the community uh from a volunteer standpoint and we want to be an active member uh in this community. Uh we're widely recognized as a top impact hotel uh across uh you could say the US or the country. Um we're not a faceless developer. We have a presence here and we want to continue to grow within Steamboat. Uh we want to help Steamboat retain what makes it special and we want to be here for a long time. Uh with that being said, I want to talk a little bit about why we're here tonight. You know, we've operated at this property as a hotel for decades. Ownership patterns have changed, names have changed, um but we still operate and look and function like a hotel. Uh staff has confirmed that in the report. Um, we're simply asking for the zoning to reflect the reality that has existed for years. Um, no no new construction, no change in use, no change in traffic patterns are happening here. Uh, nothing will impact our neighbors or the community in any way. Uh, staff confirmed in their review this application does not trigger any new infrastructure requirements under the community development code because nothing operating is changing.

Um, I'll talk a little bit of how we got here. Um, we like to collaborate with the city, with the community, and we took that approach here in every step of the way. Um, when staff had comments, we incorporated them. When staff asked to refine, we refined them. Um, all to get to um, a process that we feel the staff could support. Um, as our operations evolved over the years and the property functioned increasingly as a hotel, a question arose about how we best align our zoning with the reality. Uh, the city helped us identify the right path forward and we pursued it. Uh, that was a productive relationship with local government that we try to embody in every area we operate. I want to talk a little bit about the PUD component here. Uh, the workforce housing commitment in this application. As we know, the PUD process requires us to demonstrate a community benefit. Um, so when we sat back and really wanted to understand what the Steamboat community needed, housing was our obvious answer. Um, we know this community struggles with it. The people who make Steamboat function, hospitality workers, service workers, teachers, uh, often can't afford to live here. So, we're committed to four work workforce housing units within the existing building footprint. That's a real cost, a real commitment to us. Uh, we didn't design this benefit around what was the cheapest, mo most convenient for us. We designed it around the thought that would be the most meaningful to the community. We hope the commission sees it that way, too. In closing, uh, you know, we're we're good neighbors. We've been here for over 20 years. We want to keep operating, keep employing local people, keep contributing to this community, and and keep being the kind of company that Steamboat can be proud of to have here. So, with that, we respectfully ask that your approval and welcome any questions you have.

Great. Thank you very much. And Kelly, you have a presentation for us as well?

I do. Kelly Douglas, senior planner. Um, so this is two items. I'm going to summarize the context that applies to both. I'll talk about both applications, kind of what the deal is, and then go through staff's findings. Um, and then for your part, you can make two different motions for the for the two different applications. Um, but thank you for considering these together. I think it cuts down a little redundancy because the background is shared. Um, so the subject property, it's located at 1000 High Point Drive. It's zoned MF1, multiple family one. Uh, for background, again, this is shared between both applications. The planned unit development or PUB, we'll call it, and conditional use. Um, so for background, the existing 82,580 ft building was constructed in 1972 as a Raada hotel. This was prior to annexation into the city. Um, in 1996, so quite a while after that, um, the hotel use was terminated to convert the building to a time share multiple family residential use. That happened um, 1996. I think I mentioned that. Um, today the building consists of 56 units, 21 lockoff rooms, and two commercial spaces that are currently unused and that's all served by 114 parking spaces. Historically, under the time share model, units not occupied by time share owners were made available uh through uh for rental through centralized management. And over time, as ownership patterns change and more units are uh returned to management control, a greater portion of those units become available for rental. As a result, the overall operation of the property has shifted away from individual time share ownership

occupancy toward more transient lodging consistent with hotel operations. Um this shift over time is not uh is not influenced by the property owner. Uh they don't have control over who sells or who defaults on their time share. Um importantly it as I said it it's shifted gradually over time and also without any changes to the physical development. So the change in owners has been happening and the building has remained the same. uh the the use is kind of almost on a sliding scale is like one way you could think about it. Um the use is sorry as a result overtime the current operation it no longer aligns with the uses permitted in the MF1 zone district. MF1 doesn't allow hotel at this time. Um so as yeah the use the use is not recognized as legally non-conforming under the community development code as it was not formally established or approved as such and it cannot continue in its current form without approval of a a zoning mechanism that allows the use. Uh so that's where the planned unit development application the beauty before you comes in this evening. The applicant's proposing to modify a very limited surgical part of the use chart um to just allow hotel as a conditional use in the MF zone district at this specific location. So, it's a very um tight change is the is the proposal. Um and with the approval of the PUD, if it's approved, uh the second request before you this evening is the conditional use. So the PUD allows the use to be considered would potentially change the zoning and the conditional use is what allows the hotel use to continue. So that those are the two zoning mechanisms there. The conditional use would formalize the

existing hotel operation within the building. That would be the outcome of an approval. And again, there's no expansion of the building proposed or changes to the site that um are part of this request. Um finally the PUB criteria for approval it calls for community enhancement. So to address this the proposal includes four workforce units within the existing building. Um those are proposed to be delivered within 2 years and those are secured through a conditional you uh sorry through a condition of approval that's attached to the conditional use application. So it's a development agreement that would be recorded within the next 60 days uh from approval. And that agreement is where um the applicant is proposing um to you know deliver these within two years. Staff um staff did receive public comment related to the these applications and to the contention of High Point Drive in the access to the site. These comments generally relates concerns about the roadway condition, safety and responsibility for improvements. staff did consider access as part of the review uh and applied the community development code standards based on the scope of the application. This application does not propose a significant new development or increase in intensity and therefore does not trigger requirements for roadway improvements at this time. Um, by comparison, development plan DPV1902 and preliminary plat 1903 uh, for the adjacent Long View Highland subdivision, that was for that approval was for an 110 unit multiple family development. And that did trigger construction of High Point Drive to meet city standards and ultimately be dedicated um, as a public street. And that work is tied to that development and reflects the scale of the impacts introduced by the new units. Um so for this application it is limited um to formalizing this

existing condition. So it doesn't introduce the same impacts. So staff has applied the standards um based on that scope. Overall, uh, in this context, staff finds the proposal the proposals because there's two, uh, together represent a reasonable approach to bring the property into compliance with the code while securing, um, a community benefit. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Kelly. Any questions from commissioners to staff for the applicant? Right. Sure. And for Kelly, I thought I heard you just say when you were talking about the PUD that there's conditions of approval or

no, there's no conditions tied to the PUD. It say is resoning. Um, so there it's just reszoned or not reszoned. It goes into effect like there's effective language uh that will be with the ordinance, but uh the condition is attached to the conditional use. Yes.

Okay. That's what I thought I had said. Um, another question or staff or the applicant, but I think the the staff would be better. When we have a PUD, why didn't we just include hotel as a use by right in the PUD instead of having to make multiple changes? With the PUD, we can make the we're making our own zone district. You could make whatever uses to be approved with a PUD, unless I'm mistaken. That's why we have a PUD because it doesn't fit any other zone district. Why didn't we just include hotel use as a use by right or limited or so we didn't have to have two hearings and multiple jump through the hoops? Do you want to speak to that?

Yeah. Um I think that's a good question. Um because there's a a hotel is a commercial use. It's not um allowed in that current zone district. We thought this was a pretty special situation and that the additional review and scrutiny that a conditional use would require would be appropriate in this location. But a PUD uses don't have to match the underlying zone district in any way. Do we really have that limitation on PUDS?

No. I mean, that's what this PUD does. It basically says all standards stay the same except now hotels may be approved as a conditional use. Um, keep in mind that any significant expansion of this use would have to come back through that process. So again, we staff's opinion and direction to the applicant from the get-go was to um try to minimize potential impacts of this kind of a change and really um keep the PUB as tight as possible to allow for continuing the existing circumstance. So any expansion of this hotel would come back to planning commission for a conditional use approval by which you'd have the ability to evaluate impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, place conditions on that, have some um authority over that approval. But to answer your question specific like directly, yes, they could have proposed it as a use by right.

Thank you. Any other questions? Uh, yeah, Kelly, um, you indicated that the traffic issues are really associated and the repair of the the road is associated with the other development that we approved previously. Correct. Improvement of that road, the Long View, not Long View, but uh, what's the High Point Road? the bad.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, I just said the wrong Apologies. Apologies. I do not mean to confuse. Um, yes, that was an improvement of the road uh to city standards and dedication to the city is a component of that previous approval. So, this has nothing to do with this no conditional use. It does not. As the attorney for the Long View development would have us believe, staff doesn't find there to be. Thank you. Of course,

without going down too deep of a tangent, is there anything I mean the the road itself is a is a required access for that property to exist? Is there anything just in and of itself that requires it to be maintained at a certain level and not allowed to be fallen into disrepair and become undrivable? It needs to continue to function as an access in other words, right? Is there anything outside of tonight that that could satisfy the question that they have? I think um like staff's applied the standards how we feel is appropriate and consistent and I'm not trying to tie that in. I hope you know that's okay.

It's totally fair. Um but that said like if the planning commission would like to consider a condition related to maintenance like addressing a pothole for example like that could be discussed with the applicant as a condition. we, you know, staff could we could work together on a maintenance plan. Um, if that was like a condition you found appropriate and they found appropriate and agreed like you could take that approach. Um, but for staff's part like we have applied like you know to kind of re restate myself like yeah we feel

and and I apologize that I'm I'm making it sound like I'm asking you to restate yourself. So, I'll help clarify. My point was more hypothetical outside of specific conditions to these knowing that the neighbors have had this concern for a long time because we've heard about it many different times. Haven't really had a chance to ask you since. But if there's, you know, let's say there's an access easement or this private road or something like that that exists that is access for something to exist on the other side of it. Mhm.

Isn't there kind of a I would assume there's something in the CDC or the engineering standards that requires that access to be maintained at a level that can provide access, right? And so if something has turned into a four-wheel drive road, then it's not meeting its own base level of existing. Does that make sense? Like, and so that's not a condition for tonight. I'm not trying to tie it to that. But isn't there an expectation anyway? Question mark.

Yeah, I think that I think that there are some I think that there are some um expectations. Yes. That the road would be maintained in a safe and passable condition. So I think that there are avenues. I mean there I think I think the city may have an option to pursue that outside of this approval. Is that what you're asking? That's kind of what I'm wondering. Yeah. For because I know that the neighbors have been concerned about that for a long time. This is not the avenue as you're saying tonight, but is there an avenue that exists? So, I appreciate that answer. Thank you.

I would just add that I believe there's I don't know the particular section, so I will not steer you wrong, but there is a section of the municipal code that I think um relates to question about maintenance and the condition of roads. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I have a question. Um, Rebecca, you kind of touched on this for a second, but um the if they were to expand the use, what does that mean? Like what would trigger needing to get a new approval for hotel use, for instance, if they added on to this building or rebuilt this building in any way? Are they automatically approved for hotel use? Or is this specific to the building that exists right now? What you're reviewing tonight is specific to what's there right now. The conditional use, if it were approved, that would be the approved plan. So, that would be what they're approved for. If there was any future development proposed, it would follow the same applicability for any development plan. If there was an expansion of the use, um, it would come to you. You would see it as a conditional use. That's what this PUD would that's the zoning procedure. It would assign that use for this parcel in this zone district. So if they let's say they wanted to add five rooms or a room if they wanted to add a new room, let's say, um that would be an expansion of the use and it would require a conditional use approval. if there was a and that would be the case whether it was built like attached to the building, so expanding the footprint or if they were proposing to add units within the building, that would be an expansion of the hotel use. So that would come before you. As far as site development, that would just follow the normal development p plan process based on its scope. So if it was an addition an addition less than 1500 square feet, like that would be a minor modification. If it was greater than that, it would likely fall in a development plan public hearing process because it's a very big building. Um, so yeah, it would just

depend on the the scope of the change, but this PUD, if approved, would necessitate an approval from this body in order to expand the hotel use in the future at any time. So, just so I'm understanding you correctly, this kind of plays into Rich's question about like in the future if this gets developed again, this it it comes back to us. It's not a use by right in perpetuity. Now, now it's going to keep coming back to us if they wanted to propose something different that is still hotel use. Correct. If it was a not a hotel use, we would review that use based on that use's procedure. No, just still hotel use is what I'm asking about. It would be it would come back to us as a conditional use if there's any change.

Yeah, as long as there's a C on that chart, it's coming here and that's what this PUB proposes. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, Brian, it's David. Can you hear me? Oh, sorry. Yeah, go ahead, David. No, go ahead.

Sorry. Um, just a t little more on to your questioning regarding High Point. Um, I appreciate the fact that it's that the maintenance and repair of that's tied to another case, but that case may never they may never develop. And so, how do we ensure the access for this property that is required is moved forward and doesn't remain in its current state? and you may have been heading there with what else can we do as a city, but but I'm a little concerned with approving something that's based on an a condition of another case happening. Does that make s um Kelly? Does that make sense? Mhm. Um I follow I think I think I mean this the condition of the road is not currently tied to this development like this conditional use and PUD application. I think that would be I think that could be that's absolutely a question that could be explored, but I don't know that this application is the one to address what would happen if the development next door does not come to fruition. Um, which yeah, please um jump in if if there's more to add, but it it seems to me like that's sort of a like a third question on the table that this application is not necessarily going to be the one to answer tonight.

Um Oh. Oh, yeah. No, that's great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Just to be clear, too, we have hotel operations that we need in as much as a guest experience of a four-wheel drive experience. Not what we want as far as uh everything that they're experiencing walking in the property. So, we have an annual maintenance plan that we're addressing postseason. Um it's just not going to be brought up to the complete city standards um that is tied to the development that's happening there. If I can follow on to my question then for the applicant, would you be willing to add a condition of your maintenance plan and the approval of that maintenance plan by the planning director as a condition? Can you repose that question one more time?

Would you be willing to add a condition that your maintenance plan is submitted to the planning department and um subject to planning director approval inside of this scope of this doc this conditional use? Yes. Uh, not at this time. We have an annual maintenance plan that we're going to be doing and going forward with.

Okay. Well, I I appreciate that. Thank you for your answer. I have a really tough time when we have a road that's um that's required for access seasonal. We have a fire ch potential fire challenge this year and there are loads of people who use use that road and can't get down and you're not willing to agree to a maintenance plan. I'm confused. I'm saying like in the meeting in this moment right now. I mean, it would have to be a discussion that we have without knowing details of what we're committing to. Sure. My question is Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Uh I'm going to follow up on David's question and ask another question. My my recollection of the road is it does not meet engineering standards. uh has never met engineering standards. I don't know. I think it was an annexation acquisition. Um I I what I glean from the letter uh that was in our packet is that there's a question of health, safety, and welfare. And that is an important question. And I don't know that a maintenance plan would fix the problems associated with that road. Uh that was why I believe the the new development was going to redo the road completely. Uh because the the curves in it are too tight. Um it's too steep for as wide as it is. Uh I don't think there are any railings on along the road. Uh so I think there's a lot going on on that road. But the the question Dave poses, I think is pretty important in that uh as far as I know that development has probably less than a year to come back to us and start construction. I'm not sure, but I think it's something like that. And I think the probability of that happening is not high. So, you know, this is a like a conundrum because this is if that bad that road is terrible. That road is absolutely terrible. And um whether it needs to have potholes fixed or to be redesigned and reconstructed, it does deal with the issue of access for a hotel.

Lou, do you have a a question in our question? I think there is somewhere, but I'm trying to work it out. Let's let's try and stick to that as much as we can right now if we could. Um what I was uh getting at is is there is there value in having some postmeating discussions with the applicant in terms of what they're willing to to do to help improve that road. And and Lou, that was part of my question to the applicant is would you agree to submit a maintenance agreement approved by the planning director? Not that it comes back to this body. Yeah. But it's part of the discussion with the planning department. You guys want to tackle that? That'd be great.

Um, so I would say in terms of the condition of the road, Commissioner Trouro is correct. It does not meet city engineering standards. It is, um, I'm I'm not going to try to speak to whether it's like curvature, rail, what all the things. the the bottom line is that it doesn't meet city engineering standards. So, we are in its current condition unwilling to accept it as a public street. Um so with the adjoining the neighboring um development approval for Long View Village or that for the the residential um next door um the requirement was that that road be brought up to city street standards and be dedicated as a public street. So that's what that um development plan approval will require. Um certainly I think that there are probably some real legitimate concerns about the con existing condition of the road. I think that the city has some mechanisms in place to address those. Um, in terms of tying it to this conditional use approval, I think Kelly's already sort of addressed this, but I just want to reiterate this approval is not for any change to a use. So, we were we don't feel it would be appropriate to require significant improvements to the road, right? like bringing it up to city standards or something like that because we're not this proposal, this use approval would not does not allow for expansion, increase in intensity um of the existing use. And the circumstance that the applicant, the property owner is trying to solve for is a was a gradual shift in their use over

time um that occurred really sort of outside of their control. these time share units default and when they do so they come back into that management's control and that's not necessarily something that was like a decision made or even really something that could be controlled. So that's where we felt like that, you know, to tie some sort of specific improvements to the road to this conditional use. We didn't feel like it it met that threshold of mitigating impacts from this use because we're not seeing that what's being proposed and in front of you tonight is any change in impact from what's there existing. Um I would also like to add that um fire and engineering were also part of the development review team that reviewed this application. Um, so to fire and engineering, they're aware of the state of the road. Uh, from a life safety standpoint, it's just it's all it's all to add on that like this has been part of the review. Um, and fire, although they would love to see change with the road. You know, we all together agree. We would not be recommending approval if all departments did not agree that this is a reasonable approach. Um, so that's for your, you know, consideration as well.

Thank you. Any other questions? Can I follow up the question? No, hang on just a sec. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

This is slightly related. um with either motion um either the conditional use or the PUD is there any sort of expiration or time frame that we can say um if we can approve it for a period of time but we come back and revisit um if there are any potential unintended consequences or change in the status of the road or increase usage anything like that. Um the staff has not proposed or uh considered anything along those lines because um again we're we're looking at an existing use. Um there's no change. There's no additional development at this time. Um it's it kind of just is what it is. And we find that this approach the PUD plus the conditional use is reasonable given kind of a complicated context. This was built before it was in the city. So that's like already just going to create some uh like things that are old don't match up with our code the same. Um so anyway, the point is to say that we have not considered limiting the time of this use because um it it doesn't necessitate that. It's not temporary. It's permanent. Um yeah, I mean I think this body can propose and assign conditions that the applicant finds, you know, that's all uh but that's staff's approach. That's why we haven't developed a condition or proposed a condition uh along those lines.

Thank you. Yeah, David, do you had another question online? Yes, just a followup. Um, if approval is not granted tonight for the conditional use, is the applicant acting um potential, let me would the applicant be subject to potential code compliance because they're acting without this right? Um, potentially.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Is there any public comment for this agenda item? Thanks. Come on down. Please give us your name and address and uh please try and keep your comments at 3 minutes. Mark Friish, Post Office Box 774056, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Um I'm here in my capacity as attorney for Long View Village, Inc. an adjacent land owner to the Hilltop Resort. I'm glad a lot of your comments address um High Point Drive because um I plan to address uh that issue together with uh Mr. McIll. Long View has both a recorded easement and a stipulation adopted by the route county District Court which provides authority for Lang Long Long View to utilize High Point Drive for access to its property known as Outlaw 2 and convert High Point Drive to a public road conforming to city specifications. Eric Sulttus, community development engineer, has been furnished with copies of the relevant documents and has he has acknowledged that Long View has satisfied his concerns regarding Long View's authority to make improvements to High Point Drive. Pursuant to the stipulation, Hilltop Resort Owners Association and related entities are required to reimburse Long View for a portion of the costs which are incurred in bringing High Point Drive up to city standards. Notwithstanding these facts, Hilltop Resort Owners Association and related entities have alleged that Long View's efforts to uh upgrade High Point Drive constitute trespassing. Long View

has been prevented from making improvements to High Point Drive and ultimately dedicating the roadway to the city of Steamboat Springs. If this um if if we were able to uh dedicate the road to city uh steamboat springs and make the required improvements, it would result in a much safer roadway. The city is in ideal position today to require Hilltop Resort Owners Association and its related entities to bring High Point Drive up to standards which will make it safe for guests and the general public to access Hilltop Resort. The city should use this opportunity to require Hilltop Resort Owners Association to make impo improvements to High Point Drive. Mr. McGill, a four-point surveying and engineering will address the community development code provisions which apply to the application uh before you and why highoint drive upgrades should be a condition for the re classification of the property at issue. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any additional public comment commission? Walter McIll, FourPoint Surveying and Engineering on behalf of Long View Village. Uh, as Mark said, we completed uh, as part of the approval on the preliminary drawings and the development plan, which has now been extended once for its second three year, I think it expires in 2027, a set of construction drawings to build out High Point Drive. And the two groups were ready to get going last year and they could not agree on access onto the road. Now, uh, the Legacy Resorts or group here tonight, they own the roadway outright. So, that's shown on page 13 of your packets tonight. But the question is really, I think it's there's an inconsistency with community plan, an inconsistency with previous development plans when they've changed. Some development projects that have been time share, change to hotels, have to do sidewalk and parking lot improvements. I'm not seeing that be required here. We're talking about a PUB and the public benefit is new workforce housing for employees within the units. So, it seems kind of a not very public benefit. Uh these new units would would attribute additional traffic counts. Now, this road has been in its present shape back and forth with the maintenance agreement for 20 years. We've seen it with different groups of puddles. It's it's an intense drainage down there. It gets real flat, but we think we have a solution for it. But I think overall that, you know, there's multimmodal safety improvements that aren't being addressed in the community plan. There's failure to mitigate negative impacts because the neighbors up here that live up in Long View are subject to trying to get to this road as a secondary access. It's interesting to hear that fire thinks this is okay and public works think this road is okay for getting up here. You know, tonight I recommend a condition that the road repair be built to a local street section. So what's

what's to be constructed by the development is 12t lanes, 4ft shoulders, new guardrails. So it's pretty intense. But if Long View development doesn't go and he lets it expire, his development project, then we as a community and the people that live up there have no condition. You've heard from staff that there's no time frame on this. So people that own the hotel continue to say, "Well, we'll drive around on it and we'll take our guest up hilltop where we have a smooth road." You know, they have access getting into their property from the north side too up there. So I know they want to do better. I know they want to make it better for their guests, but you know, you can't force two parties that go back to court with stipulations to agree. So they may never get agreement. Uh my clients, you know, he watches the market a lot and he may not build this. He he's willing to entertain offers to sell it, but I think it's a lose-lose if it's not addressed tonight because they're not coming back for a number of years. So, take your time with it, please.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there any other public comment? Not seeing any. Is there any public comment online? I see one commenter uh who has had their hand up since before these items began. And if you have public comments related to this agenda item, can unmute yourself. Give us your name and address. Hello, this is FC Flur. Can you hear me? Uh, we can. Thank you.

Are you able to hear me? Hello? We can hear you. Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes. Hello. This is FC Leaf Flur. I like to comment. I say that I do support for the hotel movement. I think it is I come here. I'm from Quebec, Canada. I come during the coid9 pandemic. I say no, I don't like the mask. I said this mask no good. Uh they say okay tell I stay in hotel when I first come to this town. Yeah. And um I don't know how you say the uh the dillum stream I work with it and um so this hotel will be good for development for this Jean Zlur he like to stay in the hotel when he come down for the uh summer and he do the visit and um John Jler floor is uh one of these trims Is he bring from stream convention? So he do this and the cl from stream kalakalaka. Do you know the kalakalaka from streamar? Yeah. So work with all of the streamar uh dylum and from stream goina. Uh do you know lacy? is a very nice girl on the stream. She's good and uh it will work. I come into town. I like to stay in a luxury brand and when we have the good hotel in Steam Road spring where we can can attract more we can get more stream like he played a jailer in the sighting. We can have aperture would be good. And

then um I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with the uh VTuber Aushi, but uh we could get her in the um when I come here from Quebec, I do not know that uh it was limit for hotel. We do not have all the option to get into so many more. And we can get stream like Kakaker and Dr. Cross. We can get into the server. Slack. AU is the winner. I think he the number one stream star. We can get uh all kinds of stream. And then there is uh I just look perm. He take care of stream. He was to battle chat dam of course it's going to be good for stream stars to see exposure for the hotel we can get nswell nswell will be good for I just tried to think of more of the stream star when I go through the list here.

So you have uh 10 seconds left in our our 3 minutes if you have anything else to I write them all down. Shanti Sarcasm can come and he can make my favorite and uh I I love him

now. He seems to be gone. Okay. Thank you for your public comment. Is there any other public comment online? You can raise your hand. That cut out quite a bit. Not quite sure if I could summarize what what his comments were unfortunately. Um but I appreciate the attempt nonetheless. Uh if we have no other public comments here in person, we will close that and first come back to the applicant for any final follow-up you wanted to offer.

We just end with closing remarks. Um since the 1970s, we were zoned a hotel. Um, you know, what we're asking is for a reasonzoning of what we're already operating as. There's no intensification in traffic. Um, there's no difference in hours. U, this is not going to be impactful to the community here. I hear everyone's concerns on the road safety and it's planned to be addressed in our annual maintenance plan um, regarding the matters of um, the further development of the road. That's a a legal dispute that between two private parties that we're going through currently. All right. Thank you. And any final followup from staff?

Yes, thank you. Um I would just uh reiterate that the the scope of this of both applications, the PUD and the conditional use are very limited. This is a surgical change to address a longgoing a long a long long ongoing uh situation that is really not under the property owner's control. Um, this represents like the most reasonable approach staff um and the applicant could come to while bringing the property into compliance, securing a community benefit, which I um me personally staff um we find workforce units serve the community as a whole. Even if they're accommodating the employees of this business, I think that that really does have a ripple effect. It helps everyone. lodging is an important use in our community and um you know finally just it's it is already there. It's existing. Uh so the scope is the scope. We know the impacts because they're there now. Um anyway, thank you for considering this. I know it's kind of a tough one. So appreciate it.

Right. Thank you, Kelly. Any final questions from commissioners? Um yeah, I I uh to the applicant. I I thought what I heard was you were uh possibly willing to at least share the maintenance plan uh with the city. Um and I think David, you had asked if the that would be left up to the approval of the director. Is that a fair statement? Okay. Correct.

And is that still an accurate position? Not at this meeting. I understand. Okay. Thank you. Any other final questions? Brian, can you advise what the applicant either nodded his head or or what? We couldn't see it on TV. We're collaborative by nature and working with the city. So, yes, we would consider. Thank you. Any others? I'll close. Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry. Uh something for the applicant. The four proposed workforce housing units. Uh am I right to assume that these are existing hotel rooms that are going to be converted to long-term housing? So therefore, um we wouldn't expect uh increased usage on that road because they're already existing rooms that would otherwise be occupied by a hotel patron. We'd be developing uh four new units inside for this project. Okay. Thank you. Great. Anybody else?

Yeah, I I um a process question if would into the mic. Could we add a condition? Sorry. Can we can we add a condition uh associated with uh at le improving uh approving a maintenance plan for this road? Mr. Box has already asked the applicant that and he stated no previously.

No, here he won't. Uh I'm saying going back to the planning department and then talking about that condition. I think I'd like to close the public comment portion and see if there's even enough effort to make that a worthwhile process question. Can we start there?

Okay, does that sound good? Any other questions to staff or the applicant? Then I will close that public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and emotion. I'll kick that off by reiterating real quickly why I asked the question the way I did at at the very beginning, which is that I think that staff is very correct and what the scope is that we're looking at tonight and what kicks into a condition of approval to rebuild a road and that there are other processes already in the CDC, as Kelly answered my question earlier, that can talk about access and what are base level requirements just for any access easement or private road that is an access road. I wouldn't support trying to add an extra condition that they have to build a road based on either of these conditional use and PUDS tonight. That would be my starting point.

I I had a different approach when I look at the criteria of approval. If we had a development plan in front of us, access is one of the criterias of approval in in develop in approving a development plan. That is not one of the criteria of approval for approving a PUD. I understand uh and I think the the my my driving point uh is one of health, safety and welfare. Um I believe that's a dangerous road. I believe health and safety and welfare are endangered by that road. Uh I think Walter is correct in his comment that this is an opportunity where we might improve that road to some degree. Any additional discussion or anybody want to make a motion?

Yeah, I I would just add on I I agree with Lou and and wasn't suggesting that the road be rebuilt. There are other issues that are over the overriding that right now suggesting that what the applicant already said they were going to put together their maintenance plan is we make that part of the condition. Unfortunately, the applicant said they were not open to adding that as a condition. Um, when I look at and and interested, Rich would in in your comment is I look at the condition the items we're able to look at for the conditional use and how do we balance the negative the negative u mitigates negative impacts. So if it stands as today they're operating outside of code, what they're looking what my understanding is they're looking to make the obtain this conditional use to fall into code um with their their hotel use. That is a change. I believe they need to mitigate the negative impact of the road because as they officially move to a hotel capacity there is more demand and um there more people moving to and from that's so rich I was when you think of the con the reasons for approval for our decision how do you balance that I'm curious um what your thoughts are

I heard what staff I've had to say that I don't know that a hotel use has any more impact than the time share use. There's many times where both both can be empty and have high use areas. Uh it's also possible that we could see less use with hotel with the time share. There's people showing up in mud season and things like that that may not show up for hotel use during that like this week. Whereas people that are stuck with a twoe time share in April, they're come they may be coming anyway. So I don't know that there's an expanded uh use or impact via traffic because of this change of use or this conditional use. Thanks. Any other discussion?

I mean my point is it's not I I understand your point about the expanded use. I don't think that's actually fully relevant. Well, I think what's relevant is the fact that the existing use places people in danger. That's what I believe. Both are both fire and are and those people and engineers say they disagree with know what to say.

I know. And I I hear what you're saying, but I have I have trouble saying that the experts that work for the city have less information than I do. Any other discussion? Again, if you felt strongly about it, we could try a motion, but and and see how it goes um on something like that or I think some have made clear anyway already, but any other discussion? We have two agenda items tonight, by the way, that we're going to make a motion on even though our discussion has been regarding the overall. So, we will start with a motion on the conditional use application first when somebody does.

I think I see where Lou and David are coming from. Just basically using this as an opportunity to force them to improve something that is clearly in dis disrepair. Um, I also agree that it doesn't it doesn't fit in the scope of what is actually being proposed. And I wonder if and maybe we should have talked more about this before we close discussion, but I wonder if it's more of like a compliance issue. And it and I wish I knew whether this is something that the city can actually call compliance on. is is a private road required required to stay usable in a way that it is a city compliance issue cuz then if that case were to be opened then I would feel a lot more comfortable but maybe yeah I think I missed my opportunity to to ask that

then I did ask but did they like it did they offer a specific route for that to happen or they did not give us the CDC C section, but she said that it exists. That exists. Yeah. Then I'm comfortable with that. I don't think it makes sense to add to the scope of what's being proposed.

Agreed. Yeah. What had to get there talking out loud. That's great. I'll make a motion if we're ready. Not that you couldn't ask again. I just But because we already did, I can Yeah. Thanks. that for you. We could if you were worried. No. Okay. I move to approve PL 20250397 conditional use uh with the one two three four conditions of approval. We have a motion. Do we have a second? A second.

Any other final discussion on it? Okay. Uh then I will call for a vote. I just go one by one. Uh starting on the side and you can say yay or nay to your yay. No. Yay. I yay. And David. No.

That motion passes. What are we at? Four to two. And then do we want to make a motion on the PED item I will say just for future reference that even ex because this was run as a hotel I can't imagine that expanding the hotel use would really have been that much of an impact. uh traffic and things like that would be looked at anyway. Um if it, you know, if the numbers went beyond the capacity of the road or anything like that, but that's why I asked the question I did about the PUD. It's like

if it's going to be a hotel, let it be a hotel and we wouldn't have had to have quite as much discussion. Maybe, well, it may not have been any different, but I thought it was unusual that we would create a special PUD and we didn't make it special enough for the use that they're proposing. Definitely. But anyway, I'm fully supportive and if there's no more discussion, I'd be glad to make a motion.

While you're looking it up, I will add to your conversation. I think you asked a really great question to staff. I agree with their determination of conditional use. I do see that its size there in relationship to the residential um use next to it, neighborhood next to it is probably the more proper way to say that. um is arguably at its limit of what is impactful to to surrounding property owners and uh so being able to take a careful examination as to what any increase in that use looks like in the future I think is smart for this property. So they they swayed me really well in as much as I tried to reinterpret what they said. I'll make a motion to approve PL20250398, a planned unit development application.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I just want to say that I agree with Brian. I think I would have a lot more pause with this if there was a use by right getting applied a use by right for hotel use getting applied to this without without any additional look at what else goes in with a hotel use. So, I appreciate the way that staff did it as well. Do I make a I'll second? Yeah. Any other discussion? All right. I'll call for a vote. Yay. No. I I I David. No. That also passes uh 4 to two. Thank you so much for your time tonight.

We'll jump into agenda item three now as Commissioner Summers comes down. And do we have a recusal for I need to recuse myself. Yes, this is my uh company's proposal. Great. So this is for the record PL 2022530 Eddie Line Town Homes. give you a second to get set up and then we'll uh look forward to an applicant presentation. Yeah, just do like the normal Zoom share. Yeah.

All right. Good to go. Y'all ready? All right. Um, sorry, I'm new to Google Docs. Making sure it's all right. Um, all right. My name is Kevin Regler. Um, I think you guys probably know I'm not with Cruise Builders. Um, so just to clarify, I was just asked by them as a fellow developer that understands projects like this and certainly advocate of West Steamboat, creative land use, etc. Um, but I have no financial interest or consultant agreement or anything. I'm just trying to be a good uh, you know, steward, I guess, of of development. So, just to to clarify, if you have any bad feelings towards me, please don't hold it against the the project. Um, so I'll do my best to represent the project. uh we have prepped. Um I will I think you guys are obviously aware of why why she had to recuse herself. Um if there are any nuanced questions I may not be able to answer, but I will absolutely do my best. Um so the project is uh called Eddie Line. Um it is uh the the kind of goofy corner lot uh triangular lot over by Excel Gymnastics that I'm sure most of you guys are familiar with. Um certainly a uh you know a challenging lot that's part of a larger uh project and lot that encompasses legally the um live work units along the river and obviously the commercial building that has Excel and and jiu-jitsu and all that. Um so it's a triangular shaped lot. The core trails you can see on the top here um is to the northeast. the Yampa River, which is kind of off the screen, but it does front that on on the bottom corner there. Um, and then

obviously the existing commercial buildings and residential uses on the other side. Uh, the project encompasses four total buildings, kind of two main sections. The trail side, which is obviously the the the three here fronting the core trail and then the one uh building fronting the river itself. Uh, so total of 24 units. Um there are you can see which we'll get into a little bit later down in this zone there are plentiful parking uh for expansion commercial adaptability down the road. So we'll always meet code uh for so 22 total extra units. Um so the three trailside buildings there's kind of two distinct designs between the two. Um so these are the three buildings that I just referenced. The units are 680 to 780 ft not including the garages. So, just to clarify that, um, each unit has an oversized garage. Um, 14T ground floor height. We'll get into some nuances here on that in a second, but obviously the idea is is gear storage, uh, commercial adaptability, uh, sprinter vans, river toys, all the all the things you would expect. So, so pretty smart steamboat design and then obviously designed for the the local workforce in mind. So, um, as at these square footages, obviously efficiency is is key. Um the second bucket of buildings, which is just six units, which is over right along the river. They're all generally the same, 1,400 foot total. Um there's an oversized threecar garage. Um kind of a double depth situation. Ceiling height. Um 60% of the garage, again, I'll show you in a diagram in a couple slides, that are 17 ft. And then uh there there's a garage door that's actually on the river side, so you can kind of go in and out of the the river with various toys, tubes, etc. Um all right, so

three kind of buckets of staff level um approvals or not. Um but the two variances um Grampler height and glazing to code interpretations, I think those are the the crux it sounds like of of the likely conversation tonight. access and primary entrance and then building orientation placement and then the two conditional use requests. So, as you can see in blue, general staff support for the project. Um, the code interpretations obviously um sounds like there's some some conversation around that. Um, so variance number one pretty cut and dry. Um you can see in the diagram here basically what's happening is in the second floor of each unit there's some usable space bathrooms um office etc that's outlined in the red and these other areas. So you drive into your garage and so effectively the entirety of the garage does not meet the 14T clear requirement. The average height is 14.9 throughout. So there's those kind of dropped zones which is pretty typical in these uh commercial style garages that um encompass you know really smart space planning for for again livability etc. So um so crit you know criteria for approval you know is this better alternative than better or equal to the standard um we obviously uh believe it is and I believe staff supports that as well and so this could obviously be removed if there were ever a desire by the owner to expand the the ceiling height throughout the entirety. So there is a adaptability. Why isn't sorry um a glazing minimum? Um just you know

high level across the whole project it does adhere to the glazing percentages. There's 16 total facades throughout the entirety of all four buildings. Um there's just one that doesn't meet the request and it's it's directly facing down here as you can see those existing live work units. So it's just uh in order to create some privacy between the two two buildings. Um again I don't think there's any contention around that uh standard number one. So um access so the standard itself is the prioritization of orientation of the primary pedestrian entries um public and private streets pedestrian circulation etc. Um there's no debate so I'm removing on my screen all I see is zoom faces um that the core trail is should be that priority. So I believe there's uh you know staff agreement on the core trail being the the primary access point in this particular situation. Um so how we're how the project is achieving that is of course deciding between the front and the back of the building and you have the core trail on the front that we'll see in some renderings here in a second that again all the landscape design fencing design front uh door design all that orientation is absolutely directly faced towards the core trail which in our definition is the is the primary should be the primary. Um, obviously when you have a triangular lot with unless you wanted to put the the actual garage drive adjacent to the core trail in front of the building. Um, that's the logical solution, at least in uh the project's opinion. Um, each unit has a fully uh transparent glass front door. Um, we'll get into some design on the fence and and landscaping. Um but

ultimately that's the uh the applicant's interpretation of primary. Um evolving that again with some renderings. You'll see on the bottom left I think a pretty good image. The core trail is kind of is is effectively that sidewalk looking uh area in the in the drawing. You'll see represented um the setback line is here with the fence trying to add some transparency on top of it. this this landscaping zone is technically within the core trail easement. So, um the applicants representing willingness and and desire to landscape that area. Obviously, that'll be a irrevocable license type of setup, but it's certainly legally permissible um within that easement area to again dress up the the front areas going, you know, presenting into that primary access point. Um let's see here. And then on the right you can see generally kind of rendering wise this is the utilitarian access point that's in between each unit. Um the idea is obviously you can be able to walk, you know, through your unit, access your garage points, your stair access, your front door and foyer, but again all the energy designwise is is presenting towards the the core trail side. Uh standard number two. So building placement orientation pretty similar. Um you can see in the diagram up on the right. So the lot line is technically on the other side of the core trail with the easement related to the core trail. So then that redefineses the buildable areas and then the orientation of those primary buildings facing the core trail. The other option, as I alluded to in the last slide, would be to run your drive and parking access

in between the core trail and the buildings, which again in this situation would would obviously be arguably pretty unsafe with uh the use of the core trail and all and ultimately um I don't think the best design or the applicant doesn't think that. I happen to agree. Um so from a design standpoint um you know obviously I've stressed the orientation side and then individual doors for each unit. It'll absolutely present from a design standpoint. Each unit will look different add some design differentiation um etc to help you know position that again the primary access points and in design uh conditional use. Um so as you can see on the diagram on the right uh I don't think it's necessary to read um every word here but ultimately um the workforce housing in the green areas are limited uses. Um so they're essentially by right with a few standards that that have been met. The yellow areas uh technically are conditional because it's on the pedestrian active frontage. Um so uh you know in certain circumstances there might be retail and and and those per per the standards but obviously in this situation that wouldn't make sense. So technically speaking those workforce units are conditional. Um as you can see the applicant's intention here is to position the price points as you can see by the design and the sheer size um position towards 120% of AMI. And as you guys are probably aware, um the city just launched their pilot program for the down payment assistance with these seem to be likely ripe ripe targets for. So in any event, um it creates flexibility by having the the workforce housing uh approval on here.

Uh condition number two, um I believe I I mentioned in the first slide, but this whole larger triangular area is technically a singular lot. So the uh mix of uses are horizontal across the entire site. Um as far as achieving, you know, the the the standards within the zone. Um so obviously multif family over here, ground floor commercial and residential here, and then 100% commercial over there. Again, I don't think any u contention around that issue. Um any negative impacts? Um obviously residential is inherently lower impact. There's been plenty of parking that's been provided um even in the conversion to to commercial use and some of those units down the road. Um provided safe fenced in yards along that frontage along the core trail. Um, I think without, you know, I think the applicant's position is without the the fences, you have kids and dogs and whatever running around with people riding bikes, um, and the like on the core trail. It's it's a smart design decision. Um, complies with the CDC. So, it depends upon your interpretation. Um, but, uh, ultimately, I guess this is per the report the criteria that staff doesn't believe has been met. um kind of big picture master plan related um old and new but um ultimately there's uh the project is well positioned within both as far as supporting uh those goals. Um the new community canvas um so ultimately uh getting into the key initiatives down on the on the left there but promoting obviously compact growth and infill development. This is obviously an incredibly challenging site um triangular you know marrying up with uh with the other components of the site. Um so certainly supporting growth

in these kind of areas would be productive. Um transit nodes obviously you know west steamboat in particular is becoming a very interesting walkable neighborhood with all kinds of access to to obviously recreation, retail etc. And then um ultimately recognizing housing is is essential here. So with uh with this amount of housing impact on a creative project should um be here adhere to the to the master plan standards. So just high level summary of the three buckets. Um so two variances. So the to refresh the average uh garage plate height versus the um standard being met across the entirety of the garage ceiling height um the two conditional uses. So we you know a deal opportunity to to increase housing period um and then on the uh the standards themselves um general staff support with the exception of exactly how the two standards are met. Um big picture, yeah, the applicant believes that the design absolutely adheres to the primary entrance and orientation standards.

Right. Thank you very much. Yep. Jeremy, do you have a staff report or presentation for us as well? Yes, I do.

Um, so I won't try to It's obviously a long staff report. I'll do my best to uh summarize here and and cut to the chase on some points. Obviously, you know, I'll reiterate some of the things Kevin said briefly though. We have two conditional uses that you're looking at today. One is for multiple family residential in the CS and one is also should they want to use the workforce housing um use type here. That's also a conditional use because as mentioned by Kevin, they have um residential and the pedestrian active building frontage. Uh we'll I'll talk about those just in in a minute and how they relate to each other. The two variances uh that Kevin referenced that we generally support and I'll touch on are just the ground story height um and the glazing. The key point of this discussion though and obviously where there's a disconnect between the applicants and ourselves and where it comes to you as a recommendation for denial today uh will be with the building placement and orientation design standard as well as the access design standard that we do not believe are being met. Um not all we believe as staff not all metrics or not everything in the code has metrics particularly our design standards uh these are tough decisions I will say at the beginning and I'll say at the end I mean ultimately this will come up to the decision makers in your case for recommendation for for city council to make the final decision. Um, when we look at what will end up happening then though, as you see in the staff report, these two items that were sort of highlighting and we'll emphasize here when we talk about the design standards, they will sort of waterfall into all of the other elements. if you can't meet the development plan criteria

because you're not meeting the CDC, you're not going to be able conditional uses that have higher standards, you know, and sort of ask you to do more and give greater consideration. It's not going to meet those standards. So, while it looks like there's a lot of um a lack of support from staff here, I do want to start out by saying generally we think this is a good project. Um hopefully within that staff report you find the support for the project as a whole but we could not reach agreement on these two particular design items. When we look at the development plan criteria um the first criteria is consistency with character in the neighborhood and being supportive of activities in the vicinity. Uh which is obviously a piece of that is the courtrail. one of our most significant pedestrian multimodal core trails through the community. We don't think it complements that activity. Um we would like to see it create the stronger connections have more like a public street frontage to it. Uh we looked at some of the the renderings were created. Obviously those are nice and help visualize it. We do need to look at the plans as well and what we're approving. I'll make comments. uh that you know the landscaping isn't guaranteed if that's something you like and that would help you support things and that you know could be something that comes in as a condition of approval. If you know in the instance of the gravel paths that are proposed to the front doors if you don't think that feels like a front door there are things and this is where it gets a little messy and a little gray for us is that we can't create the assemblage of parts for the applicant. we're not going to come out and tell them what to do um through several iterations. We we're just sort of in an impass. We believe though design

standards um 437C that says and I'll quote it exactly because I think the words are relatively important and the purpose is important though says development shall be placed to define the edges of and orient access to primary public private streets pedestrian circulation and gathering and then we also site 437D that says buildings shall prioritize orientation. um the written interpretation that I won't go into. Obviously, it's it's lengthy and hopefully you've gotten a chance to take a look at it. We have to extract the intent of that. We use several things. We go to we use the standards obviously. We use the guidelines as well to be instructional. There are purpose statements um to each of those sections in particular. You know, our building placement and orientation tells us that it's pedestrian friendly. It should, you know, use porches and stoops in typical residential entries. Should create a sense of place around pedestrian circulation. So, we're sort of leaning into that as to understand exactly what this place might feel like. Um, and when we do a deep dive and dig into this, even with the the applicant is proposing, as you could see, we have basically six foot privacy running perpendicular to the core trail. We have six foot fences running parallel to the core trail with transparency along the top two feet, but it still isn't indicative to us of that sort of front yard activated experience. Um, touching back then as we do a couple more criteria in the development plan, we talk about adequate access. Of course, we don't feel like gravel paths are particularly indicative of our, you know, front door welcoming ground level

experience and activation. And then broadly, obviously, it's not complying with the CDC if we don't think it meets these design standards. Once we get through the development um plan criteria, then we get into conditional use. and we have two of them, but if I can bundle them together for you quickly, the um conditional use for workforce units, basically we have a limited use permit option that says you meet these criteria, we're going to give it a a thumbs up and it's good to go. in this case because they can't meet the pedestrian act active frontage requirement says well now you have to be considered a conditional use just like any other multiple family. So you're sort of considering uh the same scenario here that they don't have to be so isolated in and of themselves but you are approving two conditional uses. The I would like to make the point though in this case I think the applicant's position is that you know it's residential it has less impacts that's one of the big things we look at in conditional uses um but in staff's mind you know the impact is in if we had a simple hierarchy of impacts and we thought that residential was lesser than commercial we would approve them by right in this case we believed in the CS zone district that for aiming for a particular sort of experience and in building typology. We think there's a lot of ground level activation. We think that the pedestrian experience is very important. So what we would get out of a commercial environment if we had storefront glazing and we had patios and we had people milling about um when we substitute that for the conditional use of multiple family. there's concern that we sort of get a closed off um more

walled off experience particularly for our core trail users haven't had a lot of development on the core trail. This is a a important one maybe a important first one um for what happens on the core trail. I'm not suggesting that it's held to a higher standard. I think I'm s suggesting that it's held to the standard our CDC uh seems to imply by staff interpretation. Um, if you should find that the applicant is in compliance of the two code standards, um, which anything is possible. Obviously, we're here to help and answer those questions. I wanted to point out though as well to make sure because I've tied them all together sort of in a thread that conditional uses do sort of go above and beyond and we want to check for their fit. So just because they meet our code standards, we do still want to make sure the impacts are appropriate to that type of development. So there is a scenario there as well that we think and you'll find in the staff report that they still don't meet the conditional use um impact mitigation because we don't feel like even if let's say they put the front doors on there or they met we believe they met those standards we think they have greater impacts in the CS zone district because of the particular um design that was proposed to us. Moving on from that and and that sort of bundles up what what I would say is the crux of this issue and perhaps the item of discussion tonight. We do have the major variances that Kevin referenced. Staff is in support of both of those. The first one being the minimum uh ground floor height of 14 ft. As you could see in the exhibit that was presented, the majority of those

buildings do meet or exceed the ground floor height. Um, we don't see a lot of split floor plates as is being proposed in this particular development, but we think it meets the intent of the standard where reasonably somebody could have commercial uses on that ground floor through the majority of the portion. There's also a um major variance request for glazing. The one instance that that appears is on a shared wall to existing residential on site. uh we didn't find it had any impacts to the community at large. Uh there is glazing over there but uh again of no particular benefit if anything a otherwise um negatively received um environment for the owners of those two units. So we were supportive of both of those major variances. With that, uh, staff, as you can see, uh, in the report, uh, give a recommendation for denial. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Jeremy. Questions from commissioners to staff for the applicant. I'll start with an easy one to get the ball rolling. the um lot in question, at least as I was looking at the um like floor area or lot coverage, seems to be independent of the can I call it the Excel property, the existing property to the west. It they are it is a weird condo, strange condo plat, but it is being developed separately. Does that So it is one overall lot. It is one overall lot in terms of lot coverage in F.

Okay. Any other questions? I guess I'm not sure I heard the answer. I wanted to hear from you, but the project lot coverage is being considered for the whole lot and not just this development, which is what I thought where I thought you were going with it, Brian. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Apologize for confusion. Oh, that's okay. No, that's great.

I have one. Uh, when we were reviewing the KOA, staff supported putting a six-foot fence along what eventually will be the court trail, but in this case, we're saying a sixoot fence is inappropriate. Can you describe the difference in in that?

Sure. I unfortunately was not privy to that project and I will welcome any input Rebecca has but my understanding would be more with the nature of the use on that space. I'm not sure that the sixoot fence is particularly it's each um application viewed in isolation that a 6ft fence is particularly desirable anywhere along the core trail. But of course, those aren't use. That is a KOA. That's a temporary trailers or I think it's an RV slots that go up there against the road versus houses that we get to design that have front porches and orientation. So, there's an ability to have, I think, privacy to some level for the owners of these potential town homes with orientation to the core trail. Um, otherwise I could understand where the six-foot fence may be in a temporary environment uh more desirable. I I'll also just add that um in this circumstance, we're applying the multiple family residential design standards and those standards there are not similar standards for um the campground use.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Uh, so we talk a lot about the core trail. Both staff and applicant so far tonight have the two buildings that don't have any adjacency to the core trail. Um, especially the one that's the same kind of building type that's kind of to the southwest or across the drive aisle seems to have the same kind of fenced off area towards what will be the rear because it's not on the drive aisle. Mhm.

Um, how does staff interpret that same access requirement when that isn't even like there's no access to that door then? Of course. So, the only actual door is through the 4ft or less corridor. Does that one meet standards and that one and the other one? That's the other building type.

Sure. Yeah. because we don't have I mean as you know our community development code is particularly concerned about what our community looks like and what is the outward facing piece of it. We have often very obvious lack of concern for sort of internalized in this case that the matching building type to sort of the south southwest is simply internal to this entire site. Now if it were that's why we consider the whole triangle that I we were talking about as a site. If it were divided up other ways and it was facing a you know public circulation area or there were public street through there we would consider it differently. Uh but the idea is the public portion of this is the core trail and the perimeter street. And so similarly along the river, you know, it's not maybe best case scenario that yeah, we'd love people to have front doors, but if it's not public facing, um, the city is less concerned about how that unit appears and functions.

Thank you. Other questions. Mine's similar that the the code requires the orientation towards a public or private street and Bridge Lane is the private street along this property. Is that correct? I don't know if it's designated as a private street. I believe it's a just a parking lot that it may have been established with that as an address for addressing purposes. I so we we could confirm and I don't even know if Emer knows off the cuff. That's not why I had him here tonight. But um I Yeah, that's

so is the people because people do establish like streets in circulation within private developments that I don't think we consider public streets if they don't have the idea of a street being having sidewalks and curbs. We don't park off of them. So Bridge Lane has is effectively a access through a parking lot even though it has a street and a name. I'm not sure that that's so the I forget there's a a distance limits where it has to become a street since it's off of Shield Drive. Yeah,

that and I guess it just doesn't meet I don't I guess the question would be what is the distance of a driveway before the driveway has to become a private drive or a public street? Um, that's not something I know. Maybe Emerick does. He can stand up and answer for you. I'm Rick Sult, community development engineer. Uh, so I think the answer to that question is 150 ft, which I believe is the leng the maximum length of uh access easement that is allowable before uh I believe it it requires a public or private street.

And this doesn't exceed that I assume. No, I would I would think it does if I'm being quite frank. I don't think we viewed it that way given the actual configuration of it. So, there's probably a technical aspect and a or technical interpretation and a you know functional in practice interpretation. I'm will admit then if you want to suggest that I maybe staff did not get it right but the functionality of bridge lane does not appear to function like a street that we would otherwise need to front and provide access front door access to. I don't know how to make a question out of it because my concern was like how where what orientation is building two supposed to have to Eddie Lines parking lot or to Bridge Lane or which

yeah and I think staff would say it doesn't matter as in many of our sort of like multi-building multifamily residential construction projects they can be a skew in many ways but that building number two which is the one furthest to the I guess it's to the west. Um does have to have some orientation to a front.

Not not by staff's interpretation of the CDC. You can have a building without a front as long as it's not fronting. If if you have supported the sort of peripheral of your site where we otherwise think is frontage and access to pedestrian circulation gathering uh streets and public right ofway um what you do to internal to your site is at the discretion of the development.

Okay. Thank you. I got a quick one. I suspect I know the answer to but I just wanted clarification. um looking at the uh the parking requirement but being in the CS zone district I was like wait is it the min the max but it's not because it's residential use correct correct okay thank you for anyone that wasn't following yeah in CS we the minimum is the maximum except for residential uses we do have minimums that you have to meet so they meet them and exceed them in this case

and I assume just another I shouldn't assume I should ask and make sure But the the existing we're going to call bridge lane. Uh there's like five spaces that get lost for the new access connection and three get provided on the north and I was like well that's not a net zero but the fact that this new use is providing way more than the existing. It actually is making up that amount. Is that how that works? So it gets a bit confusing in the calculations there based on a previously approved development plan that was adding spaces to be in compliance. If you guys remember a lot of the bridge lane discussions, they were also required to add landscaping in particular places that is yet to be added. This development plan will sort of overwrite the locations of that landscape, those interior forms. We have some planting islands and move some of those. So, what exists there in terms of gravel paved or unpaved and what that's been accounted for, it should remain on that lot. There may have been I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, Brian, in terms of five going down to three, but the calculation should keep the same number of spaces on the property to the west and then all the spaces will be self-contained as advertised in this development. Um, they shouldn't be spilling over. I'm We'd have to maybe analyze those plans. I analyze them, but to get to your particular question, I'm not sure exactly where that stems from.

And I might be wrong, and I don't want to get hung up on it, but the uh the drive connection that has these um landscape islands on either side as we're connecting into this new development, yeah, looked wider to me than the three units that are being proposed on the north side. So, I tried to go back to the existing conditions page and count and see if I was losing my mind or not, quite honestly. like let's just blame me for why I'm asking the question, but it looked like it was not a net zero on that and I thought that there was a um solution elsewhere.

No, I see what you're saying. It's because the existing condition is not reflective of the previous proposed development plan which had like let's say three or four off the top of my head landscape islands. So it does look like the flanking entry islands are larger in occupying space, but those were already accounted for in the previous development plan parking space loss. So there there we may from existing condition to this proposed development plan, there may be a loss of spaces. That is possible, but it was accounted for in the previous plan.

That makes sense. Thank you. I I think I probably know everything I need to satisfy, but if you think I'm missing something. I don't want to not let you answer, but I don't think I need it.

I want to do a good job here. Um, we are net zero on parking, removing three, adding three, just to make sure that's clarified. Um, and also to proactively throw into the commission's court. Um no doubt there seems to be potentially a necessary kind of collaborative effort with staff on the uh landscape fence etc design along the core trail. Um so as a condition of approval with kind of cost effectiveness in mind given these are intended to be local full-time resident type of housing but the applicant's willing to um you know have that be a condition of of approval just to put that out there for your deliberation.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Yeah. Uh yeah, I have a question for staff. Um what STR zone is this in? This is in the red zone. Thanks. Other questions?

I have one. Uh I think for staff when we changed the PUD from PUD to CS zoning that no longer required commercial on the ground floor or do we made it a conditional it's a conditional use now, right? or residential on the ground floor is a conditional use and we approve. And with that change, did we approve all residential uses in the existing buildings in the in the when we changed that zoning?

Yes. through that process, the bridge lane units that were out of compliance um all came into compliance and they there are some that remained there along the river. There are some that left ground floor commercial a very limited number. I think it was you know three four at most. Um, everyone else I think has gone to two units or now the ground floor maybe became a garage whatever all that obviously was a very heavy proposal each unit was considered but yeah so that is majority residential over there. I I was just wondering if we had any idea what then the existing commercial uses are since the applicant does try to designate the existing commercial as enough to satisfy the mixeduse uh philosophy.

Sure. Yeah. I mean in staff's assessment the building there that fronts uh Shield Drive is entirely commercial and remains as such. again the limited number there in the previously considered bridge lane units I don't know that it's an exact number but we do understand the priority of commercial uses to the major rights of way um obviously there you could see a world where along the core trail there is a bit of commercial and that would be great but staff doesn't necessarily script what development happens uh we review it and see if we think it's portable and um beneficial to our community. In this case, we thought it was a positive development along the core trail.

I also just want to clarify um in the CS zone district, any multiple family residential is a conditional use, not just on the ground floor. Thank you. Any other questions? David, I haven't come to you online for a while. Do you have a questions? Yeah, just wanted to Thank you, Brian. Just wanted to clarify with the applicant when you came up a moment ago, you said um you would be okay with a condition related to the fencing and the landscaping along the core trail. What what would that look like in your opinion?

Um I think in general the the mindset from a design standpoint is they are full-time resident housing designs. So, a secure fenced in area should absolutely be a given. Um, we, you know, appreciate or the the applicant appreciates that, you know, there's a balance of transparency and design and security and all that that would go alongside. And then in particular, um, undoubtedly that area would look a lot better with, you know, what I'll call dressed up landscaping within that public easement area. Um, and it's very common, I know, from from our projects anyway, to plant uh landscaping within that easement area. And the city has mechanisms with irrevocable licenses, etc. for obvious reasons. So, I think that some of those aspects kind of legally were not allowed to be part of the original design and application is my understanding. But, um, I think are absolutely, you know, guaranteeable, if you will, if they're a condition of, uh, permits and the like. if you if you have that. So, to me, it would be a collaborative I don't want to speak for the applicant directly for obvious reasons, but a collaborative effort um on kind of defining what's what's appropriate cuz I think there's alignment on it wanting to feel special, nice, you know, extra mile. So,

thank you, David. Any other questions while you uh have the online floor? No, thank you. And this is odd doing it this way, so thanks for being flexible with me. No, no problem. Any other questions in person here? Take a moment to go to public comment then. Is there any public comment for this agenda item? Great. While you're coming down, just a friendly reminder, we ask you to give us your name, address, and try and keep your comments at 3 minutes.

Christina Freeman, 500 Warhouse Plaza, Steamboat Springs. Thank you for taking the time to review this project and for your service to the community. I want to make one quick point that came to mind when I read the reasoning behind the recommendation for denial on this project. Based on zoning, what would likely breeze through the approval process, likely without question, would be something like what was originally proposed for this parcel. And that would be a mirror image of that commercial that exists on the other side. So, picture for a moment that Excel Gymnastics, the dance studio, along with the other retail entities are what was going to be going in on this parcel. Sure, there'd be a certain amount um of required glazing for that commercial, but the core trail side would likely be a very tall wall with minimal windows. And because it's required maybe one or two primary entrances depending on how many commercial units were proposed. Personally, I don't believe for a second that any business would actually relish or utilize the core trail as their primary entrance. Requiring patrons to park on one side of the building and then navigate around and down the core trail to the other side of the building to get into the building. That doesn't seem realistic. At best, it would feel like a side entrance to a presumably 40 foot or more tall metal building that would likely be built to the furthest possible inch of that building envelope. Not to mention the parking fiasco that could be further exacerbated in that location. In contrast, what you have in front of you with the Eddie project is a set of beautiful, affordable, priced town homes that, yes, require a conditional use

approval. As far as the core trail activation and beauty, rather than a 40- foot tall commercial metal building, I would far prefer walking down the core trail and walking by a partial privacy fenced area where kids are playing out in their yard or biking down the core trail to my friend's house and rolling in their front gate with my bike. That all feels like steamboat to me. I don't quite understand what the hangup is on this. I think what what you've got in front of you is much improved compared to what you could see as a proposal. And beyond that, it does provide the housing that's so desperately needed. This project isn't a compromise. I think it's it's an upgrade over what zoning already allows and it delivers exactly the kind of community focused outcome that we should be saying yes to. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Walter McIll, Four Point Surveying Engineering, 1769 Broome Drive. We're also the civil engineer on the project. Uh Cameron Breton's out of town tonight. Uh just a few things I wanted to point out. Might join Kevin for a closing statement, but making sure you understood the six-foot fence idea that the fence is really 4 foot as proposed and what was shown in some of the architectural plans. It was shown as a 4ft fence with 2 feet above there. I think Christina makes a good point that these aren't solid privacy fences, but they're kind of ownership and small yard fences. when staff wants these buildings to face the Y ampa core trail and it's not enough. I can't think of another project that kind of you have a front door right there. You have an interpretation that you'd come home and go in and out that way. So, I can't think of better way that these buildings could be framed that are on the core trail to uh show the core trail as their front door. I think looking from US40 when I saw that vision of the architecture, it looks like it's from the front door. Uh, so I don't think there's any code that disallows this six-foot fencing in this location either. And it reminds me of also of kind of a river place and some of the core trail at that end of town on the south end of town. Uh, you know, there's a lot in here that you don't see in a lot of our uh planning commission packets and things like that because we're talking about this code implies the code we're interpreting and we believe and so it's not it's not real hard and fast tonight. So I think you have to look at that and that's how it was written in the staff packet as well that uh you know there will be a level of subjectivity. So look at that from from both sides as you do as all all your hearings. But I think that's important here that the sixoot fence is 4ft fence. It has wires. If you didn't want that the applicant is willing to look at a different fence format that could be an open fence the whole way but

they would like it to be secured. So thank you. Thank you. Is there any other public comment on this agenda item? Seeing none, is there any online you can raise your hand? Okay. I suspected as much. So I know as part of the design team, Walter, I'd probably say that wasn't public comment that you just gave us, but rather uh applicant information. But that's okay. We're not going to put too many labels on things. So thank you for the applicant information anyway. We'll officially close public comment. Is there any final other final followup the applicant would like to give us? Okay. And anything from staff?

Just to respond um once directly to some public comment. I do take a a little bit of or I want to respond to the fact that if we build a commercial building there, the commissioner should know that we do have design standards in the CS zone district as well. They regulate building articulation and form and roof pitch and volumes and access and glazing and frontage. So, and colors and and materiality. So the fact that I think to envision that we would end up with a tall metal-sided tiltup steel structure is is maybe a bit inaccurate. So I would hate for that to be lingering in your head that we'd have another Excel gymnastics. Um again, broadly staff do support the project but do um find it troublesome that we we couldn't have a better frontage on our core trail. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any final questions? Okay, then I'll close our public portion. Come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

I'm um I'm uh torn on on this project. Uh it provides affordable housing, attainable housing, whatever you want to call it, uh for our workforce. Uh the activation on the core trail is um I don't know, weird to me. Uh it's uh it's kind of like having a sidewalk only it's not really. Uh I I I don't find fault with the staff's recommendation. Um but I wish we could find a way uh that um we could approve this. I think you touch on something really important that I've been struggling with as well, which is um you were talking about staff's interpretation or don't let me put the wrong words in your mouth, but as we're looking at what ought to be the guidelines in your opinion or my opinion or anybody's versus what do the access standards for multif family require? Um, it's almost like it's it's not I'm going to take us down the wrong road if I say that, but I was going to liken it to an appeal process where you're trying to determine who followed the code properly. It's more black and white that way, but it's almost similar here is is what is the design guideline and has it been followed properly or has staff interpreted it more correctly that it hasn't been right. I feel like that's more than what I want our design guidelines to be or what I want this part of town to be or any kind of personal feelings. Um, has this been interpreted properly? Uh, I think is a big component of it and that's causing anxiety but also I think maybe clarity at the same time.

I understand I actually I agree. I think um something kind of important to consider also that staff nor the applicant brought up is what's happening on the other side of the core trail from this development. And it's not residential. It's kind of commercial. It's mostly industrial in nature. You know, there's a lot of conx boxes and junk and piles of stuff. And you know it that's not really what a residential frontage should look like.

I think you bring up Oh yeah, but to be fair, right, because I I want to go down your your train of thought, right? So just arguing for the sake of discussion is is that this was an industrial property. Yes, it's been changed to CS, but so is the stuff across the street. So whether or not the times have caught up to the future use that maybe is being envisioned, right? But ultimately, this property wasn't envisioned to have residential period, much less as town homes fronting other industrial zones. So it's kind of it's writing a fine line of like making sure that this is the right use for the right space kind of a thing as it is still we're in CS zone land. We're not in multif family zone land. I would feel wildly different if we were on the core trail in multif family zone land.

I I I mean I think that really nails home the point I'm trying to make. This is commercial services and the proposed development doesn't have a hint of commercial usage to it. It's multif family residential which Lou pointed out I I'm a big fan of attainable housing as well. Oh yeah, but I really don't know if this is the spot for it. Maybe that's it's in this spot because it can be attainable there.

And maybe it's not that bad. I mean, it's hard, you know, we we um the difficulty of not being able to question design intent by the designer tonight and and we should take that with a grain of salt. Um but what leap would it take in order to meet staff's interpretation of access and connectivity to the core trail with what product or design they currently have? Is it starting from square one or is it simple as the privacy uh expectation for these homes that are not in multif family zone land is the thing that takes the hit for being in this part of town? You know, what is what does it really take to to get to this standard being met? I have hope that it's not that tall of an order in order to come into compliance with what they're trying to propose right now. Um

maybe it's some optimistic hope. I'm sorry. But that's fair. No, no, no. That was it. That was the end. But

uh yeah, we heard a bunch of talk about attainability and I'm fearful of it using that for any kind of criteria. Well, even though it's being marketed to first, you know, first generation buyers and things like that, without any kind of deed restriction, only the first buyer is, even if it were to sell at the price point that's been advertised, only that first buyer is going to get that benefit. Everyone else is going to be making a profit on when when it turns. And so they could have easily put a followed up with their quoted intention of making it a workforce unit. No, there's no income restrictions on workforce units. they just have to be people that work here or had retired here, blah blah blah. Lots of ways to make sure that those stayed in uh residential or uh a local citizen's hands and not none of that's there. So, I want to make sure any of that idea is discounted. I mean, we can have million-dollar thousand square foot homes. So, whatever their intent is, that's not part of the application.

No, and I understand. I'm saying that to everyone, not just you. Oh, all of us. We heard that and we saw it all the time. In in in the presentation by the applicant, I thought what was mentioned was the city's new down payment program and what that requires is that it becomes a deed restricted home. Now I I that's not part of the application. I understand. Yeah. She's going to request that. So it's uh and Workforce Eden wouldn't preclude them from using down payment assistance. I don't think uh I don't disagree. I don't disagree.

Um and the other one is with the with staff's big problem about primary entrance and the presentation to the public. I mean, if there was some pime I think the court trail may not have been the best choice for a primary entrance. If they had made the courtyard something more of a livable, workable, walkable space instead of just a parking lot, I might have considered that and they could turn their back on the on the

port trail. Um, but they didn't. The the the the parking lot side is just parking lot garages. There's no uh enticement. There's no interaction going on in that side. So in my mind, staff is right that the court trail has been made the primary entrance and I don't think that they're addressing it as a primary facade. And that that's my big hang up. And that's not a hangup because that's how that's staff's position and I tend to agree and I agree with all the other comments. Otherwise, I like the project. I like the idea. Of course, we need housing.

We do need some commercial and whether it would have worked perfectly in this location or not, that's not for us to decide. It's us for us to decide whether this application meets it. And I guess I I'm probably going to say no based on supporting staff's uh arch articulation uh analysis that I think that's that's great. Um, I just reiterate my point that it it builds on everything you were saying, but with the optimistic hope that the no to this specific one might hopefully not require that much change in order to meet that one small hang-up because like you said, and I had just hadn't had the opportunity to to add to your point, is that all the other components of it uh of of this proposal are are great other than that. So, um, if they could make that leap, I think it it would get to the end of a successful proposal that could have a recommendation, just not asis.

I agree. David, do you want to add in real quick while we take a breath here?

Sure. Um, I appreciate the comments. I actually don't feel I actually feel the entrances complement the connect connectivity with the trail um and and the building and the or placement and orientation. Um I I don't necessarily I I appreciate staff's position and taking a position and and um but also mentioning in the comments that it this is subjective and I think Mr. Chair you you talked to that somewhat as well. Um, I guess I I am hearing other commissioners state they may not be in support of this. Is there any specific direction if that's if that's your position? Any specific question is any specific direction to give the applicant that they could go back and work on? Uh I'll jump in and say that as an architect I have no problem getting opinionated about architectural design but I will definitely not get opinion about architectural design because as I think uh uh you know Jeremy was um was saying earlier is is I don't think that it's for us to say you will do exactly this and then that has automatically met all of staff's other

changes and any other unforeseen things and now all of a sudden it's okay. I'm not sure that that's where we should be. And I agree. I'm not asking that. I don't think we designed from the dis. That's not why we were appointed to these these roles. Um number one, but are there is there a specific category to concentrate on to bring back what what they think would then meet meet the requirements of our code? I will say that what I wrote down was very specific. um wording from the guideline or standard that that is in question. Yeah.

Talks about the purpose of the entry is to enhance activity and vitality as well as facilitate wayinding. Y I would say that that's what I think is missing from my own. Sure. I appreciate that and and I think that's they're very is subjective to what those words mean, but thanks for that.

Um, for me personally, we talked a lot about fences, mostly the ones against the core trail. I don't think I really have a problem with those fences. They're see-through. And think about riding down the core trail. Every time you come in contact with residential, there's fences. whether it's the trailer park or all along Emerald Park, there's privacy fences. Now, those are the back doors of those places. Um, and you know, a nice yard like our public commenter said, with a fence that's somewhat transparent. I that seems okay to me. I am a little more hung up on the fences on the back of building two that are very oddly shaped and it it appears that they run all the way down to building four and sort of subdivide this residential piece out of the overall mixeduse community here. Um I feel like that fence is more problematic for me than the fences against the core trail. Yeah, I actually I agree with the the 4 foot6 foot fence is actually pretty aesthetically okay. Yeah, I think especially along the court, you know, that that seems like it would be nice architecturally to look at,

but the ones in the back seem, you know, disjointed and just kind of going all over the place and with a distinct intent to separate this from the rest of the community that they're a most used part of. Okay. Any other discussion or anybody want to make a motion? This would be a motion to approve staff recommendation.

Well, whatever motion you want to make, but staff is is recommending the planning commission recommend denial. Lots of recommend there. Um, and this is a recommendation to council. So, okay. Um, uh, motion to approve staff recommendation for denial of PL 2025300. Second. Okay. So, we have a motion to second. Any other discussion?

Question. Is there a point that we would send this back to the applicant with as and table this with some distinct items to come back with rather than having them start all over recommendation going to council. They have time to do that. They can jump up and down right now if they would rather us table it, but I can't imagine that's what they want. Okay.

Can can I add a comment to that? Um I think though one thing I mean I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm just saying it there's also an opportunity for planning commission to want to see any potential revisions. So certainly it can go either way. More of a a table with a specific come back with something in four weeks, two weeks, some date certain kind of idea that we've done in the past. Is that what you mean?

Yeah. I mean I'm not again not advocating. I'm just to Commissioner Levy's comment that they can just go forward to council, they certainly can do that. Um, however, if planning commission wants to be able to like if the applicant would be inclined to make revisions and you want to wait like have an opportunity to review those and provide a recommendation on those. Otherwise, anything that happens between now and council, you know, your re like your discussion and your recommendation doesn't help inform what council would then see. Does that make sense? Mhm. I am hung up on do the two gentlemen I'm staring at, do the two applicants, quote unquote, here um are you able to speak to that or is that something that can't really be answered properly by the applicant?

Please come. Right. Right. Yeah. Sorry, got to get you on the record, but um can the applicant as the applicant already Um I believe let me make sure I understand the options. There's the table with feedback which I know we've been involved in that before where you come back in a month or whatever it is. You provide specific feedback to try to solve with staff resubmit new hearing but there's no actual vote. Correct. Right. There's no planning commission vote tonight. Well it would be a motion to table. Correct. There's no motion at the table. There's no recommendation council tonight is what I think you mean. Or you can deny or I'm just

recommend denial. Recommend denial with feedback. Recommend denial. The feedback would be in the meeting minutes that council would be reading.

I think the key message that I understand is there's um and I'm not trying to I've not been involved. I'm just a messenger. um a lack of specific feedback, collaboration, whatever the word is, on what would get staff over the hump from a design standpoint to be able to achieve it. So, I don't think there's a fear of going to council without planning commission support, but obviously the goal would be if we're if if we're walking away tonight without approval that there's clarity on why so that there can be confidence going into counsel to revise the plan. So, the council's voting on the revised plan. I think it's probably a timeline question. So I think just the the general feedback again my understanding stress not being involved at all. Please don't kick my shins. Um is just generally like a significant amount of feedback of why because I think there's general support of housing. I think the workforce housing aspects are solvable. Um I don't want to go down that rabbit hole but I can as a as a citizen. Um, so it sounds like it's this orientation access thing of of getting that design to a place where it's meeting what you read off the vitality, etc. Like what does that mean? Cuz I think we can all agree those are subjective that's subjective language. That's not a technical engineering language. Um, to clarify, engineering required the fences by the way throughout the application process. That was an engineering requirement, not that design, but fences in general. So, just to make sure that's

So, Brian, how I was told that I don't mean to jump in and speak, but that's not accurate. Fences were not required by engineering or planning. Yeah, I think we'd have to have more I'm not I don't mean to throw you under the bus. Yeah, that's okay. That's I don't Yeah, I would if we want clarity on that, I think we have to understand the context of that statement a little bit more. I I think big picture it sounds like um there's not an interest to table. Okay.

Um but hopefully if there is a denial there can be meeting minutes it sounds like is the right mechanism to provide more commission level feedback and then ultimately dovetailing into staff collaboration. So going into council because there's obviously going to need to be revisions going into this council vote if this is heading in the direction that not necessarily and Actually, maybe not at all. I mean, honestly, because the the application seen tonight is the one that goes with a recommendation. So, changes to that, I would think, don't come with recommendation because they're not passed through planning commission.

Are you allowed to make changes in the package that goes to council between with the denied planning commission um application? Yeah. So, let me speak to that a little bit. Um I I don't think we can like prevent you from going to council with a proposal to try to address what maybe you're you've heard at planning commission.

Um we certainly like when that h it happens. It's not rare that that happens. Um for a number of reasons. We typically as staff try to do our best to get it in advance enough so that we can take a look at it and and com you know provide counsel with staff's feedback. Um however I will I will just say that I as as staff we can't guarantee how council will receive that. So minor changes are not necessarily um that difficult to take to council. Um if council feels like they're significant and they look at the minutes and they say we don't have a planning commission to like we don't know how they they're recently they have relied heavily on planning commission's comments and feedback and recommendations. So I just don't want to set like an expectation. And I can't really um guarantee how council would receive changes in, you know, that were different from planning commission. Again, either way though, you're not you wouldn't be required, there wouldn't be required to have changes made before council with a recommendation for denial. But I think as the applicant, you could try to address those comments. Um it just depending on what they are, it might be difficult.

Understood. kind of like to know where I think to reiterate I think the the I think we're all reading the room. If we would very much welcome as detailed as possible meeting minutes on commission's opinions on how to achieve the standard. It sounds like there's potentially a desire to make modifications. The question is whether they're, you know, significant enough. But nonetheless, I think the game plan would be to go to council with the adjustments and you know, obviously working with staff in the interim um whether you're officially allowed to bless them or not, but hopefully we can go into that council meeting with with more uh staff thumbs up whether it's official or not.

Yeah, I mean if we have enough time to review it and if it changes our recommendation, we can we we will communicate all of that with council. We would also make it clear to council that those were changes made after planning commission's um recommendation. And I would just say like sort of from a timeline perspective because I recognize that that's probably the most one of the most critical decision points for the applicant. You know, worst case would be council would remand it back to planning commission. I only say that because that just happened on Tuesday night, but that was a different scenario. It wasn't because of changes, but it's just, you know, it's a council option. So, I just want to make sure that that's there.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate I know you're interpreting and uh I think I got it right. So, thank you for that.

Now, you officially have your answer to that. We don't want to look for a table. So, um we've made a motion and a second. Is there any other final discussion on that? I'll go since he uh the applicant did ask for maybe more clarification of what our concerns are. Uh for me certainly is the the fence along the court trail and maybe even the glazing along that when if I were to take that fence completely away I see two I see a door and one little window facing the court. Um I privacy we all have front doors and front windows facing streets. I don't know that the court trail is really any different than a bit, you know, a busy street. So, just so because we may not all be on the same page of as to what changes are would be acceptable. That's the big one for me. I'm not sure about the the building number two fence. Uh I hadn't thought about that one too much, but so those are the two things for me because a translucent fence is not a transparent fence. Just because you could see light coming through it, it's still a visual blocking of what's going on there. Except yeah, you can see motion. Uh, so that would be my my concern and I that would be it. But to staff's point, there needs to be a presence to the court.

Presence that suggests access, right? This is an access standard. Just just adding any clarity I can. Yeah. But I think the the comments I heard were there was also a concern about security. We all do though. Understand? we're in discussion.

I want to uh maybe just repeat some of the things I heard earlier that stuck out to me is um I think when staff was speaking I heard the word impass and so it it seems like a lot of things we're talking about um staff and the applicant has probably gone around in circles on several times and just couldn't get there. Um, and along with the applicant wanting specifics, staff being reluctant to provide any specifics. Some things that I heard from staff and read in their report was um, wanting stoops access like we talked about. Um, also they're seemingly not being a big fan of the gravel paths off the core trail, not that not feeling very inviting. So those are some of the specifics that I heard from staff in the report. Great. Yeah. Terrific. Any other discussion? All right. Then I will call for a vote. The vote is again on a uh agreeing with staff's recommendation to recommend denial of this application.

Denial. I I I I No. Great. That recommendation passes 5 to one. All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate you uh uh presenting and um best of luck at council. Yeah. Yeah. Uh being 7:15, uh we'll take a quick break. Uh you guys want five minutes or 10 minutes? That's okay. Five minutes. Keep it moving. Come back to some landscape standards. Thanks. All right, we'll be back on in five minutes.

It wasn't very short. All right, great. So, jumping into agenda item number four. This is PL 2025313 landscape code amendment. Bob, do you have a presentation for us? I do. Thank you very much. Just give me one more second here.

Okay. Um, my name is Bob Keenan. I'm the development review manager for the city city of Steo Springs planning department and I'm excited to be here tonight in front of you all. It's been a long time in the making, but we're here to present the updated landscape code. Um I do want to mention that there is a number of items that has come in as rainbow uh a few public comment letters um as well as the presentation you're about to see. So, uh, I'm just gonna get started on the presentation, but as I noted, um, it's, yeah, I'm excited to present this both professionally and, um, because it's, uh, I think an important thing and very timely, uh, for our community to be, uh, working on updated landscape code standards that deal with primarily water conservation and and wildfire resiliency. So, um, oh, I also want to mention too that, uh, Julie Baxter, water resource manager, uh, she's been a big part of this project, and she's going to, um, jump in on a few of the slides here as well. So, um, all right. So, it's, uh, the city's, uh, embarked on a multi-year effort to, uh, to amend our landscape code. Um it's important to note that this applicability to the landscape code remains the same with the with the new updates. It's uh commercial and multif family development uh that it applies to. Uh the purpose uh is to create clear practical standards that support our community's goals as identified in numerous adopted plans that I'll touch on here in a in a few minutes. Um and also the the draft was developed with assistance from uh local technical

experts, partners, uh regional partners and consultants. We'll talk a little bit more about that later. Um as I noted, uh emphasis has been given to wildfire resiliency, water conservation, and uh ease of use. We're proposing uh with the ordinance that goes to council that the an effective date of July 1st uh July uh 1st, 2026. Uh that'll give us some time to do a little bit more outreach and um get our website and documents up uh up and running to support this. Uh also want to do some a little bit of uh training for staff. Um all right so goals of the code update as I mentioned just want to make sure it's it's update the previous version was sometimes cumbersome and difficult to use so we wanted to trying to make some improvements there um wanted to uh strengthen uh community resiliency as I mentioned um through water conservation wildfire protection uh also as part of this effort effort is to provide a regional regionally appropriate recommended plant list. Um, in the current CDC there in in the appendix there's a plant list and that was created I I would venture to say probably close to 20 years ago. Um, so we've uh staff has um created a a new plant list that's in the packet and that's going to be a staff maintained plant list. uh that way we can continue to update and amend it uh without need for um an ordinance each time. Um we can talk a little bit more about that later. Um also really important with this and which is been a little tricky and and has added some additional time as we were creating these standards. The state

was adopting new regulations as we were creating standards. So we were like having to to pivot a little bit and get these incorporated. So, uh, the first one there, 23166, was, um, resulted in the 2025 Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code, which was adopted by city council, uh, March 17th, 2026. Uh, we've got the next two are the turf bills um that was u required by the state pretty recently. So, those have been incorporated into this landscape code. As I noted, uh this effort is supported by a number of planning efforts with it for our community and goals for our community um which are contained in the climate action water conservation plan, wildfire protection plan, and hazard mitigation and the most recently adopted community canvas or the Steamboat Springs community plan. Uh I mentioned technical support. So we formed a stakeholder group which is kind of like also like a technical kind of stakeholder group um involved the which included the Colorado State Forest Service route county extension Mount Warner Water District, the route county Wildfire Mitigation Council, Western Resiliency Center uh which um was uh formerly known as Y Valley um sustainability

sustainability council. Thank you. Um and u city and then city of steam springs uh utility engineering and uh water resource divisions. U code studio was the consulting zoning code consulting team assisting on this. Um we've also had um technical input from NWCCOG. Um and then uh also um Headwaters Economics and uh the uh CPO was our uh the team that helped us um with some technical aspects. And then uh Norris Design, this is something that we added on later. We wanted to we contracted with this landscape architecture consulting firm um to help us kind of test the the landscape code um which was it was money well spent. Um that also slowed us down a little bit but I think it was it was worthwhile. Um what they did is they ran through they they they mocked up a couple of sites in town with the new standards and saw how they applied and we made some adjustments to our draft like we had a draft code that we gave them and then they did a markup. So that was that was pretty cool. Um liked how that worked out. Um and I'll I'll speak to some of the changes they recommended uh later on. All right. This is where um going to hand it over to Julie. She's going to talk a little bit about water conservation as our water resources manager.

Hi, Julie Baxter, water resources manager. Um, yeah, I just want to take a few minutes to kind of talk about how important these proposed updates to the standards are um in the context of our overall water conservation goals and our water conservation program. that's part of my role to lead the city's water conservation activities for the our water utility um including the implementation of our water conservation plan and we we have a city water conservation team and we're in the process of building a more formal um water conservation program in partnership with Mount Mount Warner Water. Um so water conservation our responsibilities are shared across departments mainly public works, parks and recreation um and the planning department. And so the planning department you know is at that nexus where water conservation meets land use planning um and our development code. Um and I always like the opportunity to um talk about and remind people why the city cares so much about water conservation. Um we are a drinking water provider. Um, so that's a critical lifeline utility. It's one of the most important services the city provides the community. Um, and water conservation improves the reliability of our water supplies um, in the face of different types of disasters and emergencies and uncertain future conditions. So, it gives us more flexibility and resiliency when there is a prolonged drought, when there's years like this, if there's a wildfire in the wershed, um shortages on the Yampampa River Basin or the overall Colorado River system. Um it also um saves money because it helps us prolong our existing water supplies and delay big capital projects that then result in increases to our customers water rates as well. Um it helps us protect the Yampampa River um and our tributaries. We have we can divert less water from the wells and from Fish Creek, leave more in the water for the river. Reduces

our carbon footprint because it takes a lot of chemicals and energy to treat water. Um and we also know these are all things that our community really um supports and cares about. Um, and we also see water conservation as important as part of our kind of regional presence and um, demonstrates that we're joining our other western slope communities in doing our part. Um, so improving these water efficiency standards into the development code helps us transition to a more resilient built environment um, in the long term and meet these community goals. um one-third of all our water use is outdoor and um some national studies estimate that about a half of outdoor water use is wasted. Um so one of our goals from a utility perspective is to shave the peak off of those peak high demand irrigation days um in the summer. So this is one way that we can work towards doing that in the long term. Um I you know Bob talked a um you know this is supported by a lot of goals. I wanted to specifically point out that this the landscaping code is a the update to it to strengthen water conservation and wildfire resiliency is a council goal um for this year. Um what the implementing the water conservation plan is in our city strategic plan. Um the CDC landscaping standards are specifically a priority activity in the water conservation plan. Um, and then we also had a group from the city and Mount Warner Water attend a workshop in Grand Junction a couple years ago. We had Rebecca and Tom Leon and um, uh, former counselor uh, McInley and we came up with a water smart action strategy and one of the key first actions was updating this landscaping standard. So, we've been thinking about this and and prioritizing it for a while. And like Bob said, it's really exciting to finally be at this point.

Um, I just wanted to make a a um a couple comments on on the proposed standards. So, um, you know, we had been sort of debating like how would we limit turf? What would that look like? And then, you know, the state passed the law and made that decision for us. So, that was nice. Um, we also, you know, we looked at model codes and best practices from Dola, um, from Western Resource Advocates, um, from the, uh, Northwest Cog, um, from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Um, we looked at peer communities. So, a lot and, you know, well, you say all communities in the state. So, most of a lot of the front- range communities have already made these changes a few these um, types of standards a few years ago. Um, Aspen and Telluride have more stringent um, standards than we're proposing. Um, and then, uh, Grand Junction, Glenwood Springs, Durango all have kind of similar things um, standards as we're as we're proposing right now. Um, and um, and just another important part of these standards is requiring licensed or certified professionals to put together the landscape irrigation plans. So I mean these are professionals that are trained to design for water efficiency for different types of sites and conditions for our tough mountain um conditions and to um you know as I mentioned 50% of outdoor water use is um lost to runoff overspray and inefficient systems and this comes from design flaws not from the users the end users um and so having professionals means that they can understand and apply these techn technical standards, the same logic as we have engineers um you know designing our drainage systems and surveyors doing our plat. Um and we think that it will help it it should help reduce staff time in review. Um we get a more reliable

product delivery for developers. This could mean cleaner plan reviews, less resubmitts, fewer installation errors um and warranty issues and better long-term performance for clients. So water savings and cost savings. So we don't see requiring these qualified professionals as a burden, but instead like insurance that we're meeting that the goals that were set forward with these standards. And then I also just wanted to point out a few of the activities that the city is doing to support these code changes. So we are just in the process of hiring a new water conservation coordinator. It's a full-time position and half of the um position will just be devoted to water the water conservation program in partnership with Mount Warner Water. Part of that role will be helping to support education and outreach the development and landscaping um community on these changes. Um we also will be um uh are looking into holding a workshop called qualified water efficient landscaper workshop um at the end of the summer that'll be free to landscapers where they can get an um certification. Um we have rolled out the resource or the garden in the box program um as well. And um I also just wanted to say that we're really practicing. Oh, I wanted to mention the rebate program. We have a new outdoor um irrigation rebate program um both for private um single family residential as well as multif family and commercial where we will reimburse people for part of their costs for smart irrigation controllers um for um water efficient nozzles sprinkler heads for getting an irrigation assessment or audit done. Um and then we're also practicing what we preach um in that the parks and rec recreation department has hired a full-time um certified um water efficient irrigation

professional. Um we've installed a smart irrigation central master control system for all of our city facilities and parks. And then we're and that's 15% water savings just by having a smart controller. And um uh we're also systematically going through each park and um upgrading all of their components of their irrigation system. Um so I think these proposed standards um are just a really important part um component of our long-term water security um for the city and I'm happy to answer any questions after Bob's presentation. Thanks.

Great. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Julie. Okay. Um, we're getting there. So, thanks for bearing with us here. Um, but there's a lot to cover here. So, uh, jumping into the key changes. I call them key changes. We're we've rewritten the entire section 402. Um, but just highlighting kind of where we've moved. Um so um landscape and irrigation plans as Julie mentioned um they'll be required by uh proposed to be required by a qualified professional. Um so in irrigation plans there's u what's called a certified irrigation designer as the um as the accreditation um that uh we would propose to look for this would we would provide this guidance uh with our um subal requirements on our website as part of like a planning department policy. Um also uh with water conservation we've uh low water need plants uh don't require permanent irrigation. So we just uh require temporary irrigation for a period of 3 years for those. Um as mentioned turf limitations on non-functional non-hybridized turf uh efficient irrigation systems will be required. smart irrigation controllers, uh required use of citymaintained plant list, and then having 75% of plantings be native or low water use. A key changes regarding wildfire and landscape areas. Um as noted, we've

incorporated the Colorado wildfire resiliency code requirements. Uh in particular, their class 2 uh defensible space principles. Um that's is part of the uh Colorado wildfire fire resiliency code that where they had a map and almost the entirety of Steamboat Springs was in class 2 except for some small pockets. So that's what we're incorporating into the code. Um you may have some questions like well if city council's already adopted this code why why is um planning putting it into the CDC? Uh well, we think it's important to um for usability for both the our applicants and staff to uh incorporate those into the landscape code where you can see all of our standards in one place. Um there's uh also an allowance for ignition resistant plantings. And then the other uh landscape areas affected. So we've uh we're proposing to eliminate interior landscape requirements and parking lot setbacks. Uh well with the parking lot setbacks we we are replacing that with uh parking lot screening standards. Um so uh how that would work is that there would no longer be the required setback for the parking lot. It would just have a better screening um for those parking lots. uh parking lot. Uh we've added also adding parking per uh parking perimeter and repairarian landscaping. Uh and also codifying the street tree requirements from the engine engineering standards and um moving those into the community development code more intentionally. All right, moving on to the plant list. Uh the purpose was to support the new

code with a non-exclusive set of plant options appropriate for the amp valley's character and climate. Uh it replaces the current plant list in the CDC. As I mentioned, it's made out maintained outside of the code for flexibility and regular updates. Uh it includes height, spread, uh nativity and water needs for each of the plants listed in that. Ignition resistant plants are also identified to support the fire code standards. And uh staff dived at uh drive this plant list by researching regional appropriate plants, reviewing comparable community plant lists and input from uh local experts uh and nurseries. Uh regarding plantings, reduce the minimum plant size to be more consistent with what can be sourced here locally. uh requires as mentioned plant all the landscaping within the standards requires uh compliance with the plant list. There are there are exceptions. It reduces the number of required plantings for frontage landscaping. Eliminates interior landscape requirements. Reduces the number of landscape parking interior and end islands. And I'll get into a little bit of that here in a second. and then also reduces the minimum size of plantings um so that it better better better aligns with what's available. Um okay so we had a work session with the planning commission uh towards the end of last year um and we've made some change I thought it'd be helpful for the comm planning commission to understand what we've changed since that time. So,

we've introduced uh graphics within uh the the code to to support the text and we've uh removed the foundation plantings that we were originally proposing. U they just seem to conflict a little too much with the fire the fire uh wise standards um fire protection standards. Um then we've reduced the number of shrubs. So, anything with the asterisk there at the end, you'll see is that's that was the recommendations that we uh that we made based on that review we did with the Norris design consultants. Um so, we found with uh with that review that reducing the what we had proposed of number of shrubs for screening uh we reduced that by half was seemed excessive in in those markups we we went through with Norris. Um, we also removed ornamental trees at their recommendation from the screening requirements. Uh, allow shrubs for tree substitutions in li limited circumstances uh in cases where there's uh easement areas or conflicts with firewise standards. Um, but the the the current code allows it in any circumstance and and we thought that was a little too permissive. We were getting a lot of situations where we weren't getting trees anymore. or just people are shrubbing their shrubing their way out of trees. Um uh uh we're also um including the uh ignition resistant plantings uh since that last version. We've reduced the number of interior and end island uh landscape areas required for parking lots. Uh the current proposal is now one per 15 spaces versus the one per 10 that's currently in the code. And um the

thinking behind that was the the more landscape areas that you have in a parking lot, the larger your parking lot is going to be and the more paved area you you're going to have with your parking lot. Um and so um that's that was the thought process um behind behind that and it provides a little more flexibility. We do get a lot of comments about how difficult it is to um to do snow maintenance in parking lots with a bunch of islands. Um so that's that's kind of where we landed um for this. Um though I think it's more um specific on on actually requiring uh end islands um not um where the current code would just say like every nine and I think it adds a little more spec spec specificity. I think I got it there um to that requirement. Um reduce the minimum plant size requirements. Um, again I I think I previously mentioned that um to to match with what you can actually buy at the nursery. Um another important one here is um while we were going through we noticed that bank automotive auto automobile service and automobile wash um did not have any screening standards and it seemed like it was perhaps maybe just an oversight from previous efforts because there's a host of other um uses that would require similar to this that that already require screening in the code. Um but so I wanted to make sure that was noted. Um we've also added um a handful of new definitions. Um drive-thru facility,

irrigation resistant vegetation and structure ignition zone. Okay. Um so the that's so there's associated edits to articles 2, three, four, and eight. And that's in exhibit B. I feel like that's pretty straightforward why we've had to u make changes to associated um other parts of the code. Um and just real quick on our public outreach efforts. So um you might have seen a article in the newspaper uh commun city communications department released did a press release and um noted the changes high level and uh and the hearing dates. Uh we've had a dedicated web presence at engage steamboat for a number of months now. Uh we've sent email notifications to um update subscribers. So you can go on to the planning department or the city website and say I want to be notified of any code changes. So we've we've sent pushed out notifications to that group and then we did uh direct emails to common development applicants and consultants. Okay. City Council May 5th and May 19th um is the proposed schedule here moving forward. As I mentioned, we'll want to do some additional outreach and update forms and and website um for this effort. And that's a wrap. Um we'll be available for any questions.

Thank you, Bob. All right. Thank you and Julie. Any questions to Bob or Julie? Yeah, I um I read through Walter's note and Gabby's note on requiring a professional um landscaper person, architect, I guess. Um and I know we talked about it in our work session at length and I for the life of me I can't remember where we landed on it, but it appears that requirement. No, apparently we've got it. not a state requirement is it?

So uh our understanding is that landscape architects are a state requirement for commercial for almost all commercial multif family development over I want to say is it four units.

Yep. Four units. And there are exceptions where civil engineers can propose landscape plans for drainage infrastructure or perhaps some elements of subdivisions. Um and so that that um article u that that code u Colorado statute is cited in in our updated code. Um and Lou I if there w if there was some concern it was not unanimous enough to um have staff relook at a a different approach on that. Um and then as Julie's presentation mentioned, you know, um where the most of the water waste is coming from poorly designed irrigation systems is right is is why we feel strongly about um having a certified design professional on those. And I did just want to I I didn't say this in the presentation, but I know in Walter's comment, he had said that there were 20 sta in the state um irrigation certified irrigation professionals and on the EPA's waters site, there's 148. Um so I just wanted to make sure you all know that there's there's not really just 20.

No. Well, I'd be curious how many there are here in steamboat land. Yeah. Yeah. Hey Lou, I looked that up. And we're in a digital world now. It's not uh critical that you live here so we can you can hand a paper plan, right? So, um go ahead. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Yeah. No, Lou, I looked that up. There are three within 30 miles of Steamboat Springs. One of those works for the city. So, that means there are two. That's it. That's it. Okay. what is similar to a landscape architect or a certified irrigation designer as uh

in your presentation? Um, yeah, it's the code language is and I was going to move over there so I could pull up my my resources there so I could answer some questions and and take some notes, but uh well I I just was going to comment that that um the qualified water efficient landscaper training that I mentioned that we're we're trying to schedule in August, but Aspen does it for free every single year. So, it's been available. Um, and then there's a whole other set of certifications that you can go down to the front range and get. Um, but that that quell one we're going to try to we're we're going to try to do here and we would do it free of charge. Um, and it's like a one-day course. Uh if there's more questions on it, yeah, we can do that. I want to answer Rich's question. The the code language right now is the landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional including but not limited to landscape architect licensed in the state of Colorado to to cover the the variety of situations. As I mentioned, not not every situation is a landscape architect required,

but it's since it's a non-exclusive list. I was just wondering for those that feel that that's honorous, what other qualifications fit under that umbrella and that's what Julie was just touching on. Well, she said you can. So, there's a training and that's other one. So, Jeremy is our staff landscape architect. So, uh right in fieldhouse here.

Yeah. I'll give you a little primer. Colorado is a practice act state for landscape architecture which means you can't practice landscape architecture. There's you know title acts you can't call yourself landscape architect. You can't practice landscape architecture. So four units or less anyone in a nursery garden center horiculturalist uh can design it. Anything larger than that is supposed to be done by a landscape architect. Now the qualifier to that is and this is in state statute. It talks a lot about overlap of professions. We have architects, we have engineers, we have other licensed professionals. Um, and there's there's a group called IORE, the interorganizational um council on regulations, I believe it is. They meet and they talk about these overlaps and try to to figure out. But for instance, our civil engineers certainly have the capacity and the expertise to design storm water facilities um do street tree plantings um things that are rel related to civil engineering. So where Bob talks about um other professionals, there may be landscape plans that are in the scope and profession of a licensed civil engineer in that perspective. Um so that's where those overlaps happen but it is required by state statute just as um our other licensed professionals.

Okay. Thanks. All right. Any other questions? Yeah. Where does the certified irrigation designer fit into that? Only in things that are less than four units. For irrigation plans only for the creation of irrigation plans that um that are required. So if you're if somebody is to propose a landscape a project that requires irrigation for our code, then it then that's where they would step in or a landscape architect could do it because they're qualified as well.

If they are if if they're going to stamp the plan uh the the irrigation plan. Yeah. But there might not be plans. Yeah. Are is our code exempting projects under four units or is it required for all projects and under the new code that the code is is is referring back to the state uh the state law which um would be the four or more. Yeah. Okay. Bob, I got a different subject for you. Can we talk about tree crowns real quick?

Sure. super nip super nitpicky, but I I feel like the way that the tree crown is described in the code is asking to measure from trunk to trunk rather than edge of crown to edge of crown. And I think that maybe we could tweak that graphic a little bit and even the language to make that a little bit more clear, especially in the I'm talking about in the defensible space area. We're talking like 6 to 10 foot separation. The graphic is literally showing center to center. And we could just be a little bit more clear. Super nitpicky, but yeah, I I would I would want to see that that change.

Anybody else have one? I had a similar question when we were talking about substituting shrubs for trees. Do shrubs have the same separation requirements? Because in a fire situation, they could be equally dangerous, let's just say, because I can't think of the word I want to use. Yes, as a tree, maybe even more so. Yes, they are applicable to each of the structure ignition zones. Okay, cool. Yep.

I had another one and it's more philosophical. I mean, we talk about um water waste and you know, excessive watering, etc. One of my little pet peeves is when we're looking to cover the costs of water delivery, we constantly raise the usage fee. I don't know why we are not, excuse me, an application, a connection fee, but we're not upgrade up upcharging the actual use per water. And the city really need if people are wasting water, we need to be charging them more. There needs to be my understanding is it's every rate. Go ahead. We do have a tiered rate system. So there's the more you use the higher rate you pay within tiers.

Okay. I haven't seen that. Thinking about Yes. Yeah. No, that's that is and and it it makes a big difference. Okay. Never mind. Thank you. Any other questions?

Yeah. I'm I still didn't find clarity. There were a couple questions that I I think I asked on during the workshop and didn't find more clarity in the new draft, but maybe it's there and I just missed it. So, one of those is um what happens if we're talking about I'm talking about small projects now. So there's, you know, percentages and if a project frontage or whatever the area happens to be requires less than those that the percentage categories. So say it requires less than three trees and two shrubs, but there's that many categories because I've seen this become a problem in our current code. Does that make sense? If we it only requires one tree or two trees, but there are five categories that you have to pro provide percentages within. Yes, I do recall you bringing that up now. And so you're talking about table 4026 believe where we've got rate one per 400 and if you're in the into fractions there. Um, so I believe the code requires like rounding up. Um, is that like Rebecca? I think that's an overall um where where a code standard uh results in a fraction. It gets rounded like parking. Um

I mean once it's been rounded up to like two or what's that? Once it's been rounded up if it's less than the number of categories. Well, yeah. I mean, you can't have a point. 2 tree, right? Is that right? Yeah, that's not what I'm asking. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. So, you calculate the area and then it says you need two tree. You need 1.47 trees. You round that up to two. Mhm. And then which and there are three categories in which you have to provide the percentage amount of trees. Okay. Yes.

You would want to see a hierarchy. Is that what you're saying? No, I just want to see asurances for what you're supposed to do in that situation because I've had it applied on projects both ways. I've had it applied where we were required to provide more plants than we were required to just because we had to fill all the categories. And then I've had it applied separately or the opposite where we provided the the number that we were required to provide but just chose the highest percentage categories. And I'd like to know that there's something that's in code that says what's going to happen because it's caused confusion for me in the past. That makes sense.

No, it's great. I'm always just I I just want to put in to context your question on like how does that look into theoretically a recommendation to council that we like this code except for you know and if you want to say except for something then you know what it and I think right now I'm just trying to clarify that there's not some something in there that I'm just missing that does clarify that which would be the easiest

right exactly yeah Um sorry I also noticed I got some table numbering I got to work on but um so um do you have any recommendation? I mean I think with staff if you had you could pick two of the trees that you wanted. I don't Yeah, I think if that was just clarified somewhere that would be helpful. Mhm. Okay. Just to help with consistency. M

um I had I have a couple other of those if people are okay with me continuing um whether drive aisles and driveways are included in vehicle use areas because I would assume they are um but I know that was a kind of a question mark during our workshop. Mhm. So if you happen to have, you know, some of the industrial lots in particular have like a long entry and then they might have like a 100 foot long driveway and then they have their parking area away at the back of their lot.

Are they required to screen that entire driveway because it's a vehicular use area uh for the screening standards? Yeah, like that is

it doesn't really say it doesn't say driveways, but if I were guessing what vehicular use areas are, I would assume that a driveway is one of them. So, the screening standards just parking lots Um so I there would yeah there is no hard and fast uh distin distinction which is probably what you're getting at. Um but we would like an access road to a parking lot. We would not consider it to need screening per this um because it's um vehicle use areas are further described as being either parking lots, loading and service areas or drive-through areas.

So even like the drive aisles on a parking lot would not be or would they be drive aisle? like if it's within the parking lot, it was it will require screening per the um parking lot screening requirements. So, I guess what I'm getting at is that like if everything's a square parking lot, then this makes perfect sense. Like we know what the parking lot is, right? But as soon as it's not a square parking lot, like Eddie Line is actually a good example. It's like little pieces of parking all over the site or I mean I can think of a lot of that are like that are on smaller sites. As soon as it's not a parking lot, it's just parking areas. It's less clear what parts need to be

screened in the code. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's unique situations all over the place that it's really difficult to account for each one of them in the code. Um, but I'm open to suggestions on how you might handle that. Yeah, I would love to to just qualify exactly what a parking lot is somehow, but I don't know. I mean, I I don't have suggestions on what that looks like. I just know that of the 15 projects that we've done in the city, I don't think a single one of them has a parking lot. And so that's I mean, it's enough to know that they're not just outliers. That makes sense.

Just as a reminder, we have included vehicle and drive aisles now as definitions in our last version 8. That was something you guys approved. So that helps. It lends a small piece of definition to this discussion. And drive alles are included in the screening or not included in the screening requirements. A drive would not in my interpretation and would be part of the parking lot. Say that again, Jeremy. Drive aisle would or would not be part of the parking.

I do not believe it would be. Oh, the drive Sorry, I'm misspeaking. The access I was thinking of the access aisle. The drive aisle would be part of the parking lot. An access um aisle would not be like we talk about accessing from the road to get into a parking lot and then the drive aisles itself are part of the parking lot. That was a the reason for that code amendment. Apologies. Yeah, I think we totally hear the like wish that we could perfectly define it, but I I don't know that we're going to get to that is the intention that that more of that would be screened. I guess that's what I'm trying to understand the impacts of all of this screening because that it's a lot of screening if if like it's a driveway that's going around and there are four parking spots on one side of it and then it goes along further and there are four more parking spots. Is that entire area intended to be screened per this code? That informs

if it's a lot. Yeah, it's hard to describe and I do I think it may be helpful just to clarify that screening I if well the situation we're talking about screening landscaping wouldn't apply. It's the perimeter. Sure. Yeah. Landscaping in the wrong that would apply and um yeah I don't I I can only say we we would need to review it on a case by case basis. Um, yeah. Any other questions? Brian had a couple questions. Okay, go.

So, one, Bob, Julie, thank you and and everyone for all the work on this much needed item. Had I'm still confused on the professionals um from a CI and my number of three was a C uh in particular that I mentioned earlier. Um Jeremy, you made a comment around landscape architects. I and and there's one certified with the state of Colorado that lives in 800487. They're more around, but I'm confused. And then and Julie, you mentioned the class that the city will offer for free. What will they besides stamping a plan because that's different. What will that allow the individual to do? I'm not sure the code is clear distinguishing. It says like similar items like that. Does it make more sense to be more specific so there's no confusion of who needs to do the work?

What do you Yeah. So answer one part and I think maybe we could tag team this. the we are going to um have that specific direction within our submittal requirement forms as our department policy um to note that specifically certification uh irrigation plans need to be certified by a certified irrigation designer the CI um and then I didn't quite catch but they're two within 30 miles of here how how do we how do we do that I mean that's you have public comment from two individuals saying that's difficult. How how do we think about that? I'm I'm I'm really concerned.

Well, I think most of this is is done digitally now. Uh plans and consulting with with consultants are are usually um you know are done you know sorry exchanging plans usually done digitally. So having somebody design a plan and and I think it's also helpful to note that a lot of the um and my research and working with Jeremy and Jeremy you could explain it better than I do can. So I just me I was just going to say that the the irrigation um product manufacturers uh some of them will often do a free uh they'll stamp they'll do the irrigation plan for free for buying their products. And so in that they'll stamp it. They have a CD on staff. So

yeah, not even for buying, just because their products are being specified. So that's the the CD piece of it. Um we do actually find I know there's public comment around people that are not using some of these um licensed or certified individuals, but we do have more firms than you might otherwise believe that actually already use professionals. uh we may not be we have not required them to stamp plans but and we may not have a lot of local professionals but as you know a lot of our local offices still employ remote persons um to fill those needs. Uh so probably if I'm coming off with a number more than half of our development plans probably have landscape architects in that realm licensed landscape architects already working on staff for them. It's not an exorbitant overreach in our opinion.

And and this is just to create the irrigation plan by a certified.

It doesn't have to be a C this the CD is very specific and it's if I hopefully I understand this correctly, but I I think that one I think that is specific and requires like a test and a certification. I think we I think this language may have gotten removed, but I think originally we were saying it has to be a certified professional on the EPA's water sense list because that includes other types of irrigation certifications like the quell. Like quell is not a CID, but it is a certification and like Aspen um for irrigation and like that's installation, right? What?

That's for installation. Is that No, it's No, they can do it's it's a certification for design that um is like

um so I I think originally we had there's a few types of irrigation certifications that potentially we would accept as long as they were water efficient, you know, according to they can they can get on that EPA list. But um you know we have been signaling this update to the code for several years now that you know we would be integrating stronger water efficiency standards. Um and these certifications are available and they are now required to do the irrigation assessments for the outdoor rebate program. Like we're only accepting those from certified professionals. Um, so I think this is just if we want to get more certified irrigation professionals here in town, which we desperately need, we're probably going to have to require it.

Great. And so Julie, the course that you're offering potentially in August, is that quell? Yes, that's the qu the qualified water efficient landscaper. And so it covers a bunch of elements of landscaping including irrigation. Okay. So that would help our workforce, we'll call it. I would recommend that we use that that we accept that certification. Great.

Yeah. And I think that's one of the reasons why we don't want to have like like tie ourselves into certain specifics in the code rather put that into our department policies, our submitt requirement forms. um because we have a little more flexibility there as like different certifications become available or we you know we can we can widen that a little bit more um and amend that without going through a code amendment process.

Great. Thank you. And one more question is a process question and and Bob you went through um you know a multi-year uh body of work here. Can you explain the how the process was to reach out to those who are going to have to implement this? Be it the developers, the landscape designers, the landscapeers themselves, the builders, those that are going to have to actually implement. And you got questions from a from a member of the commission who is in one of those categories and has some very specific items. And I'm concerned about the those small things that could bite us in the future that that constituency could likely point out very quickly. How how have we performed that other than send out emails? Uh other than the emails, we've done the press release, right? Um and um we're having these these hearings here. So I I don't have anything else to offer. We don't

well the consultant right I mean you did a big step right you you did a test design with a licensed architect I mean that's that's a huge component that David should dwell on so that thanks for pointing that out I I thought David you were asking more like the the builders in town how we specifically reached out or the contractors I I was but that is a piece of using it I think what what Brian is saying you you utilize what was there and found some challenges and reified those challenges Yeah. So, yeah. Go ahead. And I will

I will make no bones about it that we're going to find some things we're going to need to change after we implement start using it. And just like all of our routine text amendments that we take through all the time where it's it's very difficult to get code language perfect the first time. We've tried our best, but u you know at some point you got to just you just got to go for it and and hopefully we we'll find some things out through these meetings and working with you guys and and challenging us and we'll make some changes, but at some point we just got to we got to use it and um we can and part of our next steps is to do some more outreach with the community. So

well, and Bob, I appreciate that answer and and also that we're not just I mean we're not just going with it, right? This is this is not a stab in the dark. This is a very uh lengthy process that you at length even told us about the lengthy process that I mean there there's been more than than none uh consideration into into how this could look. You put a lot of work into it from many different resources a lot of professionals throughout this process just just bolstering that this wasn't that quick of a yeah thank you uh conclusion anyway. Thank you. Uh any other questions or concerns? I have more concerns.

No questions, just concerns. Well, I guess I just that was going to be my next question was do we also talk about cons I don't have a question about this item, but I'm I have concerns around an item. Are we this that's all part of this part of the hearing or do we as much as we want to be comfortable with whatever recommendation we want to make to council but I mean I do caution us on like Bob was just saying like we did with the signage code

right we considered and considered did things put it into practice made small revisions in order to fine-tune it I worry about thinking that you can get to 100% perfect tonight before You can make a recommendation, right? If you're feeling like 0% like making a recommendation because your concerns, that's one thing. But you know what I mean? Like there's there's a line I think probably on Absolutely. what's nitpicking and dwelling tonight versus the bigger picture of the of the the effort that's trying to

I think my first two questions were pretty nitpicky. My my concerns are much grand much like bigger picture than that. Um, I did, and I think I shared this with you before as well, but I did an analysis of like half the projects we've ever done against this code, and they were between the smaller projects were like $15,000 more expensive, and the bigger projects were like 60k more expensive. But I also am unclear on what needs to be screened. So, that could make a difference. Um, can I ask you a question? Yeah. Was this before or after we I I did the an like I went through your analysis. You shared that was super helpful and then we had a dialogue like

totally. Yeah. Was that number before or based on this new code? I just did it the other day based on the new code. I tried to reapply what I understood of the new code which is where those nitpicky questions came from because I was trying to apply it and was just confused about a few things. Is that consulting fees included? No, that doesn't even include a landscape architect or the the certified irrigation design person or like added expense for the smart sensors or amending the soil. All of which are probably thousands of dollars in their own. This is just plantings.

Okay. Interesting. I Yeah, I'd like to know more about that because we've like I've highlighted we've reduced quite a bit of the standards and planting requirements. So yeah,

I think it's because it's specific to the industrial zone, which is exempt from a lot of the current landscaping requirements right now. It basically just requires frontage. There's no interior landscaping requirements for industrial. There's no there's screening requirements, but they're very different than these screening requirements. Um the interior parking lot stuff, there's no parking lot setback standards. There's no and then the parking lot standards are you know only once you get so big. So I think that's a big part of it. None of those exemptions exist in the industrial

there's no interior there is no interior requirement now right there's it wasn't before. So I think that's where like the give and take came from. Not understanding the where is the add-on because we're eliminating the parking lot setback. We've always required parking lot landscape and we've always required frontage. The new is perimeter parking lot that okay but the parking lots are generally okay. So there's the increase in the parking lot perimeter.

The perimeters depending on how that's interpreted cause massive shifts in the cost of landscaping and the number of plantings that are required. And then my other big concern is about snow storage. Um, you know, you're only allowed to store snow within the first 20 feet past where from the edge of the pavement. And now we're requiring potentially like fences or walls within 6 ft of those parking lots and uh outdoor storage areas and you know some of the other areas that need to be screened in that way. And I have no idea where people are going to be putting snow if they have to have this fencing and all of this extra landscaping right up against their parking areas and and outdoor storage areas.

Yeah. And to be clear, the fencing or walls is elective. It's an either or. You can to to reduce the amount of landscaping. You can do walls or fencing. Oh, if you don't do it, then you do a little bit more intensive plantings. Yeah. If you don't do it, you have to have like 10 feet between that parking area and the lot line, eight feet or something. It's a lot where now you can have a parking lot or parking area right up to the lot line which for industrial because that didn't have the parking lot set back.

Yeah. And so most of the actually most of the projects that we've ever done flat out wouldn't you couldn't even do them. If you need that much space between a parking lot and the lot line, you could not do all the little small industrial lots around town, they can't develop unless they get variances under this code, 6 to 8 ft. Okay. If you were putting a podcast at a property line, then you weren't doing snow storage there either. No, but you're you're thinking of two different you're combining two different issues. Sometimes that was the thing you were concerned about was snow

concerned about both. Sometimes snow surge is not square. Like on these on bigger sites, you know, it's a just the perimeter of the parking area, but on the little sites on Captain Jack up by the airport, all of those sites are pretty small. You're like barely getting a 1400 square foot building on these sites and four parking spaces. And you're tucking parking spaces. I mean, drive out Captain Jack. There are parking spaces tucked everywhere and they're right up against lot lines. And people are really creative with where that snow storage goes. But you couldn't even fit those parking spaces in because of the amount of space you have to have between those parking spaces and the lot line. And I'm I I don't know because I'm not as familiar with other zoning as many lots in other zoning areas, but in industrial every single one of those lots are going to need variances to in order to just develop. Okay. I and to be fair, I'm really excited about all the water conservation. Like I'm really excited about that. That's fantastic. But there's some big concern areas for me still that I think need to be addressed.

Good. Cool. Uh any other questions or should I go um to public a comment real quick? Believe it or not, we have one. Just can't see him. Let's go to public comment real quick. If we have any public comment online, you've already raised your hand, I believe, and uh can unmute yourself. Give us your name and address and your public comments.

Hi, my name is Andy Benjamin. I reside at uh 209 Dodge A in Oak Creek, Colorado. Um, I have been designing and installing landscapes in the Ampa Valley since 1999. Um, and I just want to say first off, I'm really appreciative of the hard work that's been done. Um, I will say that uh I um Bob did reach out to me even though I didn't have a chance to respond. So the community outreach is happening and um people are becoming more involved in this process. Um I for the most part I think you guys have a pretty good framework for making recommendations. Um this goes a long way I think in promoting water conservation. the reduction in interior plant calculations, not only will they result in water conservation, but also a cost reduction with the number of plants that are being required to be planted um and also along with the size. Smaller plants cost less. So, I think those are all strong things that help with um mitigating the cost a little bit. I did notice there was a picture of cottonwoods being um recommended as a a plant species that would be allowable. Although they may be somewhat fireresistant. Um there was a number of them that were planted back in the early 2000s. We had a big windstorm. They blew down and caused a lot of damage around town. Cottonwoods are just fast growing, weak wooded. Um I will take some umbrage with the percentage of waste that comes from poor design. I'm sure it contributes to it, but um operation, installation, and damage I think has um a large amount to do with waste. At least what I see in the field is systems that are running too long or too many

times. Um which really comes a lot of times after the professional is left and the homeowner takes over. Um, there are some comments about the IIC core overlap with professionals. I think that works. When you start specifying and saying you're only allowed to use these trees and shrubs, you're taking away a lot of what a design professional does. Um, I will say that a lot of LA's are not certified irrigation design professionals. Most landscape architects haven't even had but one plant identification course. Um the the degree is not in horiculture. It's actually more of a a designbased um larger concepts and larger planning things. Um I think there needs to be a little bit more clarification with what you're talking about. Residential design will residential irrigation design require CIDs. I think following state statutes are a good thing. Um and that works really well for um these commercial projects. I do appreciate all the hard work that you guys are doing. It was um back in Overlook Park almost nine years ago that I started asking for some of these changes to come around. So, I am I am really appreciative of all the hard work and I look forward to um seeing this get implemented. Thank you very much.

And thank you for your comments. Uh, with that, we'll close public comment now. And, uh, I guess I'll come back to you guys with any other uh, questions you have for Bob and and, uh, being that this is not quasi judicial, um, you know, let's get into questions and also motion um, and discussion uh, I think can start to overlap, right? I guess my only thought my big fear was with the C. I thought uh Walter made some pretty compelling arguments in public comment. Staff seems to have mitigated that and that was really the biggest concern without delving into the details like you did, Clay. That stuff was over my head, but that was my biggest concern and I think staff is addressing that as best as possible. I looked up um what it takes to get CD and it looks like it's difficult but it's certainly not as hard as becoming a engineer or an architect or a surveyor. We do have to take a couple what are probably pretty difficult tests. But maybe Julie's right. If we do require it, maybe we will start seeing more CI certified, you know, maybe they're just engineers and architects around town decide to go take that test and start producing better, more water efficient designs around town.

That that's my hope as well that this will will be the the catalyst for it as opposed to the barrier. I I well I agree regulations drive uh engineering work tell you u but no I I think there's a good job I think respect Klay's issues or concerns concerns um since she obviously deals with it probably more than any of us and Uh, that's a good start.

I mean, are your concerns alleviated enough that you would vote for it, or are you so concerned you're going to vote no? No. I mean, I mean, I guess maybe if staff wanted to give some ideas on how any of that could be dealt with between now and council, but it just feels like bigger stuff than you guys are going to write between now and council, right? I mean, I guess I'd want a little more clarity. So, you're concerned that there would there is now a new six-foot perimeter landscape requirement around parking areas where before there wasn't. Is that

and outdoor storage? Yeah. Where previously you could just do a fence around outdoor storage and now it seems like you have to do the landscaping version, right? Or can you still just do a fence around outdoor storage? The for outdoor storage, the screening only applies to the right of way, so the the front property line. Um, and you could either do a greater depth area with more landscaping or you can do a reduced there there's still some trees required but less and a wall or a fence.

Okay. Yeah, I think so that what you were saying is a big concern. So what I'm reading the parking lot perimeter landscaping is specific to parking lots. I don't have the outdoor storage stuff pulled up, but so there I think Commissioner Cruz is correct. There's like a new sort of six-foot distance that would be required around the perimeter of landscaping in a property line potentially if in the past property parking areas were going right up to the property line. Um, so on one hand that actually creates more potential for snow storage. Um, I would also just so but I but but then again there are we have seen parking lots go right up to the property line. So that would be a change. Um I would also just and I don't know how um how you applied the standards or how you envision the standards being applied but when we calculate required plings it's based on a per x number of linear feet but the intention is not that there's literally a tree and a shrub every 50 feet because I think actually the resiliency code requires that we have some groupings

in the general plan in the general plant section requires groupings of of trees. Although actually this one, let me look at that. But go ahead. Anyway, I think the point is that like like it is intended to be provide some amount of softening of that parking lot, but it is explicitly not called screening. It's parking lot perimeter landscaping. So, it's not that it has to fully screen the parking lot. So, I think there's the ability to group those plantings and still make sure that you can use some of that space for snow storage. Does that that makes sense when you're choosing that option? I guess I'm just trying to understand why there's a wall option, wall fence option.

There isn't. That's only for the frontage. So, so a parking lot on the side property line would just have that one or two trees every 50 feet and three shrubs. That's in a six foot depth, a little six foot buffer. So, yeah. No, no longer can you have your pavement go right to the property line and not have any kind of buffer. And you could would it be possible to like

not exempt like there are places in the code where it's like where this is happening this is required. Um like something that basically makes it clear that you can have parking spaces that go to the lot line. But that doesn't then those the plantings that are calculated off of that linear footage just have to go elsewhere. Does that make sense? They just need to be clumped outside of that.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but I think the intention was to provide some some softening, some visual buffer of some kind and to not generally allow parking to go to the property line. Now, there could be exceptions to that where you have perhaps a shared a shared parking lot, a shared drive easement, you know, things like that where I think we could we would we would apply that differently in those kinds of circumstances. Um, but I think the idea here is actually to create some amount of buffer around parking lots. And I think that I mean that is new. We can acknowledge that. But I don't think that the idea was that every goal here was to reduce landscaping in some there's I think this is probably one example of where it's actually an increase or a change of some kind.

Yeah.

Yeah. and it gets to buffering, but also our current standards for parking lots only deal with interior islands and Eden Islands. So there's so when you have a parking lot on the perimeter, there is there is was no requirement to actually have um landscaping that helps with the heat island effect of of the pavement along those long stretches. and you'd only it was only required to be on these projections uh or corners. Um so um yeah there's multi there was multiple reasons um for that but I yes I mean th this is where you know people will have differing opinions on what you know they they think is appropriate for our community. So,

I think I'm just having a hard time with the fact that of of all the projects we've ever done, one one has equivalent or reduced plantings and the rest of them aren't developable without major variances. So, I think that's that's a pretty hard

It would be great to um go over that with you because when when you shared your last time last one, I think we found that uh well, one, we made some clarity in the code because you were thinking that the screening was required around the entire parking lot or even that the screening was required if you had a an industrial use no matter if there was anything outdoors that the whole, you know, so I I just want to make sure that we were what you're saying like is is you know how I understand how this would apply. Um, yeah,

because I Yeah, I'm obviously we're dealing with more properties than just tiny industrial lots here. And that's the one I those are the ones I know. And yes, like if you didn't have any, it would increase if there were no other requirements for landscaping because of the perimeter alone. But if if you have such small lots, 50, this is two trees per 50 linear feet. So, it'd be pretty difficult to get to too many trees on these tiny lots for perimeter landscaping.

I I think what you're not realizing, though, is that those tiny lots are putting parking in like they're splitting up parking and putting it in like the places they can fit it. So, you have two parking lot, two parking spaces jutting out over here. So, you have 20 feet, 20 feet, 20 feet, and then two more over here. That's 20 feet, 20 feet, 20 feet. actually like it adds up really fast on those small lots. Even if you're only screening or uh putting parking lot perimeter landscaping on just the parking spaces themselves like it adds up really fast on whenever the the parking is separated more and not clumped together. It's it adds up really fast and I think

sounds like a unique situation because we don't often don't have parking lots with little like like you described has been like that. Yeah. Not that I've done like hundreds of developments but like 15. Well, obviously it's hard to address your concerns at this meeting on the fly, right? So, I don't know what uh what to offer at this point.

Yeah. So, let's pull that back big picture then, right? Um, we were making a couple of comments before uh before that conversation, which was great. Is there are there any other comments or concerns or anybody feeling that there's a reason not to make a motion uh of recommendation to council tonight based on anything they've heard or um does anybody want to make a recommendation in council? U motion to I just sorry I didn't have staff a chance to I just wanted to answer the public comment question. Sure.

Yeah. Um sorry usually give an opportunity for that but um the question was whether um the residential the C would be required for residential and it would just be required for multifamily residential three or more three or more dwelling units in a building. So not single family or duplex. So, thank you. Now, perfect. Yeah,

Brian, to answer your question, I'm I'm concerned Cala just talked about where she's developed and I don't believe this is ready, in my opinion, recommend to council. I I believe more input from those who are going to have to implement it is needed to help identify where these challenges might be. It could be an open house, something that there's not been the outreach to the development community that I would expect on this to recommend to council at this point. And I think Callie's comments are a perfect example of why Lou, you were saying you were you were midmotion. So

it was mid motion.

I wanted to give you the opportunity to come back to her if and so you wanted it. Uh yeah, I I I appreciate that. I And I think there has been outreach. I just don't know how deep the outreach has been. You know, obviously Clay has been working with these guys on several instances. Uh obviously Walter and Gabby Wriggler have been providing input. So I don't think the the community has been ignored. So there has been outreach and I I assume there's going to be more outreach based on the presentation. So will it change? Maybe. Uh, I don't know, you know, if the the concerns that Klay has are um specific to the types of developments that you're doing or is that more a more general concern?

I think it's for me it's general concern. I mean, I know I applied them to the projects that we've done because those are the ones I have easy access to. But if they apply to every single one of the projects we've done, save for one, then they must apply to projects outside of that. And I just don't want to be the unfortunate person who tries to develop one of the lots that it does apply to first cuz that's going to be a mess. Yeah. A and how much of that I mean how much more outreach and how much more change would um alleviate that gee I'm the first person doing this.

I don't think the outreach was a problem. I think that they've done a phenomenal job of outreach. Um, I think that I think it's actually specifically industrial lots that need to be looked at cuz there's a lot of them that are small like this that are exactly what I'm talking about and quite a few that are undeveloped. So, I think that would be the place I would focus. Um, but obviously that's easy for me to say because that's again those are the ones I know. But they need that that needs revision in this code and that's you know there are still quite a few lots that are going to fall under exactly what I'm talking about.

So I I guess the question then to staff is h I mean how do you anticipate outreach impacting what you've already produced? Would further impact further outreach impact what's created?

Well, we're adopting what's, you know, we could be adopting what's proposed. So, it's, you know, what our outreach moving forward, if adopted, would be to educate on how to apply and what's coming up and how to get prepared for it and what this means. So, it wouldn't nec obviously We couldn't go back to the standards and make adjustments at that point. And that would evoke changes. Yeah. In what is being recommended. Correct. Not sure if I say that again.

Well, wait. Once you go out and you teach people how to or tell people what they have to apply it to, then there will be circumstances where someone says, "Oh my goodness, I can't do this." And maybe we need to change something. I mean, maybe we need to change something or maybe we don't. I like I it's hard to like presume. So, I think we could we could we can look at the industrial lots if we if we think that's worthwhile to better understand what the impact might be. But again, I don't know that like we set out to say no impact,

right? Understand? So, I don't think it's anyone's intention to like drastically reduce the developability of any lot, just to be clear on that. But I don't think it was ever we're going to adopt a whole new landscape code that's going to have zero impact. So, um it it will change the way sites have to be designed, no doubt. Um

I I don't know. I guess I would I would want more clear direction on what it is that we're trying to um improve upon or or change in the code for us to go do more more outreach because I don't to do outreach just to say I I guess I just need more direction. I'll leave it at that.

Well, no. And I and I I'm I'm not sure I I think Klay has provided an expression of concerns and that expression of concerns, is it large enough to say, gee, maybe we shouldn't pass this? I mean, that's the question I assume we're dealing with here

because I mean, I would just also offer I I really appreciate like you like sort of testing the code on your existing sites. I think that's a great that's great and I know it provided some super meaningful feedback um already. I struggle a little bit to say that like those sites couldn't be developed. They might not be able to be developed exactly the way that you've already developed that they've already been developed but I don't know that something of a comparable size scale number of units whatever the case is couldn't still be develop like there's so many variables there right like if you're designing the site based on a new code is the expectation that you know then you're designing a different a different site So I don't know that the I don't know that it that they would be rendered undevelopable is I mean I I I would say I I do not believe this code would render a lot undevelopable. I think when you do the calculations on some of the small industrial lots, it would make I suppose you could still put 1,600 square ft of a warehouse on some of them if you can fit 1,600 ft on them because that would allow you two you would get two parking spots. You would need two parking spots because it's eight it's one spot per 800 ft² for a warehouse. You could not put a400 foot residence on it like most of the industrial lots that are getting developed are doing because for the most part they're small business owners who are just trying to find a place to live and a place to run their business. That's what most of those small lots are getting developed into. So then you need four parking spots and

on these 50 foot wide lots which a lot of them are. I don't know how you get four parking spots and not put them in front of a loading door, which you're not allowed to do on 50 feet wide, and also have those six feet on both sides. That's why I'm saying undevelopable. Like, there's just not like you can't you can't fit those measurements on that lot. And some of them aren't even 50 ft wide. Some of them are even smaller than that. They're pretty small lots. in the and I mean is it an expectation that every super small industrial lot should be able to accommodate a residence and an industrial space? No, but I think that a lot of those people bought those lots expecting that that's what they were able to do and now they aren't. I'm having a hard time tracking the what the underdevelopability of the lot is resulting from the standards. It's you said 6 foot the perimeter landscaping of six feet.

Mhm. Adjacent to one of four, you know, across 50 ft, you've got four parking spaces in front of a building or to the You can't put them in front of the building cuz then they're in front of the loading door. So you have to put them off to the side. Yeah. So if you put a 20 foot long parking space on this side and a 20 foot long parking space on this side and then six feet in front of that before the lot line and a 24 foot wide driveway in between all of those things because that that's what has to be in front of that loading door. There's not space for all of that. Which is why most of the time those parking spots are up against lot lines

because they're really narrow lots. If but if the you didn't have parking on both sides and just had it on one side. I mean there's there's no I mean yeah different ways and it's getting into yeah

every you know the way that those have been developed historically and the the people who purchased those lots with an expectation of sort of generally what they're able to do on those lots. Suddenly that's no longer possible. based on the fact that all of our lots would have been like everything that we've done wouldn't you wouldn't be able to put the building that's on there now and provide the parking that is required that wouldn't be possible. I I would what I'm struggling with is is the the introduction that that the code is trying to suggest is to screen

and buffer uh whichever defined term you want to use or not um industrial parking from the road or from impacting neighboring properties. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have that goal simply because these lots are narrow or you know what are you suggesting? Because I'm I'm like struggling to like not want to do what I actually think is a really good idea because a few Captain Jack lots can't do four parking spaces. It's not just Captain Jack. The code requirement or the the code goal is a good goal in my opinion. Absolutely. Is that appropriate in the industrial zone?

Why would I not want to vote screening? Yeah,

screening, sure, but is the parking lot perimeter stuff appropriate in the industrial zone when the expectation is that the industrial zone is not going to be as beautiful as the rest of town. That's why it has fewer requirements. That's why we don't there's nothing in the code about what the building has to look like, what color it has to be, what materials are going to be on it. There's not even glazing requirements in the industrial zone. Like, we know that the industrial zone is not going to be as pretty. So, why do we care if two neighboring lots put parking spaces right up against their lot lines? Like, that's one of the reasons that industry can exist in these lots in these this zoning areas because there aren't as many requirements in them. So I while I totally agree with you on pretty much every other place in town, I don't think that this is appropriate for the industrial zone.

Okay, good. You see, that helps solidify kind of where we're at. And so then what I would like to do um because we I feel like we're getting to a point where we're talking in circles is to say what is our what is our straw poll? What is our what is an actual motion look like that fails or not look like tonight? Is that the consensus that we should not send this to council because of that concern? does not everybody feel that way and let's let's have kind of a you know a majority direction here so that I' I'd love to get to some direction here.

I I I I agree. I understand um and I'm I'm getting the sense that you know with the industrial if it's industrial zoning that's an issue. Is what we're trying to accomplish applicable at this point in time or does it have to be looked at differently? And I don't know if that's part of this. Is that part of a motion to look at the industrial zone differently, you know, one of the sections as industrial zone separately and it says to be determined or something. I don't know. You know, I what Klay is talking about seems to be very very very specific. Mhm.

And you know the the rules obviously have impacts on everything but if industrial zone is somehow different or special then should we look at it differently that I I honestly I couldn't even begin to answer that. Okay, Rich. Question. Is the screening only for visual or is it also part of our heat uh island effects?

Just so we're using the words that are in the code. The screening is is um along the frontages and that's intended to buffer and screen aesthetically. The parking lot perimeter and the interior parking lot landscape requirements are intended for heat island um for um for water quality um for um and and I think the sorry the perimeter could is also creates some buffering and screening between properties.

Thank you. I guess my question is um if we're talking about a you know a select few or many just very small industrial lots here, wouldn't they be able to just come with a variance of undue hardship? They can't do this because the lot's too narrow and we could make a casebyase decision on those developments. That question is for you guys. Yeah, I would um I would not think that it would typically qualify as a hardship. Um because something can be built there like

like something can be built there house without a um but but we also have acceptable alternatives and perhaps in those circumstances some other type of like a like fencing or something or you know I don't know per perhaps there would be a means um to justify a variance under other grounds.

Rebecca is there enough um concern that you all staff could take a deeper look at specifically industrial zoning, small industrial sites or something. And I'm I don't know. I don't know the answer. I'm just asking.

I think Klay said it best herself. the the question and I think you alluded to it Lou is do you think perimeter parking lot screening sorry perimeter parking lot landscaping is needed uh is it beneficial in the industrial zone so I don't know that we need to do a whole it's like it's a polit it's a policy decision I I I think I'm not missing it like Clay and I could get together we look at all this stuff, but I think we're going to come back to is like like it's a policy question. Do we want that? Do we need that? And this is the proposal in front of you. And like that's I think

Oh, that's why you guys get paid the big bucks. Arguably every city, not even on arguably every development with in our city could maybe reach greater potential if we reduced a number of standards from our code. So this is an application of a new standard that will probably result in some level of restriction. We don't know what that degree will be exactly, what the impact will be.

And I'd like to add to Bob's that science, I think, supports the fact that perimeter landscaping is going to improve our built environment regardless of what zone district it's in. Where do you guys want to be? I'm ready for a motion. Sure. I'll move to approve. Oops. I need to get to the bottom and say it properly. There we go. I recommend recommend approval of PL 20260037, a CDC text amendment application. Second.

Motion and second. opportunity for any final discussion.

I feel that the staff has tried as well as possible to address the concerns and they feel that in spite of the issues raised that this is still a good code and I tend to agree and like AJ's analysis of a better built design as well. Um, and I'm just going to have to go ahead and say let's move it on. Can I ask a question of other commissioners just to get a sense of the question that Bob posed like policywise? Do we just generally a feel that the industrial zone should be treated the same as everything else or or should it be something different? Because right now the current code both architecturally and landscapewide it's treated very differently than the rest of town. So, I guess I'm just curious if that is something that just fundamentally everyone disagrees with policy-wise or is that Yeah.

I mean, that was the question I thought I was asking. Yeah. Yeah. And now you have to answer how we come to resolution. You can if you want to, you know. So, uh, no, I don't think I'm, uh, I can't visualize how what the impacts of this would be.

So, no opinions. Okay.

I think it's I think there's there's a lot of uh uh There's a lot of science. No, it's not science. And that's why I'm hung up. I can't even say my sentence. I think there's a lot of good knowledge out there as to the impact that landscaping around parking can do to the larger environment and I think it's a good thing in the industrial zone as well. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? the statement just made. I think that's important to say.

Okay, I'll call for a vote then. I I Yes. I I I No. No. David, no. That recommendation passes. David's David's a no guy today. My gosh, I'm negative today. Motion passes 5 to two. All right, Rebecca, do we have a uh director's report this evening?

Um I just a few things to share. So um you all may have um been following along or discussed earlier, but um city council remanded the 12th and project back to planning commission on Tuesday night. So it is going to come back to you. um we will try to we'll give you some um direction. We'll try to guide that conversation based on council's um comments, but it will come back to you. Um I don't know if the applicant intends to make any revisions before it comes back or not, but we'll obviously provide you with a full report once we get a date set and scheduled. I just mention it um because typically after you all have your vote and it moves on, you know, you kind of think you're done. Um this project has not been decided. It is quasi judicial. So I'm going to ask that you're all mindful that you're not out in the community having conversations about it. Um and I also recognize that you may have already had conversations about it thinking that like sort of your part of the process was done. So just make note if that has occurred um and make sure that you disclose that prior to the hearing when we when it comes back to you so that we can just get that on the record and make sure that there's no um exparte communication contact that has occurred that we don't get on the record. Um, and I would also just say perhaps we should I mean I don't foresee remanding back to planning commission to become like a common thing hopefully. Um, but perhaps just sort of to be safe, you know, think of it as like a potential until council does take final action just to kind of keep yourself from having conflicts or something like that that potentially you'd have to step down from a decision

if something got uh remanded back. Just wanted to throw that out there. Um, I think that's all I have. Do you have any update on the design standards we want to share at this point or we'll have something more concrete we'll share out? Yeah, we're I guess we just say we're we've been having kick up a number of we've had what three meetings with them and we're getting together a stakeholder group and uh a timeline and schedule for meetings and you guys will be top of our list. So yeah,

we'll we can share that out um when we have some more info. Yeah, when we've had another we're doing two things just to go a little further is there'll be the stakeholder group that you all are aware of. There'll also be interviews with uh local architects and some civil engineers is relevant and we've uh had contact with a number of them that are interested in participating. So we'll have a couple of different methods to gather feedback and in different forums not just a sort of roundt stakeholder I know I keep promising you all the details on that process, but we're trying to get it wrapped up into something that we can like publish and we'll share that with you all soon. Great.

That's all I have. All right. Thank you. Uh we don't have any minutes or old business tonight. Does anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? So moved. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I We'rejourned at 9:03. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Have a good night.