Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, go ahead and get started. This is our planning commission public hearing for May 14th. Can I start with roll call, please? AJ Summers, Klay Cruz, Rich Leby, Brian Adams, Luora,

Jonathan Hayek. Uh, let's see. Before we begin with uh any agenda items, is anybody here who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Great. Come on down. If you give us your name and address and and uh try and keep your comments at three minutes. Hi, my name is Greg Kore and I'm the owner and operator of the Rabbiters Motel here in town. Um, I know you have a big thing on your agenda tonight, but the reason I'm here is the natural grocerers project is coming up on May 21st and I just wanted to put in a few comments about the projects that's going to be coming up for review. Um the building itself is going to be built right up to the lot lines and it's going to seriously impact the visibility of my sign um coming from the west and I was hoping to see if there's going to be any possibility of some lenency leniency or um moving the setbacks back from the sidewalk so that it's not going to be completely blocked. It's it's historically designated and has some preservation with the city, county, and state. Whether that matters or not, I don't know, but um I know I'm ahead of schedule on it, but I just wanted you to think about it because the sign is an important part of the community. Um, I've had several people come in for defense of the sign and um, you'll be hearing about them at the May 21st meeting. But basically, I'm just wondering if you could think about moving the lot line back maybe 6 to 8 ft so that when you're coming from the west, you'll be able to see the sign and it won't be completely blocked. So,

that's basically why I'm here tonight. Um, I'm not opposed to the natural grocerers project. Um, it's a nice building. It looks like it's well planned and well thought out. Um, I hope they have enough parking because certainly parking is becoming more and more of a concern. Um, they show 35 spaces. Um, according to the uh things I read about online, a grocery store should have about um 45 spaces for 15,000 square ft. But anyway, that's just a sidebar. But I'm mainly here concerned about the visibility of my sign. And if you guys would give it some thought and maybe when you're driving from the west and you're looking down at the sign and think of a big building sitting right there on the sidewalk, um it's going to significantly impact the visibility of the sign. So, thanks for your time.

All right. Thank you for your comments. Would

anybody else like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? All right, great. Then we'll go into our agenda items. Our first one this evening is it correctly for the record. This is PL 2025339 12th and Yampa residences. So this has been remanded back to us. I know we've reviewed this before. Um we're going to treat it, I guess, as much as a brand new project as the applicant would like to treat it as. Um, so feel free and and elaborate on anything. You don't have to just tailor down to only a summation or anything. Just kind of wanted to to add that. Um, but yeah, if the applicant is is ready for a presentation.

Hey Brian, before we get started, I need to recuse myself. Uh, my firm is on the design team. Thank you, AJ.

Hi. Thanks for hearing us again, I guess. I'm Sarah. with Vertical Arts and I'm going to do a run through. It's going to be a little balance of a refresh because I know we have some new council members and some people weren't here and then just focus on moving forward. So, that's a little tidbit on the cover. I assume you've seen the packet that Toby put together, but I just want to brief brief synopsis. We're here at 12th in Yampa. We have Wateride next to us. Little Tootses is across the park and then to the north of us is 1125 Lincoln where JSM's current office is a future developable parcel next to them and then it's obviously the terminus of Yampa as 12th wraps around and faces the Yampa River and the park. So to just summarize the program, the purple are our residential components. Our primary residential entry faces little two top 12th. We've got eight residential units and a rooftop deck above. Then we have a generous restaurant that wraps the corner. So the entirety of the Yampa Street facade as well as like 30% of 12 street is dedicated to the restaurant space. And then the red area is our covered enclosed parking garage which is almost 50% you know 40% of that main ground level is our enclosed parking garage. And then just past that, the gray strip is the alley just for reference. So we showed this slide last time just to give some context to the other similar projects that are currently on YMO or being built right now. Two of those obviously Olympian Wateride is directly next to us. How place the Emerald is just a couple blocks down. Um this is kind of the character of some similar buildings in our zone district. But I also wanted to talk about how we

got to where we were on our existing design that we're presenting to you. So we thought a lot about the historic context of wider steamboat. I think in council it came up with some public comment and like what is this character and soul of steamboat and how are we really trying to relate to that? And I know this is a larger development that isn't, you know, double Z or whatever. You know, it's hard to compete with history, but we really wanted to be conscientious about these things that make our downtown so special. Masonry elements are super important. You know, there's a lot of old buildings currently existing or from the past with these corbling elements. We were inspired by the barn lattising and the wood materials. And so we really tried to incorporate that into our building. The CDC specifies, you know, we want to complement the traditional character and encourage those contemporary uses. So we're trying to kind of meld in the middle here. We have our significant, you know, stone masses with big timber headers to make them feel authentic and real. Timber lattising screens that reference those barns. We've got these western motif pieces that can be, you know, a nod to some traditional buildings downtown with the filigrees and the timber patterning that we did on the roof kind of deck areas was a nod to some of those original corbling and that kind of character as it steps on the crowns of the buildings, you know, wrapping around. You can kind of see that in more detail how we've tried to create this ins and outs, these vertical timber elements along the facade with the punctuated glazing. It references those older storefronts kind of similar to like the Lion's building and things like that. And so we really wanted to be complimentary to the past of Steamboat while still, you know, proposing a new building.

So these are some of the materials we're proposing. Real stone again, the western motif panels, wood and timber materials, screen lattising and metal. So it's kind of just this, you know, reference of history with modern aesthetic. This is a view of the Yampampa Street outdoor patio and the entrance to the restaurant. So up those steps, that's our generous kind of outdoor seating area before you go into the restaurant off of Yampa Street. And then you'll see some of the modifications we made at the corner that I'll go to in more detail in a minute. And then wrapping around 12th, again, you can see the screen elements here where we screen the parking garage. And then that residential entry is under the covered entryway as well as an ADA ramp. at the end near Yampa. So, in moving forward, you know, obviously we're here to also discuss the variances we're asking for and the CDC, you know, is the governing codified document, but it also references the community plan and the downtown plan that guide the direction we want our community to go. So those are guiding documents that are specifically referenced in the CDC and you know we you utilize those in our in some of our variance you know asks I would say but that's just one criteria for approval for the variances. We worked you know we've been working on this project for like two years and specifically with the city for at least 6 months going back and forth because we have to meet all those criteria for approval and this variance 719.D ID is part of the codified code and is a means for us to ask for variances from you and council and the community because we as architects and designers and community members know not everything fits into you know a simple box and so we also have to make sure it's not going to adversely impact the legal conforming uses. Number one and then number three

is we have to meet the acceptable alternative standard. So for every variance we're asking for, we've met all three of those. And Toby, I think, you know, describes that in more detail in her narrative, but this has been a really thoughtful process with the staff to come to you with a project that they support and can be approved with our current codified code and the variance criteria for approval. So, but we did hear, you know, we heard from you, we heard from council, we heard from the public, and we've made a concerted effort to come back to you with a refined, improved project that has some significant changes. Number one, you know, uh, Councilman Adams, we heard from you, it just seemed like 5% too big or just a little too big, and we took that to heart. We reduced our F by 9%. We were able to eliminate three variances, two of which relate directly to massing. the lot coverage is removed and the plate height variance. I know that was a comment specifically from this group that the plate height just felt unnecessary. So, we took that to heart. We also increased the glazing at the corner. You can see that in the lower image and were able to reduce or remove that variance entirely and really felt that that was, you know, a big connection to the park. That was some of the comments um from the public and I'll get into that area a little bit more as I move on. for the lot coverage. You can see we were originally at 95% and we were able to remove it move it down to 84% removing the variance. And I think the alley and like the way that that building interacts mass-wise is significantly reduced and we were able to get rid of that lot coverage variance for the F. Again, we reduced it by almost 10% 9% 9.5. And again, I just want to reiterate, we're specifically asking for the F variants to exempt our above grade structured parking per a

specific recommendation at the downtown plan. Um, if we were not having to include that covered structured parking, we would be well below, you know, 194. So, we we lowered our F, but we still are going to have to ask for that variance because of the the structured parking. To highlight a little bit of the corner changes, you can see here the we reduced our building height by 18 in, which helps lower the mass at that corner. Additionally, we felt like some refinement of that stone masonry element would be an improvement. So in pulling down that parapit height and adding the glass railing, we were really able to visually decrease the mass as well. And then really, you know, carried across the full glazing and pulled it all the way down the farthest we can. So that glazing is at the floor level inside now. And then a third element I think that really helps with that pedestrian environment is the awnings. We carried those awnings all the way around the corner. you can see which kind of brings down the scale of the building. Additionally, over by the pedestrian or sorry the ADA ramp here, you can kind of see this is a minor thing, but we removed we previously had like carried that slat element over which we felt seemed a little you know like a wall. So we removed that piece and brought those windows down as well. So now that just becomes much more transparent and inviting at that critical juncture at the end of Yampa. So the height changes. We're still asking for a height variance even though we lowered the building 18 in. We are asking for a height variance because of the flood plane. So at that lowest corner here, it raises our building. We set that the absolute

minimum which is 1 ft above the 100year flood plane. And so that inherently raises our building about 4 feet. If we could pull the building down to that corner, if there wasn't the flood plane there, we would be well under the height limit. So like the actual mass of like our Florida floors and the building, we would be, you know, at 36 feet at our highest point. And so, you know, we really listened to you and tried to reduce that mass getting rid of the plate height, but we're still asking for, you know, that twoft variance. And again, just to, you know, look at the larger picture, the community canvas plan recommends an average height of 45 ft downtown. And we, you know, we're actually lower than Wateride now at that ad adjacent roof. Like, we're not asking for something that's going to be towering over the adjacent neighbor. We're right in line here. It's really just this bottom corner where the sidewalk goes down so far that pushes our height over. And so we think that we've been really thoughtful to tie into that adjacent building's mass and are asking, you know, for this two feet to accommodate the FEMA flood plane issue. And you can kind of see here at the bottom, that's that 4 foot, that red little wedge there. But from our floor height to that front roof is only 359. Well below, you know, the 38 in terms of like the mass of what we're proposing as the building. We're just having to push it up a little bit to get out of that flood plane. And now in talking about the setbacks to start, you know, the community plan does think that the direction for this area is to have zero or very small setbacks from the lot line to maximize lot coverage and facilitate the walkable built environment. That's like copied directly from the community plan. So that's a bigger long-term goal. And you

know, we were really trying to create a building that has varied stepbacks that creates this, you know, welcoming environment that's not overimposing, but we are asking for a zero setback. That doesn't mean that the entirety of our building is zero setback. So, you can see in this plan at the bottom, the, you know, 44% of the middle of the street is an outdoor patio. We have it punctuated with that railing due to the change in grade, but that's open air that's open to look into. And we really felt that it was imperative to align with Yamp or Wateride next to us to create the street frontage. And then, you know, the CDC also recommends your, you know, special features like corners and tower forms that the corner can be considered. And we feel like this terminus of Yampa deserves, you know, a an element there at that's important. And I think the improvements on the corner actually do a better job at, you know, kind of capping the end of that street. And so you can kind of see here like the two street levels how we're aligning with Wateride. And this is kind of a special area of Yampa because it's 18 ft wide at the sidewalk there. So everyone I feel like Wateride feels set back because of how their landscape standards were done before the new ones, but it's it's not like imposing on you because it's a very generous sidewalk right there. And we're right in line with them and you'll still see right down Yampa straight into the park. We're not coming out in front of them. I think there's been some misconception about that. And then as you wrap around 12th, we kept the corner element and then punctuated in the middle there with the ramp back 10 feet, the 17t entry, and then you know along the parking garage, we were unable to step it back, but that's where we utilize the screening and the semi-transparency to not make it feel so imposing. Additionally, crafting like the second floor decks to punctuate

a taller mass that might be at that street frontage. So in summary, we do still have a v variances. The F we feel is large is largely due to the covered parking. The setbacks although are an ask, we feel like we've punctuated the building in a variety of ways that don't fit the letter of the code, but we're maintaining an active street front. We're following the direction of the community plan. The height we were able to reduce, but are still asking due to the flood plan for a twoft variance. And then two of the variances I didn't really include because we in a slide because they're more of a technicality that we talked about last time. The east glazing is because we're pushed up directly next to wateride and can't have glass there. So we have to ask for variance. And then the 25 ft increments because our lot is 120 foot 25 ft wide like it's impossible to meet that the letter of the law. We can go to that further but I didn't want to use as much time on those. And then we did remove those three key variances, lot coverage, plate height, and west glazing. So I just want to finish by saying, you know, there's the code. We've worked so hard with planning and like the approval of this building is fully justified by the existing CDC. We've met all the variance criteria. We fit with the direction of the community plan. And you know, the variances exist to allow creative different ways to think about things, but you still have to meet those criteria. And we feel like these changes, we hope you feel like we listen to you. We really take this to heart. I'm a local. You know, I've been here 15 years, so I don't know if that counts. You know, it's like the past is ever evolving, but we feel really passionate about creating a quality, unique product that can stand the test of time for this important corner. So that's kind of the spiel and then we'll take your questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Yeah, we'll come back to you with questions. Toby, do you have a staff report for us as well? Sure.

Toby Staer, senior planner. So um in addition to what Sarah has mentioned, the lot is zone CY2. It's in the STR green zone and um in the 100redyear flood plane for the Yampa River. It's a three-story mixeduse building with eight residential units, a restaurant, enclosed parking. Uh the project includes some streetscape improvements along 12th and Yampa streets. Um there are variances to overall height setbacks, glazing, F and building massing. There have been public comments provided in support and in opposition of the project. Um it was heard by planning commission on March 12th. It did not receive a recommendation and the vote was 2 to2. On April 7th, city council did remand this project back to planning commission with direction to provide more discussion and consideration for each of the variances related to mass and scale, review the cumulative impact of the variances together, and to provide a recommendation with more members present. Uh the project um does include variances that altogether lead to a larger building mass and scale, but we find that the project is consistent with the future plans for the area. It meets the downtown the development plan criteria for approval and it has some characteristics that are similar to other downtown urban development. The height variance uh does provide an acceptable alternative. Uh the development addresses flood prevention standards to elevate the building out of the flood plane. As was mentioned the um the revised proposal has eliminated the average plate height variance. the there are setback standards for CY and CY development um or development on Yampa Street has had many variances in PUDS that leads to some variable building character and setback distance along the street. So there's not entirely a typical building character along Yampa Street. For this project though, we find that the setback variances provide an

acceptable alternative to the standards. The building design as was indicated um does meet the intent of the standards without strict application in this circumstance. Uh regarding the F, the purpose of that standard is to reduce some mass and scale, allow some space for some pedestrian interaction and interest at the street level. Uh the proposed design does include articulation, interest and activity on both streets that mitigate the impacts of the scale and mass. Um the revised design also does eliminate the lot coverage variance and the westside glazing variance. Um we supported this project before and continue to support it. Um and that hasn't changed with the revised proposal. Um we did add one condition of approval to the project since the last planning commission meeting. Um it's condition number 14 and the applicant has agreed to that new condition.

Great. Thank you, Toby. Uh, do we have any questions from commissioners to staff for the applicant? Um, got a question for Toby. Um, let's go. As I went through the notes and the meeting minutes from the last meeting, uh, there's a lot of discussion about, you know, the guidance documents versus the CDC. And what I'd like is your thinking in terms of which applies best.

Mhm. Um we and when we created our recommendation, we relied on the plans for some guidance. Um and there is a criteria for approval in the variances that asks us um does this variance is this variance consistent with the plan. So in that regard, we looked at the plans for how this project and its variances comply. But our recommendation is based on the criteria for approval for a development plan and a variances and and the variances. So the um the CDC applies the plans are guiding documents. Um we are going to be in a a tricky spot for a little while where our code is really kind of implementing some older plans. Um and there's going to be a disconnect for a bit. But these plans do provide us with some good guidance. Um, but this project, our recommendation on this project is based on the criteria for approval and how the project meets it.

Thanks. Any other questions? I'll go for staff. Uh, there's a lot of discussion about uh the new area plan talking about higher densities and even maybe greater heights. Do we have anything in the plan that says Yampa is supposed to have the same density and height as Main Street as Lincoln as our CO district?

We don't have anything that specific in the canvas plan. However, um all of those streets, Oak, Lincoln, and Yampa, I'm pretty sure all of those streets. I'm not sure if the downtown district is larger, but those three streets are within the downtown district, which does list those um statements. Maybe a potential 45 foot height, maybe some zero foot setbacks. So yeah, but there's nothing that says we have to have one zone district for the downtown future land use plan, right? I assume that CY will still be a compatible zone district even with some changes.

Yeah, there's nothing that says we have to have one zone district for a future land use district. Um, I think our zone districts are divided by the characters of each of those streets and though they're short, but something like dimensional standards or um our zone districts could be something that changes with um implementation of our of the direction in the plan. Okay, any other questions?

Another one. Uh, zero setbacks. It seems like we also have discussion about activating the ground the ground floor and even creating amenities for that space you know whether it's seating or landscaping etc. How do those two things work together?

Yeah I think um we don't have any specific um purpose statement or intent statement as to what are the setbacks for in the code. We have some other purpose statements and intent statements for different standards, but our thought is that the setback um it's a 10-ft setback on Yampa Street or in CY2 um would be to provide some of those amenities um and some pedestrian and some interactivity especially on Yampa as we know that that's our entertainment restaurant district street. So um various buildings have have complied with that standard over time. Some buildings are set back, some buildings are at zero, but they offer some amenity or interaction space. So, um, how we looked at this building is that there are some amenities and some interactivity on both of those streets, 12th and Yampa, that, um, provide an acceptable alternative for that variance.

Thank you.

Build on that real quick and stay on that topic if that's just ask a quick question. Um, Toby, so do you feel that Yumpa Street I I read your your staff analysis, especially on criteria three for that for that variance, and you say staff finds one purpose of the front step back is to allow space for pedestrian interaction and interest, which is kind of what you just elaborated on. Do you think that specifically on this corner of Yampa Street that staff's finding is that there is enough room on that corner for all of the pedestrian circulation or engagement or interest to happen and that there won't be congestion instead?

Yeah, I think that um Yampa Street in that section of the street has been redesigned. It is it is wider as Sarah mentioned. Um there are really good sidewalks in that area. There is already a lot of activity that can happen in the public rideway. Um so I think the building at the corner um shouldn't provide that congestion. Um when I reviewed this project with the applicant in preparation for this meeting, they did mention that by removing the stone on the corner of that building, that building comes back about 2 feet. So they did add a little space there so they actually have not a zero sit foot setback at the actual corner. So I think that helps. And then I do think that the amenities that are provided the the walkways into the restaurant and into the building do allow some additional space um and some interaction to happen in that in that area. So we didn't have a concern with um congestion from the transition to public to private at that corner.

Perfect. Thank you. I wanted to give you the chance to answer the same question if you'd be interested.

Yeah. I mean, I think we feel similar. Like honestly, before I started working on the project, I was surprised to find Wateride was right at zero because it's pretty generous there. And obviously, they have a little bit of different vibe going on with their landscaping and stuff than the current standards. But, you know, we wanted to create like that that street frontage as a contiguous, you know, connected thing and not be stepped back against where waterides building was built, you know, presumably to accept another building if you've looked at the side of that building, right? And so, we wanted to create that continuity, but we always knew we wanted to have that big generous patio. And so just, you know, although we have to be slightly elevated above the sidewalk because of, you know, the restriction of the flood plane, in some ways, we were thinking that that could be a benefit because you're able to see people up over the cars. And as you're walking, you know, they're looking down and they're engaging with you. When you're in the park, the elevated floor also kind of helps you connect across. And so visually the that step back at 14 1/2 and 20 is going to feel open although we've got like a deck edge above it. We also really felt um compelled to have those generous setbacks on the second floor intermittently to not only relieve the building but to create activated spaces that people can fit furniture on and want to hang out in. And so it's like this connectivity to Yampa that's so important. And then like Toby said with the redesign, not only visually lighting that corner, creating that um awning that comes around, we did step that in, you know, about 2 feet to kind of give a little relief as you come around onto 12th. So we feel like that that sidewalk is plenty generous enough for the public to move and interact with the building. and with, you know, that 44% of our facade, whatever that is,

it's like pretty generous distance of our patio that it will feel like it kind of breathes into the street. Thank you. And if I could add one thing to that, the other thing that's through the city process is doing a revocable permit. So, like a lot of the Yampa Street spaces, there's outdoor seating that's out there right along those sidewalks. And that's planned for the for the future of this development is to engage with that as well. So there is a process to where we can not only be at that level of the the existing patio space but actually come down and interact more with pedestrians as they move by in that space. Great. Thank you. Lou, you were going to ask a question.

Yeah. Uh Toby, what um what are the parking requirements for this development and what is the actual parking? Uh I think that's in the packet. So um there are eight dwelling units. They require um I think uh 17 spaces based on the number of bedrooms in those units. Um and then I think the restaurant based on its square footage requires six spaces I believe. So this property is providing all of the required spaces that it needs for both the restaurant and the residential uses.

Thank you. you've both kind of spoken to this a little bit. Um, but maybe maybe to both of you, if Toby, you wouldn't mind starting. Um, you've mentioned that there are several buildings that have either minimal setbacks or zero outline setbacks. Are do you have an idea of how many how how much is that actually already the character of Yampa?

I looked at a couple of buildings on Yampa. can't say that I looked at all of them, but um Wateride is at zero. Um 608 Yampa is at zero. That's being constructed right now. Um Hallison is um at 10 ft on the Yampa side and then on the because Allison goes to the front. So it's zero foot on the CO side on the Lincoln side. The Olympian is at zero and 10th in Yampa has um 10 foot setback. So that's the one that's being constructed. So that's what I know of so far. So those are some similar buildings of mass and scale.

And I I was actually looking at Allison today and the width of the sidewalk there is is very similar to ours, although they're set back 10 ft on Yampa. I I'm not sure if their lot line comes closer, but I was like, I feel like we're the same or more than what's currently at house. and that, you know, when you think about that generous patio and where their building face is, I think we're going to be really similar when you imagine like where our face of the building is relative to the curb if that helps at all because I was thinking that too and so I was looking at it. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, both of you. Great. Other questions? Yeah.

Uh for Toby, uh we talk a lot about character. Are we only talking about the appearance of buildings when we talk about character? I'm pretty sure we have other

I think the new plan um has several different elements that talk about character. Um there are other things. There's density that's included in character. Um there's transportation and sort of what the that character is, whether it's pedestrian character or a vehicular character um in our different districts. So there are other things that we look at and consider. Um, I think again looking at the guidance from the downtown plan and the canvas plan, um, we're looking sort of at the downtown character, the downtown sort of mixeduse commercial character of those um, the the three commercial streets downtown generally. Thank you. Great. Any other questions?

Uh, Toby, I have one for you regarding um floor area ratio. Um so the the conversation in the last two meetings that the applicant has already gone through for this has talked a lot about um floor area with or without parking. Um I just want to make sure that we're being as clear as we can tonight. So if you could just describe in great detail the the purpose of the code. My understanding is that the on-site parking that the applicant has is a requirement and that it be screened and therefore any F on the site would pretty much therefore by definition presume to include parking within its F unless it was so buried underneath you know in a basement that it didn't count as F. Am I on the right track?

Yeah. So, our um floor F is the floor area ratio. To get that ratio, you use the gross floor area, which does include um enclosed spaces and carports and parking above ground parking. It excludes um basement. So, that's never included. So, yeah, not a surface lot is what Rebecca is telling me. So if there was no building above that parking then obviously there would be no that space of parking um would not have to be included in the floor area ratio. So with those two standards that you mentioned that the parking needs to be provided for the use and that the parking needs to be screened if it's a surface area. If it's not below grade parking, um, then that further adds it into the F, which the the calculations show in the applica applicants materials, but it puts that building over top of the F requirement. Um, if there was no building there or if there was just surface lot or if there was no parking there, you know, then if there was no parking there and it was just building, that would still be over F. But if it was just a surface lot, um the building would meet that requirement. So I do think the combination of those couple standards um makes application of the standards a little complicated on this particular property. And I think that's why the downtown plan provides some of that guidance for downtown development to eliminate the parking um requirement in downtown districts from the F requirement because it does put some additional constraints on development. So um there is that, but that parking being at surface level and being screened does add to the mass of a building. So it's it's both sides. Well, and those last two statements are the ones that I've honestly wrestled with. So, if you could please elaborate on that a little bit. The the

parking being removed from counting towards F still very much counts towards the actual volume of space that the building is taking up, which is essent not essentially that's exactly what F is meant to do. So, to say that it would hopefully be exempt would mean that F is almost moot too depending on how much parking you want to provide. Is that what you're saying? the code is really trying to get us towards

I think our our downtown plan has suggested that we remove um parking from F calculation in downtown lots um as it puts it makes development more complicated. So I think that's that's a a purpose that was outlined in the downtown plan is to sort of make development in downtown more viable in a lot of different ways. That's one of the ways that was suggested by that plan. Um because downtown development is tricky. Um there is also transit and parking and walkability um and reduced parking standards um because of all that other access. So perhaps that the parking didn't need to be included in the F. That's still a community decision. We haven't put that into the code yet. But with that guidance, we were able to support this project and this variance. Also knowing that the the project is providing its parking which is positive. So they're not having a negative impact on parking in downtown and they are screening the parking which is another requirement rather than leaving an open air space which we probably would have had to interpret that. But if we imagine that there were no walls around that parking area um it would not look visually attractive. It might not be included in F. But that still is sort of a carport. So, it might still have to be included, but if a if a developer was trying to get around that requirement and left the parking open, seems like that's a less desirable outcome. And if they provided no parking, also potentially a less desirable outcome. So always always when we're developing weighing all those different factors um it can be challenging to meet all the standards on on one site particularly in downtown particularly when there are constraints like flood plane existing buildings you know existing sidewalks that are really

new those those types of things. Great. Thank you for that uh elaborate answer. That's exactly what I was looking for. Appreciate it. Any other questions?

Follow up on that. Uh so since we have a new area plan with I would say no adjustments to our CDC based on that will we be using the how do I want to say this will we say that the that the area plan goals are staff's goals and city's goals until which time we define them better in a decision through city council i.e the height limits until we say like like has happened before, city council says we want this, not this, then that guidance becomes less effective if they've already said we don't want 45 ft 40 45 ft everywhere. Like how long will is the area plan like all of a sudden this it seems like it's becoming more of a guiding document. Everything you're saying is you're agreeing with everything in the area plan even though none of that's codified. How long will that go on for? How's that for a more concise question?

I'm still having trouble kind of understanding the question, but um and you're recommending exceeding the height limits because the area plan, the new area plan says we should be looking at higher densities, etc.

We're not. So again um so we're recommending approval of the height variance based because it meets an acceptable alternative and the acceptable alternative that we found is that it is um providing flood prevention meeting flood prevention standards for this building which it doesn't have to do. They didn't have to build above 1 foot above the flood plane. They could have built lower and met you know avoided flooding in different ways in their building if they need to. So um what we did when we looked at this project was when looking at the variances again one of the criteria for approval asks us does this variance um is it consistent with the future guiding direction of your plans. We find that this building is based on the future land use district which includes various character elements. So it is one part of our evaluation but not the foundation for our recommendation. So, I think like I mentioned, we'll be in a in a gray space that'll be tricky for us to navigate for a little while. While we have a code that has some clear standards that are not consistent, entirely consistent with our future direction, we may go through a process, a community process, and decide that our standards are exactly what we want them to be, and we disagree with what our plan says. We haven't asked that specific question yet, so I don't know the answer. We might change nothing. We might change everything. But until we do, we're trying to understand that guidance as best we can and try to use it, but I'll also obviously base our recommendation on the standards in the code and whether it meets the criteria for approval.

Thank you. Any other questions? No. I have one brief one quick question. I wasn't here the first uh the first time. Um and so I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly that um kind of the recent history of the parcel um there hasn't been any um changes to the CDC, any changes to the flood plane since the the applicant took ownership of the property and and this process started.

Yeah. So the CDC hasn't had any changes um from prior to the owner owning it or the current owner. The parcel itself has undergone some changes. So they've consolidated some lots and prepared that property for development. Um it was multiple lots. It did have some existing buildings on it. So that has been changing through the course of this project. But no, our standards haven't changed um since this project started. And as far as you know, the the FEMA flood map hasn't changed. Correct. Okay.

I do think that the community plan was not adopted prior to owning the lot. That was happening while we were purchasing the lot and was a big discussion. You know, just understanding what the community direction was. So, that that was adopted after. So, that's a pretty recent adoption, the community plan. Thank you. Any other questions? Nope. two of you look like you're like about to ask a question, so I don't want to step on out. That's okay. Okay, great. Well, then we'll let's go to public comment uh for this agenda item. Is there anybody here who would like to give public comment on this?

Great. We ask that you uh give us your name and address and and keep your comments to three minutes.

Good evening. Uh Scott Maher, 33250 Emerald Meadows Drive, and I am a longtime business person in this community and I just want to support this project. I think the changes these guys have made make it an even better project. I thought it was a great project to start with. But and Colin's a nice guy, but I'm not going to talk about that tonight. Just a few things I think are important. Uh I we have somebody's making a I got a guess who's being a developer about a $30 million investment downtown. Uh it creates a a vibrant downtown restaurant. It provides uh eight high-end lodging units which I think are in uh congruence with the community or the downtown plan. And just running some numbers on it as a former hotel year, I came up with about 600,000 in city sales taxes that'll be generated. Uh there's contributions to the transient rental taxes of about 200,000 and uh significant property taxes for our schools and county infrastructure. Also, they're creating some public parking and from the downtown steamboat plan. The things I took a quick look at that today. Uh this project definitely creates street level vitality and vibrancy. Uh it supports locals and tourists in the land use that it provides and uh it increases lodging opportunities by putting tourists in our businesses downtown. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Is there any other public comment? Uh Luke Teller, do you need my address? Okay. Uh roughly 33A. Uh I like this building. I think it's going to do a lot for Yampa Street. Uh, when I was growing up, Yampa Street was it had a flower shop and a shooting range and Irene Workman's house who made wedding cakes. I like the way that Yampa Street is sizing up. It's going to be a nice addition to it. It uh before this it was co-op's old tire yard, which was nothing to look at anyway. And then they cut down the sawmill over on 20 mile and made it an orange peel bicycle shop. And then Roarba built the double Z. And I talked to him and he was pretty excited about seeing something like this happen. Unless I'm mistaken, this has already been approved by the city planners. They're kind of recommending it. So, I would like to see this building go up because it would be good for my hometown of Steamboat. It would be not out of character and not out of line and envision with the way that the town is going. We're growing. We're growing in the right way. They're trying to do it the right way. They're coming to you and asking your permission and saying, "What can we do?" You asked them to lower the roof. They lowered the roof. I think they've pretty much given you everything they that you've asked for. And I can't see any viable reason why

you wouldn't want to have something like this be on the west end of town next to the river because it's going to be quite an addition. And trust the people that you send out to do the job. If they say, you know, somebody people you send out to do the job say, "Hey, we like this." If they do this, this, and this, we should let them have it. And they do it. I think you should let them have it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Hi, thank you. My name is Michelle Caragle. I live on Laurel Street. Um, I am here representing a majority of the owners of Wateride Village, the building that is directly next door. Um, and you guys have seen I've written some letters to all of you pointing out some discrepancies that we have with the code and our vision plan. And just want to say that this is a vision plan. It is not a codified plan. And until it is a codified plan, I believe that we are need to stick with the code because the code is what tells our community what we can count on. Okay? We can't just be like, "Oh, I think we should do this because I think it's really cool." And then it disrupts uh the neighbors. It disrupts what's um happening. and the CY2. I'm particularly concerned about the fact that the building does not is using averaging for their setback as I mentioned in the letter because our code does not specify that we can use averaging for setbacks and um and so I don't see how that could possibly be considered an appropriate way to meet the setbacks that are required. Um I would like to mention there's a lot of talk about how the building is working with the same as wide so on and so forth but actually that is not the case um due to the fact that they are requesting a zero setback and then not having uh complete setbacks on next to wide village it has created basically a massive wall that all of the owners there would be looking at and again that's where the application of the code comes in. Of course, everybody at Wateride knew that eventually there

would be a building there, right? But what we counted on is that the code would be followed and that there would be the appropriate setbacks and there are not and we feel it's very detrimental to the use of our building and our enjoyment of the space. And again, this building could be designed with those setbacks in mind with the 10-ft setbacks um complete across the building, but they've chosen to use an average setback, which again I don't think um our code allows. Not even sure um that it can be allowed by state law um in performance of our variance. I would have to confirm that, but I don't know for sure. So, I just think that we need to be really careful about using a vision document as a guideline for how we choose to build our buildings. And until that is codified, we need to stick with variances that make sense, not variances that allow the builder to develop the largest possible footprint and get the most square footage as they possibly can. I realize this is a difficult decision. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do you have any other Hi everyone. Uh my name is Sash. I rent 771 Penta Street. Uh, just a couple things I wanted to mention about this project. My family, we grew up coming here for since I was a little child. I mean, I learned to ski here. Some of my fondest memories were renting bikes mountainside, taking the core trail down, stopping on Double Z, getting sandwiches, and go enjoying them at the park. Right now, that is uh non-existent. There's no life on that end of town. The demo has already begun and if this wonderful family doesn't get this project approved, they will then be forced to sell most likely to an outofstate hedge fund investor who will then have this who knows what project will be developed there, but definitely not our community's interest at heart. So, I support this project. I want life back on that side of town. I want to get a sandwich at his lovely restaurant that he's going to develop, go sit in the park and enjoy it and have a reason to bike to that end of town versus it just be something that's non-existent. So, hope you guys take that into consideration and thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there any other public comment?

Hello, Commissioner. Um, my name is Brian Ray, 37305 Saddle Mountain Drive, Saddleback Drive, excuse me. I'm a former um Summit County Planning Commissioner and uh Silverthorn Planning Commissioner. And taking a look at this project, I uh I like it a lot. And um um it um incorporates a lot of nice things and uh that that lot was just primed for redevelopment for what uh for what the applicant is trying to do. And uh I would uh uh encourage you guys to have this move forward. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else here in person? While you're coming down, um if if you want to make public comment online as well, if you could raise your hand on Zoom and we'll know that you want to be called on. I see one person already has. Um and uh and we'll get to you shortly.

Hi, I'm Michelle Gansy and I live at 1580 Mark Twain Court. Um we're really relatively new to town. My husband and I moved here full-time uh about 2 years ago. And the first time I came here, I was three. I'm 59. So, um been coming here a long time and seen a lot of the progress. And so, now that we're here full-time, um it's really evident to us that a project like this is really growing with the community and, you know, how it appears to have changed over the years. I think it definitely increases vitality and some of those things that we've talked about um regarding the the global plan. I guess the other thing is I've come to the last few meetings um and the um uh uh uh the other the other meetings um that I'm I'm a bit confused um in the um the issue that the folks at Wateride have just because it's literally the same size and I understand that those you know owners are opposed to that project. Literally since I've lived on Mark Twain, there's been two big houses that have been built that have blocked a lot of my view. But, you know, I I think it is valid that we're growing as a community and the things that Colin's beautiful building um will provide for our community um are valid. And I think also I agree a lot with the first two speakers in terms of the revenue that's mentioned because I think that um uh is valid as well. So I guess you know all being said I'm in support of Collins project and I did see the first um renditions and I think this one is a tremendous change. And then one last comment about um wide with those

setbacks that were mentioned. I'm not sure that those will actually change the view for those people much at all. And you can correct me if I'm wrong there, but I'm not sure there's going to be a lot that is changed. And I saw that in the two buildings, you know, in my own neighborhood. Big changes in in roof elevation didn't change much, but I'm excited about the opportunity for this building um and what it'll do for our community, including the parking. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there any other public comment here in person that would Okay, we'll go online. Um, first, uh, I think it says Vince Aoyo. If you like to unmute yourself and, uh, you can give us your comments as well. Hello. Yes, I can you hear me? All right, we can.

Thank you guys for what you do. I want to piggy back off the last three commentators about the project. I am for this project. I grew up in this town. My family grew up in this town. And we've all had changes. Now, for people to come here and say, "Well, they shouldn't build this or that." You know what? They should have thought about that when they bought their places. So, I want to say, please go forth with this project. I support it 100%. Thank you guys for what you do. All right. Thank you for your comments. And second online, I see Kelly Picket if you'd like to unmute yourself. And and

yeah, hi. This is actually Ralph Picket. Um, and I have address 1110 Yampampa Street, Unit D, so Wateride Village.

Um, and you know, I I would say I'm I'm always a very big proponent of development, new development. I think this is a beautiful project. Uh, and I there's no argument with that. I'm however would have to agree with Michelle that Caragal who commented earlier that there are variances here that impact the units and they are in particular like that big wall that's right next to uh wateride. It would completely eliminate any views to the north uh from the balconies looking that direction. So, you know, like Michelle said, as owners, we knew what we were getting into. We knew that would be developed, but we would have expected, we do expect that it would be developed per code. So, um, and I don't think that's saying we don't want this developed and and we don't want uh the development group that's there uh to do it. We just would like it to be done per code. So, thank you. All right.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else online who is would like to raise their their hand the reactions button? All right, seeing none. Is there anybody else here that I missed? Okay, we'll close public comment. Oh, you already went, I believe.

No, that's okay. No, I'm sorry. Thank you, though. Um, so with that, we'll we'll close public comment. Um, first we come back to the applicant if you have any follow-up. Uh, see here. Let me get to the right. Oh, I was just trying to get to the right slide, but sorry, it's the setback page. Just to address the the setback comments relative to wide, this dimensional diagram, little duad at the bottom right is the typical step back um over 28 ft. So per the CDC that step back is intended to be you know at the third level. Wside chose to do that at the first level and asked for variance for a zero setback as well. And additionally there's supposed to be a 25 ft setback at the third level that they don't have. You know which shows there's different ways to skin a cat and there's different benefits to changing geometry slightly. they get a great second level patio, but then there is a sheer wall or whatever twostory wall that doesn't step back at the third floor. So, I think this just illustrates to me that, you know, the code and the variance process is meant to be variable because there's different

ways to decrease a mass of a building than just wedding cake stepping it back at the third floor. The code specifically doesn't want that to happen and mentions it multiple times like we don't want wedding cake buildings. So, we want varied setbacks. We do mention the average setback on the third floor because there's spots where we're set back 25 feet per the code, but we want this like varied element and we feel like the intent of the step back is to decrease the mass of the building in its entirety. So, we're proposing a different way to do that. Ins and outs. And let me tell you, this isn't the cheapest way to do it. Like, a cheap way is to stack all the walls and step it back. I'm not trying to like it's just we're trying to create a different element and a different way to punctuate that mass than just a strict application of the standard which is why you know we go through the variance criteria as I mentioned before you know I think there's some misinterpretation of how we're using these guiding documents the code tells us we have to if we're asking for a variance that is one criteria we have to be in line with the guiding documents that's one element that we looked at and I think that the detailed narrative that the planning staff has put together tells you how we meet each criteria in addition to that one per the codified CDC. So what we're asking of you is fully justified under the CDC. Like just to be like blunt, it's not just the, you know, the code, you know, the community plan that we're trying to, you know, hang our hat on. It's all these other things we've done to meet that intent. And so I just urge you guys to think like relative to that process that we're not just trying to hang our hat on these future plans. And you know, we aren't asking for 45 ft. We're asking for 40 that matches up with the building next

to us. And we're not asking for a sheer wall. We're asking for part of the building to be at zero. And so I think like the big hword height and the big setback word has to be taken in context relative to what we're asking of you. And I know this gets a lot of press because it's an emotional site, but we feel like that too. And so I just want to be clear about those intents we've met relative to the process of asking for a variance and we don't take that lightly. So I just wanted to clarify that relative to that setback issue and a couple of other things that were mentioned but Okay. All right. Great. Thanks Toby. Did you have any follow final followup as well?

Did have a little bit of followup um again regarding Miss Caragal's comments. So, um, the setbacks that we've been talking about are for the front property line. So, the the CY2 zone district, um, requires a 10-ft setback on the front property line up to 28 ft and a, um, 25 ft set back for the principal building on the front property line above 28 feet. So, that's the front property lines are 12th in Yampa. So that's where we would expect a 10-ft setback on the ground stories and then a 25 foot setback on the upper stories. So the side adjacent to wateride is actually a side setback which the CY2 zone district for the principal building is a zero foot minimum setback. So while the building could be set back further, it would be optional. So the code allows a zero foot setback at that side of the building. So that's why there's not a setback variance request for the side of that building against wide. Um in addition the U Miss Carol mentioned the um the average discussion of the of the setbacks. So the building does articulate in and out um from 10 to 25 ft and that an average is mentioned in the applicant's narrative and so the applicant can mention what they want in their narrative. Our staff recommendation for approval is based on the exact numbers. So for the setback variances, there's portions of the building and the upper stories that are 10-ft setback. So if we need to clarify that the setback variance request for the upper stories is for a 10-ft setback instead of a 25 foot. Um similarly for any other height variances. The only other thing that we average and we actually have an average for is plate height, but we're not talking about that tonight. So, our recommendation is based on um the code standards and very

specific numbers, not based on averages. You Toby, any final follow-up questions from commissioners?

I have one. So, I'm still a little confused with the wateride setback conversation. I You said earlier that they also have a zero setback at the front lot line or did I misunderstand that? They also have one. Yeah. Okay. Okay, great. Any other questions? Uh, nope. I didn't either. Then we'll uh close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion. Uh, overall, I'm really really glad that the there's a a quality development taking place on that corner. Um, I mean, from my standpoint, uh, that has been an area that has been ignored to a large degree. Uh, double Z closed probably what, three years ago, four years ago now. Um, and I think this is a great addition from um, I think the applicant and the architect have done a good job in reducing the number of variances requested as well as um, highlighting uh, use of guidance documents which honestly I'm I'm very comfortable with uh, in terms of helping us um guide development um in in the community, especially downtown. So, I'm supportive of the project.

Any additional discussion? Do you want to wait till your thing's done updating before you? I don't know why he decided to update now. No, I'll wait as long as I can. I'm wondering, should we discuss like variance by variance? If you'd like to, I can be flexible to to either or you can just give us your thoughts.

Okay. Um, yeah, it's it's tough. I mean, this is a really tough one. Um, I think some of the variances um I think like the east the east glazing. No, no, no problems there. I I know no one wants to stare into a brick wall and um and you need fire separation. Um, no problem there. Um, I'm having a hard time with some of the arguments on um like the height height because of the flood plane. Um, they're asking for the height variance because of the design of the building. Um, so the the flood plane has been there and yeah, in my mind I'm having a hard time with that because it's it's the way the building is designed um that they're asking for for the height variance. Um, and then the the biggest one to me is is the F. I think the crucial question that I heard from city council was is is the building just too big? Is the mass and scale just too much? And um I'm also having a hard time taking out parking because parking um like you said contributes to the mass and scale. And so I think from what I'm hearing from the community and what I heard from city council is it is is the building just too big? Um and um my mind goes towards yes. Um, and the setbacks are really hard for me. Um, because it seems like it's just kind of anything goes on Yampa Street. It seems like the setbacks are all over the place. And, um, there have been tons of variances um, issued in the past. And so, it's

really hard for me to say no to this variance when the building literally next door got the exact same variance. um plus lots of other buildings on Yampa Street. And so um those are some of my thoughts.

I'll contribute only to your last point real quick, which is that I was a little surprised how much that seemed to enter into conversation on this project compared to others was well what else has happened on this street, whether it was overall height or whether it was front step setback or or various things. Um, time and time again, staff has, I think, correctly reminded us that every project is looked at on its own merits and how its own design either is mitigated or or finds um an acceptable path through a variance process or not. The fact that another one exists is not an indication of whether or not we should uh apply a variance on a new project. So, um, I have been very careful to straight ignore that part of the conversation on what else is going on. There are other parts of Yampa Street that I think knowing what they've done and looking at how that experience is, whether it's at um at Fifth in Yampa, right, or whether it's at 7th in Yampa. Um, what do those sidewalks, how do they feel and what variances did they get might help inform more knowledge for you or me on on whether or not this is going to be successful on specifically what they're asking for, but whether another one got one has meant nothing to me. So, I'll I'll add that at least from from my my perspective. Um, which is why I was very careful to kind of ask, you know, both staff and the applicant how they think this corner in particular is going to work at a zero foot um, setback. Um, I do think that different parts of Yampa Street are successful and I think some parts are very unsuccessful and don't feel comfortable to walk and that in large part is due to how narrow and imposing the the building is on the narrow uh, sidewalk. We need to be careful on its own merits. uh for that sake. That's all I wanted to add to that point of yours.

I mean, I'll I'll add on that. Uh I think in this area, I think we're talking what 16t 18t sidewalks. These are big sidewalks. So, I'm not concerned about, you know, overpowering the the the zero setback. U not not where this is. That's just my view. an additional discussion.

Yeah, I um the first time I looked at this project, I felt very much like you did the just kind of a little overwhelmed by the number of variances and felt like I needed to go through them one by one because there were so many and just to like wrap my brain around each one individually. Um and so I did that the first time and what I came up with was that the only one that bothered me is one that they got rid of. um not that bothered me, the one that I didn't feel like actually met the criteria for approval. Um and so they've gotten rid of that one. And I think that they've done a phenomenal job of listening to what we've said, some of what council said, some of what the community has said. Um and increase the transparency along that corner, pulled that corner back. Um, I think that they I really respect that they've actually tried to tackle most of the comments they've heard and so I'm in support of the project. Um, and I I think it's interesting the floor area ratio um conversation. I think it's really interesting that the maximum is is 200 right on this lot and they're at pretty much 200 and they've built or they're proposing to build pretty much all the way to the lot lines on every side. And so we spend a lot of time talking about these floor area ratios and sometimes we even kind of are frustrated with projects because we don't get anywhere near the densities that are allowed on the lot. And this is just a really good example of the fact that it's really hard to get to these densities, really, really difficult unless you're doing something that unless you're getting variances. And so the variance they're asking for to include the parking inside the mass of the building is perfectly acceptable to me. I would much rather see that than like a building that's set forward and having a surface lot behind it with

nothing above it. I think that this was a great way to apply that and I think that it meets the criteria for approval for those variances all of them at this point. Yeah,

that was one of the things I was curious about is how commissioners set sat through the first time what they would be thinking about the revisions even though as you stated in the beginning Brian is that this needs to be evaluated on its own not oh they made improvements so maybe now we have to improve it do the does the current project meet the code and meet your definitions of the Um, I had a few things that bothered me. I mean, on the height variance, there's constant comparison to Wateride. Wateride has scalloped roof. This has a solid roof. So, it's visually I find it a lot more imposing than at least Wateride made some effort to mitigate the effect of their their building height. um uh glazing the the glazing issue. We we pick and choose some of the things for the new area plan that we're using to help guide our decision- making. One of the things in the new area plan says parking shouldn't be on any of facing any of the front of the buildings. So because this this project has pushed the the the underground parking to the 12th street that means they had to use a unique form of glazing to hide it or not hide it. And so that's why there's a glazing require uh variance because the parking is actually in the wrong place. If you look at the community area plan and what where it says parking is supposed to be within the building. It's not supposed to be on the front lot line or the front of the building. Should be tucked behind the building. Now, a building with two two frontage lines make that pretty hard to determine where the back is, but because they pushed it up to 12th Street, they have to use a unique form of glazing. Um, the zero setback, I have no problem with the Emper Street setback, the bigger sidewalk, it matches the the Wateride building facade. But on the

12th Street side, if it was pushed back, we're talking about maybe some benches and again activization. having a ADA ramp or other things are going on that side is not activating that side of the building. You know, giving people a reason to be there is activated activating that sidewalk. We have to remember we're going to get probably at some time, maybe even while I'm still here, uh 12th and Lincoln getting redeveloped. That building uh even though it was remodeled recently, it's still an old building. But anyway, these changes are going to be influencing every next building. Just like we're saying, oh, Wateride got these variances, so we're going to take these variances. The next building is going to take it maybe a little further as well. And that at some point we have in my mind I have to say when does that stop that just because the next building is bigger, I can do at least that much. I have a little issue with that. Um, so I have trouble with that zero setback on 12th Street. Um, oh, the 25 ft I'm calling it activisation. It's not activation. The 25 foot building length. I I kind of mentioned this when we merge the properties that by uh merging the multiple properties, we're more likely going to get one bigger product. I think one of the reasons for the 25 foot limit in length is to have multiple properties to give more people a reason to be walking down there. If only the restaurant is at that end of the building, only those people going to the restaurant are walking down there. If there was another, if that was broken up and had multiple entrances on 12th, excuse me, on Yampa, more more specifically, that would be, I believe, one of the reasons why we have a 25 foot uh limit on building spa on building. It's not building width. I forget what

massing. It wasn't just massing. It was broken up in 25 foot.

Yeah, it's has to be broken in 25 foot increments. And part of that, I think, is to have different uses in every one of those 25 ft. And I we talked about it a little bit when we joined the properties. Um, and that one bothered me a little and now we just have one big property on the corner. Um, well, before I forget, when I asked about the the use of the plan as a guideline, just about every one of our variances staff says it meets both the CDC and the new plan. That's why I question that because every one of those the last sentence says staff thinks that it meets the new plan. That's why I wanted to know well how long is the new plan a guiding document versus maybe future decisions that might be made about height density etc. Um not that that makes any change of my opinion. Um I had one more here. Oh uh character. We keep talking about character like do the buildings like match the architectural style of other buildings. When I was reading through the plan and what I've when I remember a lot of the plan is talking about is a different kind of character and I'm going to read one of the sentences from the from it. It says this document outlines the desired land use and community character that future development regulations will be guided by. So not just what the building looks like but what purpose does it serve and who what part of our community does it serve? uh you had you guys had both brought up the taller ceilings and uh of the building and having how it affected the overall height and the applicant came back and said, "Well, that's what the people that we're selling it to demand." Well, what does that mean for us? Is that a criteria for me to say that's okay? Uh and so there there's other characteristics whether that this building matches the looks of other buildings. Um, and so community character is a one of the

characteristics that we're supposed to be looking for. I'm not sure how I would bring that into the criteria of approval and where I feel that it may not meet community character, but it's something to think about that doesn't come up when we're talking about it when all I hear is, you know, building size and mass and how it matches other ones. Um, I believe those are my biggest concerns. Can I push back on just a couple of those points? Um, I mean, you were talking about community character. We just redefined what our community character is and how how we're supposed to be looking at that with the master plan with the canvas. And so, if we're talking about the kind of character that our community wants to adopt, like that that's it. That that is it. And there and yes there's only like really one place that we can even talk about that in these variances. It's one one of the criteria for approval for a variance. But I think that there's no no better place to look for what our community character moving forward is supposed to be ex besides the master plan because everybody's going to have a different idea of it. And that was like the one coming together that we've done recently. Um, and you know, a lot of this is a lot of the public comment has been make sure this meets code. And so I think that it's really important that we actually stick to if if if we're trying to do that, I think it's really important we stick to actual code and don't read into things like 25 foot increments. There is nothing in the code that says that's supposed to be broken up into different uses or different buildings or different spaces. It just says that the building itself something architecturally needs to be broken up into 25 foot increments which

true can absolutely be one large building. So I don't know that that's what's that? No, they didn't do it. They're not for variance of that. But I don't think that we can make up

code interpretations that and then say that they're also asking for variances from that. like your your interpretation of why that might be I think shouldn't really be part of the conversation if that that's all I'm saying. Um and then you talked about the west glazing and they got rid of that variance. So they they had interesting they had the um the like slatting on the outside of the the parking garage was they were kind of trying to call that glazing on the first time the first time. But they've increased the glazing on that side. As far as I understand there's no glazing variance on that side any longer. So they actually have the glazing that that they're required to have.

It's the east side that has the Yeah. The east side that's a blank wall doesn't have it. That's the only glazing variance now. But the west one is utilizing that slatted portion. I don't think so. No. Okay. There's enough um transparent glazing to meet the standard. There is also slatting, but it's not included. It's not contributing to it. No. So, and there is no variance for the west side. Yeah. Sorry, keep going. No, that's that's all. So, so what's your justification for not doing 25 foot increments? What's your just if you don't like mine? what's yours that says what by them not doing it it's okay.

I think I agree with staff that it's just to break up the the massing of the building. It's to break up so it's not one big flat wall. We do we have lots of methods to create a building that doesn't have one big flat empty space. Um that's what most of the massing standards are kind of getting at. And uh so they are providing lots and lots of different variations in the facade of the building with materials, with glazing, with setbacks, step backs. Um so I I think that they're providing an alternative that's at least equal to that standard itself. I'll say that a slightly different way which is that the the 25 foot while it requires a variance the intent like to to actually do 25 25. Oh, I ran out of space. Well, this one's only seven. You know, like it's it's not going to end up with a better product. It's not going to end up with a more creative product or a more enlivening. Is that a word? enlivening product. Um, but the intent should still remain and I think what the applicant communicated really well in their reasoning and I think staff did as well on that variance item is that while some of them are more they are differentiated from each other and therefore are adding more creativity and more um movement of the building massing than if they were just purely adherent to the 25 foot. So it is actually equal or better or acceptable alternative as they're they're calling it. Um if that makes sense.

Yeah. Yeah. I I I think it is the variation. That's the way I look at it. And I think there's a lot of variation in this building. Uh I'll also say I think one of the reasons parking is in the back is because that's where the alley is.

Yeah. And that's where the entrance to the parking is when I'd rather see it there than honestly on Yampa. I'll go real quick. It's actually not going to be quick because there's a lot of things. I want to try and get all the things there so so city council can feel like they hurt us properly. So kind of going going through the variances. Um our variance number one at overall height. Um I do think that they are behaving together as we talked about in our first um conversation or or review of this application. Um there is a combination between setbacks, overall height and F. If you only had setbacks and overall height, then you would just be allowing a cube that was that size. FC something less than that pure cube. And that is actually a good thing. we we we want something that that forces more interest than just purely up to that height. Um that gives me more pause with the F variants which I'll come back to. But from the from the overall height variance and looking at how they have mitigated it, brought it down and where it is um where the variance is located is mitigated to practically all of the the public's experience. So I think that in this case it it is still meeting the intent uh of the overall height and it's meeting the criteria by by not creating some kind of adverse impact or um or I would say obviously creating an imposing shape where that variance is happening. Uh it's not in this case. Um so I can support that. the variance number two, the front lot line. Um,

I'll just agree with with you, Lou. Um, I do think that in this specific case, while I already had my rant about how not all cases are equal, in this specific case, I do think that there is enough um the the sidewalks,

all of the pieces are in place for it to be successful here as as a zero foot setback. it will not be created a a hardship or not a hardship, an imposition or a a um cold and uninviting place by by doing that and it'll still work really well for the public um and and meets the criteria um there as well. Variance number three, I actually think that the applicant did a really great job of pointing out the relationship of when we talk about a 25 foot, we're talking about 25 foot as it relates to a 10-ft setback. And as we're pushing the building forward, if we're okay with pushing the the lower level forward, then how far back the upper level doesn't need to be all the way to 25 foot, we're only really asking for a 15 foot undulation of sorts anyway. And while they haven't done that everywhere, they have shown that that has added more interest and creativity and exists in enough places that it is pushing the building back. Um, the glazing is obvious as everybody has already said. Um the F is where I had the biggest pause on kind of how does going over it and creating a volume that is larger than the 200% that as I was kind of asking during our our questioning portion um needs to be considering parking when we talk about the volume of a building downtown. Um how does that work? and they and they are over and above and have they considered that properly or are they too close to that cube shape that I was talking about? Um Toby's answer to my question uh about how they are meeting uh criteria number two by looking to the guidance in the community plans that is suggesting that that is how we should be interpreting uh or exempting parking. now I think is

everything I needed to be able to needed to hear in order to understand that this is meeting the intent uh of F and how it relates to parking. So I think that that becomes justifiable at that point. And number six, I already kind of gave you my my spiel on that as kind of trying to add to your conversation, Rich, but I do think that they are meeting the intent even though it's not purely at 25 ft. Um it is not in nowhere is it pushing too far in one increment that it has become a bareblank facade that is that is missed the point and so I think that that that is meeting the acceptable alternative and actually a better alternative um with more creativity. So yeah, so I think it meets all six variianes. Um, while I'm ranting, can I keep ranting for another minute, you guys? Okay, I haven't run out of the ability to talk yet. I will add how um first of all, how impressed I am that uh that how quickly we're seeing all these changes that were made uh is is wonderful and I'm glad to see that effort. Um and I and I think it was very successful effort. Um, so really both to the applicant and to staff for not only redesigning and submitting but also reviewing so that we could be uh here tonight as quickly as we are on the project is is very impressive. So well done. Um, the other thing that I think was a big contributing factor to its success tonight is the redesign of the corner. the added glazing that is helping on the west variance, but really just the softening of that corner in general and how that will appear to users of the core trail, people on the street, people walking by, people at the park. I think it is going to be a vast improvement and and and um I'm impressed

with that that change as well. Um and then the last thing I wanted to do was uh rant on the idea about character because we have talked about character so much. Um, my thing that I wrote down about it is that what I think that our code is doing is not requiring homogeny in character, but providing all of the boundaries to what your own creative uh interpretation of that character can be. They can't just do anything. There are limits to setbacks. There are limits to glazing. There's limits to materials. There's limits to height. There's there's a lot of limits, but there's not just a forced. It is only this. And I think that there is then a meeting of individual interpretation and and creativity and community character and that the the applicant should be able to have at least some leeway to interpret that and make that unique to themselves instead of all the same. I think that in this case, uh, the applicant has gone with a more contemporary interpretation of that box, but I think that they're within it. And I think that that we should be very aware that that that's what we've allowed within the code and that's what they're fitting within and that's why it is acceptable. It's not just personal my own personal dream of all character of downtown. It's how are they fitting uh the box that we've given them. That was long. Thank you. That's all I had. Anybody else have any additional discussion or want to make a motion?

I'll um I think all of it's very impressive uh the level of response to the comments and the questions that were raised the last time around and how they've addressed them and how they've presented them. Uh so I'm honestly I think this is going to be great for that corner of Yampa. Um, and uh, so I'm going to uh motion to approve PL 2025 0339 uh, with God, there were a lot of conditions. 14

14 conditions. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. Okay, and a second. Any other final discussion? I will only add that I was um taken back by the added condition 14. Um I had appreciated earlier the the information that we got. Thank you on that. That it it doesn't matter. You guys both agree and that timeline doesn't create a problem at least on my end. Not not that it would but but I was confused at first. Um yeah. Not hearing anything else. I will call for a vote. I

no I I no right then that motion passes 3 to two. Thanks for your time again.

You All right. So we'll jump into our agenda item number two uh for this evening. This is, let me name it properly, PL 2025388, uh, 1021 Merit Street. Is the applicant here for presentation? If he can hear If he is, he's online. I don't know that he will be. Okay. I'm not sure who that even would.

Uh, Tom Kelly. There's DND surveying and there's a Lois Kelly. Oh, D and D. Yeah, you have your hand up if you'd like to unmute yourself. Yeah, that's great. Hi. Can you hear me now, Brian? We can. Yep. Thank you. I'm sorry I had to unmute. Go ahead and give us your presentation. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Um, so basically, excuse me, Mr. Chair, can you ask the applicant to please turn on his video for the quasi judicial hearing? Yeah. Did you did you hear us? You need to have your your video on during our quasi judicial um application. Let me see if this works. There we go.

Hi, welcome. Yep. Thanks. Um, so what we're what we're doing here is a lot line adjustment. So this is in concert with a another planning application for a lot line adjustment subdivision minor modification uh that it's going through. So this is sort of a condition of approval for that as well. So, they're both linked and and Jeremy, I don't know if Jeremy Brown is in the in the audience, but he's the lead planner that's been driving this through. Jeremy is here.

So, what we're doing here is in order to get the lot line approved, there's two different zones uh on these two lots that are joining each other. And what we're trying to do is a 20 foot wide strip to enlarge the the rear backyard of 1021 Merit. So, we're taking 20 feet from the southerntherly adjoiner 1024 the boulevard and we're going to have to reszone 1021 merit to be I think it's RN2. Uh, if I'm not looking at the paperwork at the moment, but I think it's from RN1 to RN RN2. So, I think generally staff's been supportive of this and um I did not see any uh did not see any inconsistencies with the subdivision and the blocks and some other of the properties in that area, North Highlands addition uh that are not compatible with the neighborhood.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. We'll let you know if we have questions. All right. Thanks. Jeremy, do you have a a staff presentation as well?

Sure. Uh Tom did a fairly good job of explaining what's happening here. Uh if you all recall, we did a similar process for a lot out by the golf course probably within the past year. We're actually taking a because there's two lots that abut each other. Um the backtoback the line between them is shifting. They are in separate zone districts. The one to the north is in RN2. The one to the south is in RN1. So, as that moves down and we've reviewed that replplat and we've approved it conditional on the approval of the reszoning because we don't want to create a split zone lot. As we do that though, uh we end up with a piece of this lot. It becomes split zone. Again, it's the plat has not been approved yet. Um it will be dependent on the approval of this. We're reszoning now a portion of the lot um so that it would appropriately fit with the new aggregate lot. Briefly, our criteria for approval, as you know, we look at the consistency with the proposed zone district. What you are reszoning is actually has no building on it. It's just a piece of land that will be attached there to the the northern lot. But that northern lot, which is zoned RN2 already and will be adjoined to this piece that you're reszoning today, is RN2, fits with the zone district standards. It's single family. The future land use map um that was just adopted through the recent comprehensive plan suggest compact residential. both the existing RN1 and RN2 are appropriate for that area. Um, this RN2 parcel is still bordered to the east and west by RN2 parcels as well. Um, for that reason, it stays compatible

with the development pattern, which is our second criteria. Third criteria, advantages outweighing the disadvantages. Obviously, want to avoid split zoning in this circumstance. Um we did not find any adverse impacts that needed to be mitigated or otherwise minimized through this process. And our last criteria is uh we found it to be a necessary response based on the conditional approval of the plat that was reviewed administratively and approved um based on meeting all criteria in the code. With that, uh, staff recommend approval of this resoning. Thank you, Jeremy. Any questions from commissioners? Okay. I'm not surprised. I don't either. Uh, I we don't have public, so we will skip the public comment portion. And, uh, I guess we'll just come straight to commissioners for discussion and a motion. I I think this is pretty straightforward. Um motion to approve PL20250388 and there are no conditions associated with this

second. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Yep. Agreed. This needs to everything Jeremy said it it needs to be uh consistent in one property. That property has already been approved. We're just reviewing the zoning. The zoning matches what it is uh adjacent Nothing else to see. Nothing else. Yeah. Not much to discuss. Pretty straightforward, I think. Great. All right. I'll call for a vote. I I I I I. And that passes unanimously. Right. Thank you. Thank you.

That will bring us to agenda item number three this evening. This is uh PL 202600083 appeal of abandonment of legal non-conforming STR use PL 2022343 is the applicant here for presentation. I brought this print out too for everybody because this didn't make it into your files as far as I understand. And this is the um

Wait, hold on just a sec. You Well, you can give it to us, but then give us your name and for the record and see everything into the mic for the everything. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So, just name. Yeah. Okay. Meredith Ramsey. Sure. And then just go ahead and tell. Yeah, that's great. We just need it recorded and all that.

Yeah, of course. So, basically, we are here because this property that had the STR non-conforming status, um, I'll just sort of go I'll start here. So, the non-conforming use realistically was never abandoned, nor was there an intention to abandon it. This was a temporary interruption caused by circumstances outside of the owner's control when the property became physically uninhabitable due to a catastrophic water damage caused by a third party. The owner continuously acted to restore the property um and resume STR operations as quickly as reasonably possible. Her name is Elizabeth Basset is the owner and she bought the property in 2017 and has rented it ever since. So between 8 and 9 years, uh the owner and her family uses the home as a second home. In addition, um she's always adhered to the STR rules and been a good neighbor. She's had no prior violations and has always upheld the legal non-conforming status once that was granted. Um, so basically what had happened was uh the company that was doing her rentals at that point in time had uh hooked up a water line that was listed in their documentation is was not supposed to be hooked up ever. So they hooked it up an ice maker line a line to the refrigerator and then they didn't come back to check it for two weeks. A housekeeper came back 2 weeks later and there's water pouring out of the home. So uh it was uh no good. That was on October 30th, 2024 is the day that that happened that that um they hooked it up. And then on November 15th is when they went in and saw the water was flowing from the home. At that point in time, they realized that the house was in really bad shape. So they went ahead and canled all future bookings at that because there was no it was pretty much unsalvageable. Um

so and then you should have the supporting documents I believe as far as I know from the the pictures from service master who was the first person. So um the rental company at that point in time called in service master they came in and sort of started that that mitigation process. Um and sort of the so the timeline here is that yeah okay so service master initial uh mitigation they itemized the damage contents and then that was not done until January 1st 2025 due to the nature of the damage and how much they had to do. So there was the initial mitigation and then the list of also the itemized damage of all of the contents of it. Um, and then the unsalv unsalvageable contents were reported on January 22nd. So right there, that was from November 15th to January 22nd. There were insurance approval delays um from there that caused it to where the woman who owns the home, Elizabeth Basset, um got a local lady to take care of the whole on the ground process uh to organize all of the contractors and do all of the work that was going to need to be done to restore the home so it could be rented again as soon as possible. That started on February uh 12th in 2025. And that was Robin uh Robin that was hired to do that. So the project scope in entailed a demolition of the entire kitchen um all the first floor flooring, drywall, sheetrock repair on the entry main the entry and the um main level of the home. Paint throughout, replacing all the destroyed kitchen appliances, the entire garage, drywall repair, insulation, plumbing repair, electrical repair, and then flooring replacement. So quite a massive um massive scope there. So February

17th, 2026, 15 months after basically the November date was when the final heat zone was functioning. Um Elizabeth came to me to start working with her property. I own a vacation rental company in here in Steamboat and she came to me because of her experience with the previous company. She did not want to continue working with them. So, she came to me to start working with her, telling me that, you know, we're we're still working on the property, getting up to, you know, up to snuff so it would be able to be rented. And at that point, we, you know, started working on contracts between us. We started helping, you know, with what we could in the process to help move it along. Um, and then the thing with vacation rentals is challenging is that we we were starting from scratch. So when she has another company, they've got tons of reviews and clicks and they're really high up in the rankings. So they get bookings a lot quicker for us to start. We did what we could to get bookings as quickly as possible. And so we offered a 20% discount for the first six people that booked in order to get people in the door to get it going as quickly as possible. Um when so yeah, she did have and this is what I gave you all there. She did have a booking on the books through the other company for December 26th through December 31st of 2024. We had our first booking for her on December 13th of 2025. So had those bookings not had to be cancelled because of this massive, you know, making the home in uninhabitable, it would have been a year within the year that we would have had the rental. So, we would have been in compliance with the with the policy. Um, so, and then the date that I permitted I submitted my permit renewal was April

April 2nd. The permit will expire on May 15th. Um, she spent over $150,000 so far on between service master and then all the other uh renovation item all the other renovation items. And you know, we believe that that really shows that she was never meaning to move away from this STR process, she wanted to keep it as a short-term rental. But obviously, I'm sure every one of you has dealt with contractors in Steamboat and, you know, know that no matter how many times they say they're going to be there, it does not necessarily happen. And so, you know, trying to handle this from afar, she got the person on the ground because she realized that it was outside of her scope and living in Vermont, trying to handle this from afar, trying to get it done as quickly as possible. So, you know, we're just slightly outside of that window had she not have to have those or we would have been, you know, in compliance had she not had to have those cancellations, but that was sort of forced upon her. Um, and I think that that's pretty much all.

Yeah. Thank you very much. We'll let you know if we have questions. Yeah. Great. Uh, and Rebecca, do you have a um staff report as well? I do. Presentation. Just sit down or stand up here.

Oh, yeah. Go for it. Yeah. Um, okay. Brief presentation. Um, you've all seen this slide before. We know the STR overlay zone went into effect June 15, 2022. This subject property is located in overlay zone B3. Um that's the restrict one of the restricted subzones or what we call the yellow zone. Um and a property must have been lawfully used as a vacation rental prior to that June 15, 2022 date in order to be eligible um for an STR license. legal non-conforming status as planning commission is well aware must not be abandoned in order to maintain that eligibility in that restricted subzone. Um and we use the STR license and the renewal process annually um to review documentation to ensure that legal non-conforming use has not been abandoned or otherwise terminated. Um so this slide is the language that planning commission has seen many many times um with every prior prior appeal. Um and this is in the legal non-conforming use section of the code section 103 se subsection D speaks to um the provisions or the criteria or circumstances by which legal non-conforming use automatically terminates. The language that you're very familiar with is section two, which states that the legal non-conforming status of a use shall be terminated immediately upon the abandonment. And then it, you know, talks about that abandonment period or being a period of discontinuence for 12 consecutive months regardless of the intent um to resume

operation of the use. This particular case um as you just heard from the appellants representative deals with damage to the structure. So that brings into play um one of the other criterion that the code include uh speaks to in terms of termination of legal non-conforming use. Um there just to let you all know there are five criteria um that terminate legal non-conforming use status. So there are two that are applicable in this case. That second one is section 103D5 in which uh states that that legal non-conforming status shall terminate immediately um if the structure housing the use is destroyed or damaged um to an extent in excess of 50% of current reconstruction cost or such structure is damaged or destroyed and not restored within 12 months. So we're going to talk a little bit more in detail about that language um in a couple of slides. So, um just a quick timeline of relevant dates here. You can see this property was um registered in December of 2022 with that legal non-conforming use status. Um the first license was issued in 2023. The property owner renewed that license um as required in 2024. And we do have documentation that the last stay that occurred in 2024 ended on October 27th. Um the license was then again renewed in 2025 and based on the information that we've received from the property owner and their representative. The property suffered damage on November 15th of 2025. Um and the repair was completed in December. Um sorry I have those dates wrong. Second uh meeting in a row where I have

typos for you. Um, the damage occurred November 15th, 2024, correct? Yes. Sorry, I apologize. Um, and the repair was completed in December of 2025. Um, and then that first day, as the um, appellent noted, occurred began on December 13th of 2025. So, I apologize again for the um, typo. Um, so there are the two relevant sort of sections I have highlighted um, in red. That would be sort of that typical 12-month non-use abandonment period. So you can see um that between October 27th of 24 and December 13th of 25 exceeds 12 months. Um and then that second criterion for termination of the legal non-conforming use. I have those dates highlighted in orange. Um and that would be November 15, 24 to December of 2025, which again exceeds 12 months. Um so just to sort of recap there are two um two reasons for um our decision that the legal non-conforming status of this use have terminated. The first is that typical abandonment period. Um I don't think there's any dispute that the use did not actually occur um within a 12 consecutive month time period. Um the second and this is where I'll go into a little bit more detail with this language because this is the first time that this has come into play in your um hearing of an appeal. So the language around damage to the structure that houses illegal non-conforming use has two parts to it. And this is it's important to note this is an or statement. So both of these don't have to be met. Only one of them has to be met um to terminate legal non-conforming status. So the first part speaks to if the damage or destruction to the

structure exceeds 50% of the current reconstruction cost. In this case, what was provided to us was an estimated repair cost of about $130,000. I don't think um there's any question that that is unlikely to exceed 50% of the current construction or current replacement costs, reconstruction costs of that unit. So I don't believe that termination of the use um occurs based on that first part. Um the second part of that or statement is that the structure is damaged um or destroyed and not restored within 12 months. Based on the information that we received, the repair took 13 months um to complete after the damage occurred. Um so per section 103D5 the legal non-conforming use terminated as the structure was damaged and not restored within uh the required 12 months. There is language in that section that speaks to um the planning director having authorization to grant an extension to that 12-month re restoration or reconstruction time period. Um this is also a two-part or multi-part um test and this is an and statement. So both of these need to be true. Um so the code states that the planning director may grant an extension to the 12-month restoration time period if the structure is of a large scale and if the um changes that are required or needed um are required to comply with the building code. It goes on to say that in that this kind of a circumstance, a building permit application has to be submitted within 12 months and the only changes that can be made to the structure are those that are needed to comply with building code.

So in this circumstance, I did review this extension language. Um this structure is approximately 1500 square ft. Um I do not believe that is of a large scale. Um, and I found no evidence of a building permit being issued or applied for within this relevant time period with the exception of one that was issued for the installation of an electric vehicle charger at this property. Um, so I did not find that this circumstance met the test by which um we could grant an extension to that 12-month time period. So based on that, I believe that um the legal non-conforming status has terminated both both under the abandonment language as well as under the damage or destruction language and um given that the structure was not restored within 12 months. Happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. Um, as a part of that, Rebecca, is this um, information that we have tonight, is this, well, the most important question is this new information that is not what you based your decision on. Um, no, and I apologize. It was um, I believe it was uploaded to the license application that was denied and so it just it No, it is not new. I have seen it. Um I I'm aware of it. It it doesn't change my opinion.

That's the most important. But then also how you said um regardless of intent on one of your slides is that kind of what this falls into especially the first page is that the intent or even beyond intent the bookings uh that were were ready to be fulfilled um that couldn't those cannot apply to to that the that the use is happening.

Yeah. I mean it because the use didn't happen the bookings were cancelled. So, just want to make one last point. This is a this is a diffic difficult one. I think everyone in the room, they're all difficult. This one's especially difficult because I think there are circumstances that were well beyond the control of the property owner. Um, I just wanted to point one thing out. um the language speaks to regardless of intent, but I think that when you read the code section 103D that provides those five different circumstances by which legal non-conforming use terminates. None of those are um I mean they're all sort of generally well abandonment of use could be a could be something that was a choice by the property owner but certainly damage or destruction to a structure is not a choice of a property owner. Um I I believe that the intention of the code is to lay out circumstances by which regardless of intention or choice um the use terminates. So I you know I think the abandonment clause explicitly has the regardless of intent language in there because that could be somebody can choose to cease operation for a period of time. Um but the the other four criteria are not really typically something that a property owner would choose such as damage or fl you know water damage to the property.

Great. Thank you. Questions from

Yeah, I have one. Um, what do we use to inform the interpretation that using a property as a short-term rental does not include operating a short-term rental in that like to for all of these to get cancelled, somebody had to do a bunch of work on behalf of a short-term rental. Someone was getting paid to do to do all these cancellations to find new places for these people. someone was operating the short-term rental even though someone wasn't staying the short-term rental was in operation. So what what do we what what piece of code what language do we use to support the fact that or the view that um this is not using a short-term rental. Does that make sense?

Yeah. No, it's a good question and I think a similar um discussion item came out came up during the last appeal. Certainly, um, short-term rental property owners often hire property managers. What that, you know, that's an ongoing contract. Typically, PE, there's advertising that's occurring oftentimes year round. um things are happening related to a short-term rental, but the use at the property is um for the short for the property to be conti considered a short-term rental use um somebody has to be staying there as a short-term rental. And so if you recall from the last hearing, we talked about um section 103D, the abandonment clause being extended for short-term rental type uses from 6 months to 12 months when we adopted the STR code. Um that is for what we call intermittent uses and that was explicitly acknowledged that a short-term rental property is not operating as a short-term rental property. three often not operating as a short-term rental property 365 days a year. It can be vacant. It could be someone's second home, vacation home, primary residence. Um, every day of that year, it's not it's if the property owner is staying there or if it's vacant or being used for other guests, um, it would not be considered a short-term rental use at that time. So that that use of that property sort of occurs intermittently throughout a year or throughout any period of time. Um so I don't believe it it is not my opinion and I don't think it is the intention of the code that having a rental contract with somebody answering calls, advertising, cancelling a property, something like that does not constitute use of that particular property as a

short-term rental. But we don't have that codified anywhere. what use means. Is that just an interpretation that's been utilized? Because I completely understand why some of those are not using the property. But some I don't know. I'm just curious if that's actually written somewhere, defined somewhere. Um I if you're asking if there's somewhere in the language that says what is what is use is

using the property. The use is occurring. the short-term rental use of the property is occurring. And a short-term rental is um the rental of the property as a lo the use of the property as a lodging establishment um for a period of time of less than 30 days. I mean, we can read the definition of how it's defined. Um but certainly advertising a property is not is not using the property. So, I think that's a really good sort of um just a good explanation for why um any activity related to a short-term rental that might occur at some future date or some prior date does not constitute use of the short-term rental on that specific date. Does that make sense?

Yes. Okay. I mean, we can we can pull up.

You said that there is. Yeah. If would you mind? That'd be awesome. As I'm pulling up the code, I would also just note that um that in all of the appeals and in all of the decisions that we have made since the adoption of the short-term rental code, um use of the property meant someone was staying in the property. So, um, a significant change to that interpretation would have some pretty serious impacts to how we interpret the code and apply the program. Um, and I'm certainly not suggesting a cart blanch like everything is using it. Thinking about using it is using it. That's certainly not what I'm saying. But recognizing the amount of work it is to relocate a bunch of guests is a different kind of use that we haven't had to consider before and um meets a very different threshold in my opinion. So that's why I'm pushing on this. Why Rebecca is still looking like to just bounce this maybe off you is work regarding a property that doesn't take place on the actual property a use of that property? I guess I would argue yes if you're actively working for so if I owned an an a short-term rental if if I didn't have a rental company I would be actively working to find replacement lodging for these people or but if you have if you have a a company you're

actively paying them to do work on behalf of this rental company. So, in my opinion, yes, that's that's using that's using the short-term rental even though it's not physically having someone stay there. You have a booking and you are physically doing work on behalf of that. So, yeah, I think I think it is using it maybe, but I would say that's a different type of use. Advertising, marketing, those are not lodging. They they are commercial use. Oh, absolutely. behalf of lodging. Absolutely. Well, yeah, but I mean it's a different type of use ultimately.

I guess that's why I want to see that the definition of what use is per our code. Yeah, that may help. You ready, Rebecca?

Yeah. So, I guess what I I mean, we don't have a definition of use. I think that is using like there's not like a broad definition of what a use is. Um so trying to think of let's see I guess another question maybe to speak to this is well no I'm not even going to go there because I don't want that can of worms opened. Never mind. I had ganoworms all along on this with those those type of thoughts. Yeah.

What if during a recession you are advertising it people maybe book we have imagine a bad snow year and they all cancel and it was never used for 12 months. I mean, and then that goes to well, what's the intent of the code? Is it are there outside circumstances that meant the property wasn't used, but is that abandonment?

I mean, and that, you know, that's and and yeah, or there are other reasons why that might happen, but even if they were booked, they were trying to and their circumstances outside their their control meant it didn't rent. I mean, it could have been because they were charging too much or any other number of reasons, but if you were just to open it up to these other things, is that where does that fall? I'm not, you know, is is it our intent that if there's not enough volume, well, then we want to get rid of it anyway if there's not enough people are booking and that's okay to lose that per that permission. I'm not answering that question, but that's that can of worm that is similar you similar to what you're asking, but a little broader. And I'm not sure what the right answer is or what the real intent is at that point.

Yeah. And I some of some of what's being said makes me feel like I'm by asking questions about this particular appeal. I'm somehow blowing open every appeal and every appeal is now going to be potentially like and and I don't think that's what I'm doing. I think I'm asking specific questions about this specific appeal that don't sit right with me. Right.

I think it's important to understand what the intent of the code is and if if maybe that does or does not affect this particular one, it may cause future changes in the code or better interpretation in the future or more detailed uh what do we call it when the executive has has an official opinion that clarifies. We could get one of those. Written interpretation. Written interpretation. They're good questions. I have no problem with opening cancer. Are we debating now or are we going to read? No, we're waiting for an answer. I actually have an answer.

Want to apologize. So, I was wrong. Our code defines use. Um, it says the purpose of which land or structures thereon is designed, arranged, or intended to be occupied or used or for which it is occupied, maintained, rented or leased. That is how we define a use. pretty hardcore. That kind of speaks to what I'm saying, honestly. I think in a way in a way that you like or don't like.

In a way that I think I don't think it says that you have to be using it. There's a warehouse that's been abandoned for two years, someone can move in and start using it as a warehouse again immediately. Granted, we're not talking about something that's in illegal use, so that's a totally different thing. But it doesn't say that it's at someone actually lodging there. It says that a use is well whatever. It's not what I heard at all. So maybe we should have one. That's awesome. Nor is it how we've applied abandoned uses around town for at least the 10 years I've been hearing about them. So say that again.

We haven't said that a warehouse that's just empty for two years is still a warehouse. That's we haven't made an interpretation like that either that you were just kind of likening to. You said an outdoor storage use that is an outdoor store is abandoned and a warehouse that isn't being used as a warehouse is abandoned. We've we've said that consistently about all uses, not just short-term rentals. Are you talking about just about um like legally non-conforming uses? Use use I feel like we're arguing about what the word up is here. So, I feel like we're kind of losing sight of the conversation a little bit. But like no I think the whole conversation for me what the definition of use is so

zoned allowed outdoor storage then whether it was occurring or not didn't matter. Yeah, if you if an abandoned use and so I think we are talking about legal non-conforming. You have let's call etc. You have a outdoor storage on down in downtown and it's a continued use if if they still wanted it to be outdoor storage but they weren't storing anything on it for 12 months. You don't have to get approved for it again. You just Yes, you would illegal if legal non-conforming. You would if it's legal non-conforming, but if it's not legal non-conforming,

if it's used by right, it's used by right. not use it even if it's no the critical thing is you still abandon it for that whole time. It's just because it's a use by right. If you start using it again, there's nothing to stop you. It's not a use by right. That's a conditional use. It would include a conditional use. Yeah. And it wouldn't need to be approved again for someone new. Saying if we're talking hypotheticals here, saying even if it were a use by right? Can I ask a different We want to listen to this definition again or or does anyone else want to hear it again? Lovely. I'm ready to move on.

Well, I I just navigated away, so give me a minute and I'll read it again. But not I don't want us to get on a sidetrack of outdoor storage, but I did want to clarify a conditional use if it ceases to operate for a certain time period, it would absolutely need to be approved again before it could restart. Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Even if the site was designed or intended to be used for outdoor storage. So I think and I will get I will go ahead and read the definition of use again but I think we have to also recognize that the context in which that word is used throughout the code matters. So I think the idea of what is a legal non-conforming use absolutely matters. Um I apologize I should have stayed on that page. The purpose for which land or structures thereon is designed, arranged or intended to be occupied or used or for which it is occupied, maintained, rented or leased.

Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Great. Um I um curious the the intent of the 12-month period when you're doing construction or rehabilitation or whatever it is, I assume is to expedite keeping it on the market or making it available. Um I guess my question would be uh this took looks like somewhere between 15 and 16 months from October 24 to February 26.

I think it was November to the following December. 13 months. I shouldn't be the one answering that. Sorry. So the we talked about the intent, you know, 12 months and the reason you couldn't grant an extension because a building permit was not pulled. Is that correct? Um the criteria for the extension is two parts. one um it states that the structure is of a large scale

and um that the changes that are made being made to the structure are required to comply with building code. That's a two-part test and it's an and so both have to be met to grant the extension. And you're saying, and then it goes on to say that a building permit also has to be pulled within 12 months because if you're making changes to a a structure to comply with building code, a building permit would be required to do so. So, uh,

so what my point in stating that there was no building permit is I don't think it meets the test for the extension. I believe that the purpose of the 12 month restoration period goes back to the purpose of the legal non-conforming section of the code which is to eliminate these types of uses as quickly as possible. So, my understanding of the 12-month reconstruction period is that if there is damage to a property um and it can be restored and reconstructed within 12 months, then okay, that's we understand damage happens outside of someone's control. um if it is of some extensive nature. So either exceeds 50% of the reconstruction costs or is of such an extent that it can't be completed within 12 months then that's a circumstance where the code says this use terminates. But that's u the extent of damage, not the extent to the

not the extent of um project time. Okay. It's it's both.

Actually, I I don't think it is. It's that the extensiveness of the damage is part of it. What I heard was that there were also insurance issues uh and other elements associated with completing the project in a more timely fashion. And so if it was 13 months versus 12 months, um I don't see anything here that says um they I know we're not supposed to talk about intent, but I don't see any intent not to rent this. And based on the documentation, I would say they they tried to do that or they had to cancel some of theirs.

So, uh I'm going to respond to that by asking Rebecca a question to keep it in question format. Rebecca, is it correct that what we're doing whenever we we review an appeal is to make a recommendation to council on whether staff's interpretation or the applicant's interpretation is more correct was was the correct interpretation of the code. Yes, that's one of the two criteria for approval of an appeal. and that the specifics on whether insurance gets in the way of something was not staff's did not impact whether or not staff felt that that met true interpretation of the code. Is that a question for me?

Sure. I I don't think I have the authority to make um exceptions to the code. I've got a question whether or not you do or not, but that's what we're doing here. And I am speaking in conversation as opposed to questioning, but I'm putting that context. We got into a conversation and it was very confusing for me personally. Uh I I I I guess I have a you know I'm trying to understand uh I guess the I'll ask the appellant. Um was this work done expeditiously? as quickly as possible here in Steamboat. And that's why Sorry. Sorry. You have to just like Lou had to

as quickly as possible in Steamboat. And that's what she that's why she brought on the local in order to coordinate it so that it could go absolutely as quickly as possible. But with is you saw the list of the trades that all had to be involved in it. That is the that ended up being another. So you have the insurance challenge in the first place and then you have that as the next one is trying to coordinate being the wife of an electrician. I completely understand the coordination piece of it. You know you come in to do your thing that day but the drywaller hasn't done their thing and so you're waiting on that person and then that can all snowball in terms of the amount of time that it takes to actually get it done. But the goal was as quickly as possible. They were missing that rental revenue tremendously. You know, for them the goal was we want to get this. They already lost, you know, whatever that was. November and December of the previous year had to be, you know, out for the entire next year. They were wanting to get that done. And I have one other comment, but it's not directly related to what you asked. Should I wait on that?

No, it's fine.

Okay. Um, just that when they did this, you know, the I don't want to call it a renovation because it wasn't. it was, you know, getting the the property back to being habit habitable. It everything that they did was for STRs. Like if they had wanted to do it just for their own personal home, they would have done different furniture. They wouldn't have, you know, put in the EV charger. And granted, the EV charger did not slow anything down. That was like an addition, but it was just to show that money was being put in in order to make this good for the community for a short-term rental property. And that was their goal in doing it. wasn't for themselves. You know, that was the entire intent the whole time was to get it back on that rental market as quickly as they they possibly could. And we could have rented it earlier, but it wouldn't have been up to anybody's standard. And I don't feel as if that's the way we really want to represent ourselves is by hustling even, you know, or or going without. Okay, sorry. Well, the property is ready, but there's no oven, so we're going to go and rent it to you. That that's not a good look for anybody is my opinion. Thank you.

Can you help while you're already already up here? Um, you mentioned the the list of trades, but could you give us more detail in the actual scope of

So that's all in a lot of detail in that service master. So basically they had, let me get my document here. Um, they had to do so the entire home had water about up to here for the main floor and the basement, which is the garage itself. So, all the drywall was completely ripped out. Every single kitchen appliance was destroyed. All the flooring had to be completely redone. It had to be all it had to be repainted. Um I believe that there was heating work that had to be done with it. But I'd say that the best I don't want to misspeak, but the service master list of items that had to get done were it's very extensive and very well detailed in that report. when I'm a little confused in trying to understand um scope and time and trust me the context of my question I I understand trades and stacking and things never going as fast as you want but at the same time I feel like there's a combination here of somehow it was little enough work that no permits were pulled and somehow it was big enough work that it would take as long to complete as building a house from scratch

I'm trying to find out where we are in between those two extremes Yeah. So that that would really help to kind of describe a little more and I don't know if getting I mean the woman who handled all of that Robin locally that started that February doing it. I don't know if there's a way to get she did write a statement that I did include in the documentation. I think it is in your packet today because I believe I got it to Rebecca early enough. She that was her sort of synopsis of it. There's also a list of receipts on that one for the different trades that were involved for that particular time. She did the owner did say that it was not a complete list of receipts and I've been trying to get that from uh Robin, but I've not gotten that yet. Okay. Well, thank you.

Yeah, of course. I've got I've got one for you, too. Yeah. Yeah. Um, is Robin uh like a licensed general contractor or does she have like experience in this industry or is she just a random local that the owner knows? No. Oh, no. She was recommended by a local realtor who does a lot with re I think she's basically I don't know if interior decorator is her interior designer. Interior designer. I didn't know the exact title. Mhm. Okay. She's worked with a lot of properties and worked with a lot of people I know in the trades, but this was my first experience working with her. Thank you. Mhm. Any other question?

One more question for you. Um well, I have a question. There may be more. Um during the process were to the best of your knowledge you Robin the property owner were you aware of this 12 month ticking clock? Um was there any sort of like what what was the mindset like we we got to get this done we got to get I mean obviously ski season was coming.

Um was there like a like a ticking clock um other than the desire for the income? I don't I don't know. I don't have a solid answer to that one. I was brought in very very late in the process once they decided that okay, this is getting close enough to rent it again. So, let's get on that. I was honestly taken back when I went to apply for the the renewal of the permit and and was denied it. I didn't know when the last booking was. I had not looked into when the previous last booking was. it it I guess because of the what had happened it just didn't even occur to me and I'm really on top of that with all my properties with the with the permitting process this is just such a new experience that I was not aware

thank you Rich for Rebecca what is the criteria for large scale of a large scale

um I think that is um can be interpreted interpreted by the decision maker. So, um, my interpretation of that, um, I think what did I say this was about,500 square f feet. Um, in this town, I don't, in my opinion, a 1500 foot structure is not um, of a large scale. That's my opinion. Um, there is nothing further in the code to define that. Oh, you you don't think that it could be in large scale as compared to the property like yeah uh obviously you could say $130,000 or whatever the dollar value was if the grand had to do that that you wouldn't even think twice about what that impact was but as to a single home or single home owner you would not think that would be a large scale that I'm trying to understand

so the the language about the structure being of a large scale is not related to the cost.

So, it's um my my reading of the code says that um if there's damage to a structure housing illegal non-conforming use um that there's 12 months to repair that damage without terminating the use. It then goes on to state that the planning director can grant an extension to that 12 months under the circumstance that the structure is of a large scale. So I would I read that to say to under I understand the code is attempting to say that acknowledge that larger structures would take longer to repair than something smaller that could be done in 12 months. So I don't I guess maybe I would ask for clarification on your um on your question. I guess

I think the grand structure of a large I'm sorry I was just your example of the grand I mean I would say that is a large but what you showed didn't say structure it just said that could you bring that back up um and of a large language is in um I was trying to find it but it is in the full complete language is on page three of five of the staff report so.3 okay I got it bolded number five that is straight from the code.

Okay. So there is that. So uh I did remember seeing it on the screen. Uh so with the did you look at assessed value or some other how did you determine that the the dollars spent on rec on reconstruction for lack of a better word was not of 50% of value. Um I didn't do a lot of research on that. I just know what it costs to build in this town and I don't think that you're going to build a 1500 foot three-story townhouse for $260,000. Understand?

Or less. So, I didn't do it. Yeah. I didn't do any extensive research on that. That was a gut check and I didn't feel that that section that that that part of that or statement, that first criterion, I don't think it was met. So I would not if that was the only part then I would not say that that section applied and terminated the use. It's the second part of that or statement that talks about reconstruction and um uh repairing the damage within the 12 months and that does not come with a percentage of reconstruction costs uh along with it.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I've got one more. Um, I kind of wanted to go back a little bit to Lou and Brian's conversation and ask Rebecca, um, do you feel that it's in the spirit in the language of the code surrounding um, LNC abandonment to attempt to eliminate those uses and undesirable locations? Can you repeat the beginning of your statement? Do you think it's in the spirit in the language of the code surrounding LNC abandonment to try to eliminate those uses in undesirable areas?

Um I think the intent the I mean there's no doubt about it that the code includes very clear um statement of purpose and intent. So section 103A lays out the purpose and intent of that full section of the code. It states that the purpose is to a limit the number and extent of non-conforming uses, b prohibit the enlargement of non-conforming uses, c prohibit reestablishment of non-conforming uses after abandonment, and d further the goals and policies of the community plan and other adopted plans. Subsection 2 of 103A includes the following intent statement. It reads, "The intent of this section is to apply standards that will eliminate legal non-conforming uses as speedily as possible." So that is there's no interpretation needed there. I think the code's pretty clear as to what it's trying to accomplish.

Thank you. Yeah, the the I'm not Well, I'm not asking a question. We're almost there anyway. So, are there any other questions?

Is there any is there I feel like last um last time we talked about this, there was some discussion about uh that that opponent was in a red zone. There was some discussion about a hardship and it didn't apply to that, but I'm wondering is there any language applicable language here about undue hardship? Um, I think no, there's I mean there's no language in this section of the code about a hardship. I think that we I think the code acknowledges that damage or destruction to a property is likely a hardship. Um, and then it establishes some parameters around um how the code treats that. What allowance for repair um you know um repair of the structure, continued use, continued non-conforming status of the use. It it puts some guard rails around that. So there's the language that I've shared with you is the only applicable language in the code.

Did I did I answer your question? Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Uh we don't have any public comment for this, so we'll skip public comment and first come back to if you had any other uh followup or anything else you wanted to add, but you got to get back up again. I'm sorry. Not really. I mean, I think I've sort of said everything. I did look back in here if you did want me to go through in more detail what the extent of the damage was therefore than what the repairs would have been.

Um, sure. I can ask it as a question just to kind of def So you don't have to just randomly talk. I mean, I'm looking at it. For example, I've got page 34 pulled up of the 101 page thing which was extensive and and and helpful. Um, it mentions things that sound like building code things. So, if anything, I have a question as to why building permit wasn't pulled, but I'm not going to go down that road because that's not the hat we're wearing. Yeah. But demo and exterior wall. Boy, that's that's I mean, that's item number two. That's a

building that that's a that's a building code thing. Um, we've got uh there was plumbing in here. There was some new light fixtures. There's drywall in the garage which needs to be inspected for its its screwing and taping. It's got that fire separation from the rest of the house. We've got a lot of building code things listed.

But also somehow the demo of the exterior wall was only a uh a h 100red bucks and there's nothing that talks about that it was rebuilt. So maybe that wasn't demoed. So I I just didn't feel like I actually understood from this list what the scope was. So now you know why I'm confused. Maybe you can add. I completely do and I wish that I had had more involvement at that point in time and or that the owner was able to be a part because they were or the other people that were actually involved in that piece of it so I could give you because I don't want to speak on something that I don't know factually and so I wish I could but I don't okay have any of those details unfortunately. Okay. Well, no worries and and I understand where you're coming from.

Yeah. Yep. So basically, I mean, the only, you know, I want to keep this just as factual as possible, but I guess from a, you know, community member standpoint, what what I can't quite understand is, you know, if we had those, they had those reservations in place that were intended by that owner to be fulfilled. And if those had been fulfilled, then we would never have been out of compliance because of that December 26th to 31st date and then our first reservation coming in on December 14th. So, I guess there's just that question of definition of the reservation. And there are times when, you know, in my business that we'll have somebody will book a reservation, they just don't show up, but nobody's going in to make sure that they're there in order to call that the use of the reservation, right? And so these people, they were forced to cancel. They were moved elsewhere within Steamboat. So that's money that was owed to that owner for that reservation and then was moved to another owner in Steamboat but was it kind of initially intended for this one and then with something completely out of their control was forced to be moved elsewhere. So, that's the piece of it that I just don't necessarily understand and wish there was clearer definition for. Um, and potentially some I don't want to say wiggle room with it. That's the wrong word, but just the ability to have some flexibility when a situation like that that's so out of somebody's control. And I guess what I don't understand is if the goal of, you know, these parameters is to get rid of as many of the legal non-conforming status properties as possible, then why is there the um the lottery process for that zone? You know, if we're trying to kind of move those out, then we have that same zone that there's a lottery process for. So, let's say she loses this permit, then there's a chance somebody else will get it in that same zone. that just doesn't really make

sense to me. So, I think that's that's about it. Thank you. Rebecca, can you clear that up a little bit because you're not taking new license applications for the yellow zone, correct?

Um, so I have two follow-up comments. So, on that on the lottery, um, this is subzone B3. That sub zone is currently overallocated with short-term rental licenses. So, um, with any, um, reduction in licenses, we don't, it won't automatically go to a lottery cuz we wouldn't advertise for a lottery until such time as the licenses that are issued drop down below the cap. So, we have run two lotteryies that none of them have been for B3. Um, and B3 continues to be well over the cap. Um the other thing I just wanted to mention is um I just wanted to be really clear about um the our decision that the staff's decision that the use has terminated per section 103D is based on two of the five um circumstances by which an legal non-conforming use terminates. So um I believe that there are two basis bases for that decision. It's not um it's not just the one or the other. I think that there are two code provisions that have terminated this legal non-conforming use. And I I think that was clear. Um so even if you know we were to try to count the canceled reservations I still think that um this particular circumstance doesn't satisfy or does satisfy the termination under section 103D5 that it wasn't restored within 12 months. So, I think you have to look at both of those.

And and just to help follow up to your first point is that not only um can these yellow zones be overallocated currently because there's a lot of legal non-conforming, but that the difference between a yellow and a red zone is that there can be some at least as as it was defined. There can be a mix of short-term rental versus long-term rental in those spaces, but that that that density of short-term rental should be reduced to meet that goal mix, right? That tell me if I'm wrong, Rebecca, that's technically a question, but that that's kind of the answer to

Yes, that's correct. The intent of the yellow zone is to allow a certain amount of short-term rentals within each of those subzones. There are six of them. So, they all have different caps. It was based on sort of the context of the area, the character of the area, what planning commission and council thought was appropriate for that area. Any other final questions?

Okay, I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and motion. I'll discuss it. I'll say it again. I hate these. Um, in this case, um, I do believe there are unique circumstances. There's a catastrophic event. Uh, could this have been done quicker? Should have a permit have been pulled? Yeah, I think probably um on some of this. Um I um you know I I don't know why but you know so it took 13 months instead of 12 months but everything is out of the owner's control on this. I don't see any levers that say you can make this happen quicker. Um and so um there are a lot of questions in my mind. um you know the if we can extend it for a month based on you know whether it's a large structure or is it a complex construction job it doesn't have to be large could be just complex you know it could be um so much material if there's 3 ft of water in a building that's a totally different game than you know normal construction uh it probably takes two months just to dry everything out so that you could actually do something. So, I'm I'm tending to lean with the appellant in this case.

I just want to help make sure that your thoughts are on the record as well as possible so challenge them. Okay. you saying that your reason for the applicants interpretation of the CDC being better is because I think there's no way to do construction jobs faster than 13 months and so therefore the 12 months just shouldn't apply. No putting words in your mouth, but I'm I'm giving you the opportunity to to state that just to make sure you know where I'm coming from.

Uh from my perspective, you know, could could it have been done faster? Sure. I'm I'm positive of it. But uh the basis for not adding the extra month is very interpretive. It's not spelled out. Uh is it third, you know, $130,000 or whatever it is. Um uh size size is not, you know, it's 1500 square foot. I think this is probably a townhouse or a condo of some sort. Uh so size uh that's very interpretive of what's big and what's little. It's complexity that matters most. And uh this sounds like it there was a lot of activity taking place. So I'm I am I'm saying that you know if the the we had the opportunity to extend it a month but we didn't use that opportunity because uh we determined the size was a an important factor then you know and and we interpreted that size itself was I don't know it's not numeric 1500 square feet is that it's a size it could be big for 300 someone who has a 360 foot home. It's a 1,500 foot's huge. So that's that's my concern about this. You know, if this construction had dragged on for two or three years, that maybe that would be a different situation. Uh again, I I can't answer a question why it appears that should per building permits should have been pulled on this. I you know there's I don't think any of us have any idea why they wouldn't be

right. I just want to make sure and again I'm I know I'm putting words in your mouth but I'm trying to help solidify it and and I'm disagreeing with you for these reasons but but tell me why I'm wrong. The the and statement is size which I disagree with you on but that's I understand your your reasoning your sound reasoning on it. um and that it gets done within this 12 month

period of time and requires uh uh building code related updates. Where do you see justification for that that is better on the applicant side than on staff side? If you do that's okay. Mostly the reason I'm pushing back is because I don't I don't I don't see how they've met that. I'm going to use staff's word because I thought it was very perfect for this scenario. It doesn't pass that test that there's there's nothing that we've seen here in presentation form and quasa judicial form tonight that says that this required building code review or that there was any, you know, in order for that extension. And if you don't get that extension,

then there's a time limit. The time limit can be four months. 12 months is the max. We're saying that this is a big enough nature, but but easy enough to repair that you're getting it done within this time period, or else you've abandoned the use at that point. And so, how are they not falling outside of that that defined scope on what is not abandoned at that point?

Um, I'm sorry, I'm making you answer for you started. So, you're my way to to continue the conversation. I I I would lean on intent and on this because I don't see this as, you know, the dog ate my homework uh excuse that we typically see here. Uh there is a catastrophic event happened uh out of control to of the owner to repair it. Like I said, I we don't know the extent of this construction and um I am comfortable saying that um well, you know, we can argue forever whether 1500 square foot is big or little.

Um I'm choosing to say that is it's sizable for the types of units that are we're talking about here. Well, and I don't want to give you too much back and forth, but just to because that gives me a chance to help uh explain myself as well is that I think you were very correct when you just said we don't know the extent. Yes,

we do know that it took 13 months, but we don't know why it took 13 months. We don't even know exactly what was done and why it took 13 months. And I'll tell you that I have a lot of experience in expecting a project that doesn't need a building permit to be done way before 13 months. So, so where is the evidence that actually points me in the direction that that's likely? I don't see any evidence that points me that that was likely beyond their control. That that's where we're we're different. And that just gives me the chance to to describe my point. It's a fair comment, but I Well, I'm uh maybe it's a I'm I'm being subjected to empathy factors. I don't know. Uh Ryan,

well empathy is tough in these situations because it is a catastrophic thing that was very frustrating for them to have. Frustrating is too nice uh too gentle a word. It was catastrophic. Yeah, it's just catastrophic.

I want to push back a little bit on we don't know the scope of what happened. Um I mean looking through the invoices and the photos included um and and the appellants comments, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of the scope of what happened. maybe not down to what they did with the exterior wall. Um, but you know, there was significant uh mold remediation done, drywall work done, all new flooring, all new paint. Um, and so on the time frame, I feel like it's 13 months a little long. Yeah, probably a little long. Should they have pulled a permit? Yep, probably should have pulled a permit. Uh, I don't think 13 months was unreasonable for a $130,000 project. Um, it just to be fair, I mean, dry drywall is like a three-week process and flooring is a two-e process, probably less on 1500 square feet. Just a little

insight. We're far away from 13 months

if if you've got the contractors there. And that's not considering all the remediation that happens. But I think that we're I think that that's like getting out in left field where it's like does it doesn't matter. Our job is to decide whether the appalent appeal appellant I can never get that word right. whether these guys or these guys are interpreting the coat more correctly. And um you said earlier, Brian, that you felt like we were trying to define the word up. And maybe if up was in the code, maybe we would have to define that. And I would hope that it's in the code. But I just want to read because our job is to interpret code. I want to read a couple of pieces of code one more time because this is what I'm basing my I'm I'm gonna support the

appellent. Thank you. Um and it's because I think that their interpretation of code in this case I don't think that they abandoned the use. Um so the CDC the definitions rules of interpretation the very first section says that words phrases terms and uses defined in the CDC shall be given the defined meaning. So if it's defined in the CDC we use that definition and then it says if it's not but it's defined in municipal code then use that definition and if it's not defined anywhere else then it's like the common definition. So, we're not using the common definition of use. We're using the CDC definition of use because that's what the CDC tells us to do. So, the CDC definition of use is the purpose for which purpose for which land or structures is designed, arranged or intended to be occupied or used or for what it is occupied, maintained, rented or leased or for which it is occupied blah. So unfortunately that makes this really tough when the definition of abandonment says regardless of intention because use includes the word intention as part of the definition of how a use is defined. Like that right there is very confusing. But I think there is no reason for us to believe that they stop that anything about the structure that we're talking about that the purpose never changed. The purpose of that structure was always to be used as this short-term rental. Evidenced by the fact that they had to move a bunch of people who had made rentals. They did a bunch of work and and designed the structure, redesigned the work that was done for the same purpose. So I don't think that it was ever abandoned per the definition of the CDC. So I think that their def their interpretation is more accurate based in code. So

I think that was that was well laid out. Can I argue based on exactly what you just said just for for for

rounded conversation? I think what you exactly just spelled out is is what my point was is that the definition is clarified in whether or not a legal non-conforming use is abandoned. So when they say it is this and then if it is abandoned, it is this regardless of intent, that is a that is a refined definition based on the specific way that it is being used. So you you gave both and the both is what's critical regardless of intent is what matters. So, what did the purpose of that structure change to whilst being renovated?

Uh, can can we go down a I'm going to be a sarcastic hypothetical just for the sake of running the conversation. It changed to a firehouse. Prove me wrong, right? Like that's the whole point. I think I can prove you wrong. I can prove that within those 12 that 12-month period, the purpose was to be a short-term rental. I didn't see it used as one anymore than I saw it used as a firehouse. The purpose of it was because it was rented to these people and they had to cancel it. But the purpose of that structure during these dates, regardless of what else happened in between, regardless of what the scope of the construction was or how hard it was to get contractors on site, the purpose for these dates remained as an STR,

but it's still intent, which is specifically included in the LNC per the purpose, which is als which is different. If it's literally rented as an STR, the purpose, but it's not rented. It was intended to be rented. It was rented and then they had to It was not intended. It was It was It was intended unless they were paid. It was If it was If it was Something's not rented unless you receive payments. Was listed then it's intended to be rented. If it was rented, the purpose was that it was a rental.

But it's not rented until you're paid. I don't think that that's I think that that's a that's a that's searching for a no when it when it comes to like I I disagree. I think that's legally the definition. Well, actually of a rental or a lease if I recall appellent indicated that they were paid then they had to pay the other people.

Uh I got to ask him. Sure. Um, one thing that just all made me think about is that we listed it significantly before December in order to get it booked, but bookings just don't always come in that quick. And that was my point in saying that we incentivize, we gave 20% to the first six bookings that came in on both of the major rental sites in order to try to entice somebody to come in. November is just not a popular month in Steamboat. You know, it's not a time with which you get a lot of bookings. So, it's not necessarily that we could not have had somebody in there before December. It's that we we didn't get a booking in there before December. It was habitable before December. So, it's just and it's another piece of the puzzle when it comes down to was it the date that it was booked cuz it was booked the date that like the reservation came in for that December booking was significantly before December. So that would have made it potentially even within that year when we say because we collect money the day that that person books and once they're within 30 days of arrival they're not guaranteed a refund. So that's just another little side point that's I don't know if it makes a difference but

okay thank you. I guess I just want to clarify that if if if there were not actual bookings during those 12 months I don't think that we could prove that there was purpose. But I think that you can prove that the purpose of the structure within 12 a 12-month period was it was never the purpose never left and the purpose is the definition of a use. So if yeah maybe I don't need to say no you've made your point. We're going to be talking in circles I think I think so too. And I think the purpose of the code surrounding this is to remove these uses wherever and whenever possible explicitly.

So you just get to ignore the definition of use. No, use is also defined in the in the LNC abandonment. I don't think it is. I mean not as like a little use define but it's saying excluding the intent regardless of regardless. Any other discussion? I go yeah unless I hear Rebecca agreeing with your definition then I think there's other those other things we talked about also would fall under that umbrella of you of how you interpret use. Um

what other things? Sorry I didn't understand. Like what if somebody booked and then canceled and but they didn't show you the cancellation. You would be saying, "Oh, they booked it and they intended to." Well, maybe that's not even a real booking. I was just thinking I was going to create a business that offer people free bookings so that way they can show use of every 12 months by your definition. Hope somebody heard me and that might be popping up in the future. Anyway, I was going with uh the what Brian had alluded to that possibly the the amount of damage should have had a permit pulled and and that and by the code's intent it would take longer and we should definitely look at it. But what we've talked about before, just like with intent of rental, if they don't do it legally, it doesn't count. So, even if they intended it to be short-term rental, but they didn't pay the taxes on it, we don't count that as a legal booking. So, that goes even beyond beyond use. Okay, so their intent was to do they even did short-term rental. But if they didn't do it legally, it doesn't count. And part of what they may not if they had pulled pulled pulled permits building permits we would not be talking about this because we I think staff would say oh it required a building permit and we should consider an extension of the 12 months. They didn't pull the building permit and you know the I would so I tend to agree that that's a that's a crux for me. It's a technical one because yeah, I think the the amount of work should have the amount of work necessary may have taken longer than 12 months and should have been given consideration, but they didn't pull a build building permit and it specifically calls out they have to do that and so I'm going to have to agree with staff all the way.

Okay, any discussion?

Yeah, I'll jump in. I I mean uh uh as Rebecca pointed out there, there were several tests, right? There were two separate almost unrelated tests. One was uh the time period and the other was one was the or one was the and right. I'm not going to read it too much. Uh I don't think it passes um or I think staff interpreted both correctly as it is laid out in the code and and that that's the the final thing. It's not when I say that I'm not speaking from a um empathy or or you know understanding of catastrophic mistake. I'm also not speaking from trying to assume that they did everything they could to build it faster. There there are unknowns there just as much as there are it is in as much as we are not meant to follow on on how much we agree with it being catastrophic. Um, but the code they're not they're not meeting the the intent uh or the actual use, right? Because regardless of intent, they're not meeting the actual use within 12 months and they're not meeting the construction being done within 12 months and they didn't get an extension for more than 12 months and it's not large in my educated opinion. So, so it is not meeting the test in almost every aspect despite how unfortunate the the damage was. So, that's why I would be uh supporting staff's interpretation tonight. I really connect with Lou's comments earlier um that like I've I wish the code accounted for catastrophic events. I wish there was something in there about undue hardship. um but I I haven't been able to find it. And then um it was uh it was the building permit

that that got me over the edge to um to support staff. That's a lot of good conversation. Anybody want to make a motion one way or another? No. Yeah, sure. Finding the right language. I planning commission I recommend the planning commission recommends denial of appeal PL 202600083 and uphold the planning director's decision of legal non-conforming use abandonment abandonment related to PL 2022343 at 1160 Nature's Lane

second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other final discussion? Okay, great. Then I'll call for a vote. I no I I no I and that recommendation motion passes 4 to2. Thank you for your time tonight. You look uh we have maybe a director's report and some minutes. Does anybody need a break first since it's already 8:00 or should we power through those? Just like a quick one. Yeah. Five minutes. Is that okay? I stole a big bar. Nice. You're right. Somebody left the treat box out.

water, right? Hydrated. Good girl. That's all right. Make sure bring this in. Good. says it on air. It says we're on air. Are we We're on a break thing. Disappeared. Unmuted and ready. I think so. Yeah. All right. Great. Um, so I think at this point we're uh Do we have a director's report tonight? I don't have anything to report tonight. Thanks.

Okay, not a problem. Uh, then we just have some meeting minutes to go through. Our first one is uh from November 13th. Uh, does anybody have any changes or is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve mean meeting minutes from November 13th, 2025. Second. Okay, we have a motion to second. Uh, are we all in favor? I I

Great. Our next one would be for public hearing minutes for November 20th, 2025. Uh, same thing. Any any comments, uh, changes or is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh, all in favor for this? I I Great. Uh, lastly, we have public hearing minutes for February 12th of 2026. Same thing. Is there any changes, uh, comments, or is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? All in favor? I

I and that is approved as well. Uh in which case uh is somebody want to make a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. Motion to second. on.