Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The thing that drives me crazy is when you get locked out. Right. You've got to put your passcode in.

All right, let's go ahead and get started. This is our days today. May 21st, Planning Commission Public Hearing. Can I start with roll call, please?

Jonathan Hayek.

Haleigh Cruz.

Rich Levy.

Brian Adams. David Box.

Lutitora. All right, before we begin agenda items, is there anybody who's here who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Okay, great. And if there's anybody who would like to make comments online, you can raise your Zoom hand throughout the evening. Okay, not seeing anybody. We will go into our agenda items. Our second agenda item tonight, which is Riverview PUD Subzone Amendment. the natural grocers project that item is going to be tabled until June. So I wanted to move that forward in case anybody was here for that to let you know that we're not going to be reviewing that project tonight. So we'll jump into that first more officially tonight and I will call it out and then we can vote on a motion to table. And then we'll go back to our agenda item number one, which is the Chief Theater. So this is PL 2025-0260, Riverview PUD Subzone D Amendment. Is there anything to talk about besides that we need to table or just to make a motion to table? Okay. Great. We have a request to table that until our June 11th meeting, if anybody wants to make that motion.

Move to table PL20250260 to the June 11th Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

Great.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. All right. We will revisit that in a couple weeks. Now we're going to start recording, I guess. So our other agenda item tonight, this is agenda item number one, PL 2025-0340, the Chief Theater. Is the applicant here for a presentation? All right, we're ready for it.

Sorry.

How you doing? My name is Trace Adams and I was born in this incredible town of Steamboat Springs. I'm also a third generation local with deep ties to the valley. Community legacy runs in my blood and I hope to continue that with my vision here for the Chief Theater. I grew up going to movies at the Chief, and for many years, it has been a passion of mine to bring this iconic downtown venue back to life as a flagship community space for music, arts, culture, and vitality. At its core, this project is about reactivating an important historic community asset And over the past two years, I've worked closely with theater design consultants, city staff, and preservation professionals to thoughtfully shape this vision, which brings us here today with our application and variance request. Historic preservation is not about freezing buildings in time and hoping that they remain unchanged forever. It's about preserving what matters while thoughtfully adapting these places for current and future generations. Change is part of that process, and in many cases, variances are a necessary tool to make preservation viable. The Chief was once a cornerstone of this community, and today, unfortunately, has become something very different. Just a month ago, I had to file another police report after an individual broke into the building and left behind trash and a meth pipe. That's the current reality of the chief, not a preserved landmark serving the community, but an abandoned vulnerable structure in decline. And sadly, this is not a new problem as the previous owners dealt with repeated break-ins, high school vandalism and ongoing deterioration of the property. What should be valued as a community asset has instead become a magnet for neglect and criminal activity. This building is essentially an eyesore to the downtown corridor and recently has become the skid row of Steamboat Springs. That is exactly why action is needed. My goal is to change all that and I strongly believe that I'm the best person I'm the best candidate for this job, and I also believe that the plans that we put before you are the best chance that this town has to save the Chief. With your support, we have the opportunity to restore the Chief as a vibrant community asset, one that serves Steamboat through concerts, family outings, weddings, corporate gatherings, community events, and partnerships with local arts and cultural nonprofits. Before we begin, I want to sincerely thank the Planning Commission for your time, your service, and your thoughtful review of this project. I understand what you do is not easy and your decisions often come under scrutiny no matter the decision you make. Throughout this process, however, your staff has provided a very helpful guidance and professionalism, and I applaud you for that. With that, I'm gonna turn things over to my team and Tom Davis from ESA to walk you through our presentation. And I'm happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of this. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Tom, while you're coming up, I meant to acknowledge everybody. I needed to, well, I'm going to disclose that my spouse is on the Historic Preservation Commission and has reviewed this as well. I haven't spoken with her about this or gotten any information from her, but for the record, that's true. There's probably a better way to say that, but wanted to get that on the record too before we got too far into your item. So thanks. We're ready for you.

Sounds good. I've sent in a request to share the screen. As Trace had mentioned, my name is Tom Davis. I'm the project architect here. I've been in this community for 27 years, and not the 100 years that the Chief Theater has been around here, but long enough to know some different iterations it's gone through from music and performance in a fixed seating arrangement movie theater and multiple movie theaters. So it's been fun to experience in many different forms and I'm excited to bring this plan set in front of you. As we're working on these plans, we have a lot of different documents to contend with. Obviously, historic preservation guidelines being paramount in this project. We have the downtown community plan. We have the community canvas plan. Most importantly tonight, we'll probably zero in on the community development code. But the other factors that shape buildings, form and mass, of course, are the international building code as we get into constructing these buildings. We have to accommodate for accessibility, number one, and life safety concerns, which has impacts to the ultimate form of the project. As the presentation will unfold tonight, we are seeking conditional approval for indoor event venue and four variances. Two variances are closely tied together, average plate height and overall height in the zone district. And it should be noted that the overall height in the zone district is something that's contemplated within the commercial old town zone district. provided you would accommodate residential use at the upper floor. But that has direct impacts on the anticipated massing of these buildings as development plans are brought before you. So our conditional use for the indoor event venue would be in the same form as a building if we were to provide housing at the upper level. the other variances that we'll go through, and I'd like to, I don't know if I'm sharing my screen yet, because we can just dive right in here. And ultimately, I'm hoping to set the stage that we can address any questions for you, because there's considerable narrative, hopefully you've had the opportunity to read through our narrative and our justification, and I don't want to be a skipping record up here, as far as what we've iterated and how we're adhering and honoring all the different plans that are associated so what i would really like to do is is focus on the variances and the community development code and how we are applying um you know our development towards that so i don't know if we can okay All right, let's see if I can... Let's see if it shifts. Okay. So this is an important graphic, and I didn't want to bring any new graphics to the table here. Hopefully you've had the chance to review this. This is the development plan that we've brought before you. The only new image that we are presenting is really a... The rendering that you'd seen before, but we had some changes based on our historic preservation Commission meeting and some. accommodations that we made where we disengage the vertical circulation stair towers from the front facade in an effort to minimize the visual impact of the setback rear facade so. What I really wanna bring our attention to here is the graphic. And this is for anybody that's looked through our plan set, this is our DP 3.4 sheet. And what we can see, I'm just gonna zoom in here. So within the commercial Old Town Zone District, what's required is a setback once you get above 28 feet you're required to set the building back to 15 feet and then you can go up to 38 feet so what you're seeing on the left that gray box is basically the three-dimensional zone district's allowance and the white box in the front is what we're presenting, which is the chief theater in its current design. So as you can see how that plays out, with the existing structure. What we're doing is we're rehabilitating the original facade from the 1927 to 19, Caitlin can confirm this, 1949 facade that was, it's actually concealed behind what is currently there and what people have accommodated or grown accustomed to as a facade that's behind there. So what we do is we go back 15 feet and then we go up for our setback and then we get up to the 38 feet. One of the concessions that we've made with and as we've been in this process for almost two years working with the Planning Department and the Historic Preservation Commission to get to this point, it's been an iterative process and we've made some accommodations along the way one of the things that is necessary for this structure are these what were originally called towers but really what they fit into from a CDC standpoint is a pertinence and so on a pertinence is an allowance for. pieces of the structure that are required. you know, above and beyond just the height of the structure. And so we can see the reason for these appurtenances are the requirements for accessibility and life and fire safety out of the upstairs garden area, as well as from within the structure. For anybody that is concerned about the height of this structure and hasn't read the narrative, the thing that we are really trying to accommodate here is a modern use of historic function of this space. Historically, the chief theater, people have thought movie, motion, pictures, and fixed seating arrangement. But to accommodate a modern use, which is a performance venue, as well as really we have the capability within this structure to accommodate a multitude of different uses. The most impactful use, of course, is the event venue indoor. which is really triggered our parking requirement. But what we can do is we can also accommodate within this structure simultaneous functionality between the restaurant tavern use, private events, we can host nonprofit organizations, school dances. And so the use is not intended to be exclusively at full tilt in full capacity. But the height of the structure is a derivative of some of the accommodations that need to be made for acoustical and lighting control and the ability to accommodate large touring acts for nationally recognized band members. So with that height, what we can do and is probably most easily perceived when we get into the graphics here and you can see the arrangement of the chief in this format is that we have basically the accommodations for the stage, a general admission area down at basically the street level and then some terracing capabilities for both our VIP and upper level general admission. And so with this volume of space, what we can do is we can dampen the sound, provide all the lighting that's needed, and basically accommodate 800 people at full capacity, which is greater than any venue here in town and can allow different acts to tour and visit our downtown area. So I'm happy to dive into all the different variances. Obviously, I've skimmed over the height. And if we come back to our dimensional dimensions here as far as our overall height. The average plate height, I'm sure you guys have wrestled with this before. This is really tethered tightly to the overall height, especially in the commercial old town zone district, which is more or less requires a flat roof, is strongly encouraged. But average plate height is generally a metric that's used to diminish the form of a structure. So it's, It's directly associated with the roof structure. And in a gable form or a triangular roof, then your average plate height would be much lower. But we are proposing to have a flat roof up here. uh so dimensional standards the other dimensional standard that we are asking a variance for is the rear setback and so the commercial old town zone district requires a 10-foot rear setback and to accommodate not only the stage but all the function inside and to also accommodate some of the zone district requirements for concealing our trash and refuse takeaway we have pushed our rear envelope or set back up to the zero lot line but we've accommodated basically space for people to safely egress out of or escape in the case of emergency not directly into the alleyway but into a safe alcove area of refuge as well as concealing our trash and recycling enclosures from the public view as you're looking down the alleyway. So dimensional standards, that's really accommodates for three of the variances. And of course, the big elephant in the room, obviously, and it comes up over and over again, is the parking variance that we're requesting. And that is triggered really by how the chief functions when it's at full capacity because if you were to look at the 300 section and parking calculations relative to other different functions which which the chief will accommodate over the vast majority of its use we wouldn't need to request a parking variance and i'm happy to go further into this But that parking calculation is based on square footage of the use. And so at a lower square footage of performance venues that are greater or less than 7,500 square feet, then you can accommodate for less parking. But be that as it may, we need to accommodate for the worst case scenario. So we are requesting a variance. And with our variance is what we're asking for is really a condition of approval which will allow us to iron out the negotiations that have been ongoing with both the ski resort and ACE and a parking management plan that will provide uh, transportation from offsite parking to the venue. And we're hoping to encourage people to use the multimodal, um, transportation in the form of buses and bicycles and straight up walking. So I think we're out of time, but, uh, I'm here to answer whatever questions you guys have. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Tom. Does staff have a presentation for us as well?

Yes, we do. Give me one moment to pull it up. Good evening commissioners, Caitlin Baraby Smith, historic preservation planner. I'm here with Rebecca Bessey, our director, and then Toby Stauffer, our senior planner, Toby and I compiled this report and did the analysis together. So it was grateful to have her, uh, perspective from a development review aspect. And then again, I worked with our historic preservation commission, um, for their ultimate, uh, recommendation for approval for this project. So again, this is the Chief Theater Development Plan with conditional use and major variances. The conditional use is for an indoor event venue. We are also proposing the marquee with changeable messaging and vertical sign to be evaluated under the conditional use. The variances include parking, building height, average plate height, and rear setback. Staff has determined this project meets development plan conditional use and variance criteria with of course the proposed conditions. I'd like to start off by providing a little background on why and how the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed this project. The Chief Theater located at 813 Lincoln Avenue is a designated historic resource to our Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places. The Historic Preservation Commission is an optional reviewer for development plans. Staff began working with the applicant and owner in August of 2024, so it's been quite some time now. So we've worked pretty hard on this project to get it to where it is, to be able to provide the staff recommendation that you're hearing tonight. The project first went to HPC, Historic Preservation Commission, in November of 2025. The item was tabled. It then went back to HPC in December of 2025, and they did provide a recommendation for approval with a 4-1 vote. HPC review did include all of the variances except for average plate height that was caught following the public hearing with HPC, conditional use, and then they also made a determination that the new sign was contributing to the historic resource. That is part of their purview within our sign code. Following that meeting, staff really determined, and Toby can kind of touch on this more later in our presentation, that there was no true avenue to review the full impact of the marquee changeable messaging and vertical sign with our current code. And even though the HPC did determine that the sign was contributing to the historic resource and was eligible for a historic sign permit, that that historic sign permit didn't really cover the full basis of what we needed to analyze the impact. So that again is why we are proposing the marquee, changeable messaging and vertical sign be analyzed under the conditional use. All theaters, most theaters have marquees. The Chief Theater's marquee is a critical portion of its historic use and its historic facade. And so that's the reasoning behind that decision there. In the world of preservation, we follow a different set of standards that are not included in Article 7 of the CDC, they're included in Article 1, and that is the Federal Secretary of the Interior standards specifically for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation allows you to utilize different aspects of reconstruction, preservation, and restoration to really provide an adaptive reuse and to work around compatible modifications to a historic structure. So again, I want to touch on the fact that the Secretary of the Interior standards, I may reference them as SOI standards or federal standards throughout this presentation, are standards that are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations under Title 36 CFR subsection 68 3b standard 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Each of those standards are outlined with a staff analysis of the standard in your staff report. The conditional use does accommodate continuation of historic use and expansion of use. That is covered, I believe, in standard one and the marquee and vertical sign throughout the proposed event venue use. As presented in the staff report, alteration to the historic resource, which basically lends to the four variances. They do meet CDC section 111 D1. So that's where we have locally codified that any alteration to a historic resource shall meet the federal standards in the code of federal regulations for the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation and our local historic preservation design guidelines. I'm gonna cover use a little bit more holistically here to provide a broader picture. So uses for the chief are dual or being proposed as dual. You have indoor event venue and then you also have restaurant and tavern. Restaurant and tavern is a use by right and of course conditional use approval is required for an indoor event venue for the CO zone district and the proposed marquee and vertical sign as part of the conditional use. Staff has outlined that the conditional use for the indoor event venue does further the goals and policies in a variety of plans. And I think we've outlined that in great detail in the staff report. So that's the community canvas, our downtown plan, our newly adopted historic preservation plan, and then also the Howelson Hill preservation plan. the Howelson Hill Preservation Plan, just because it's a little different than most plans, and I'm sure it doesn't come before you as often as the other plans, encourages sensitive development to try to maintain view sheds to Howelson Hill. And the addition of the rooftop patio truly does do this. And not just Howelson Hill, but as you can see in the staff report in the plan set, Emerald Mountain and also Mount Warner. The use also increases street level vibrancy, diversity and use in economic activities. The more people come to our downtown, the more shopping they will do and the more restaurants they will eat at. And of course, arts and culture and historic preservation. In the report, we have outlined kind of three major overlapping items that do have potential impacts, and then we have outlined how those impacts are mitigated. Those three are, of course, the use of event venue itself, the outdoor seating, so that's the rooftop patio, and then also the signage. So again, the marquee, changeable messaging and vertical sign are part of the indoor and event venue conditional use. They are consistent with the use and the purpose of the zone district. They improve the continuation and expansion of historic use as a theater. With the opening of the Chief Theater in 1926, it's a little difficult to calculate how many marquees and how many different facades this historic structure has housed. And it's pretty impressive that it has changed this many times, which again lends to the physical changes and alterations to the structure. the rehabilitation of the facade, which is actually going back to the second iteration of its facade between 1947 and 1950 and a brand new marquee. The vertical sign measures 11 feet, 11 and one eighth inches tall. The marquee itself is eight feet, four inches in depth with its hardware attachment. And then I believe it is 27 feet wide. In comparison with historic photographs, it is about just as large as some of the largest marquees have been. And believe it or not, is one foot one inch less tall than the tallest recorded marquee in history, which was in our local history of the chief, which was 13 feet tall. And again, the sign is consistent with the historic chief theater signage. So going back to those three overarching potential impacts, indoor event venue, outdoor seating, marquee and vertical sign. The potential impacts for the event venue are of course parking, which we'll address in the parking discussion of our presentation. Potential noise from the theater and then the visual effects of the signage. Mitigation with parking is provided with parking offsite through offsite parking agreements and private shuttles. Toby will touch on this more. Noise attenuation as covered within the theater design from working with theater consultants. And then mitigation for potential visual effects of the signage are provided through dimmable signage. We also required the applicant and owner to complete a lighting study with a lighting specialist. Toby can touch on some of that a little more. outdoor seating, noise from the rooftop, ultimately medication becomes consistent and compatible with other nearby similar rooftop uses. And again, the city does have a noise ordinance that all businesses have to comply with. The marquee with changeable messaging and vertical sign. Of course, the potential impacts are brightness and then size, touched on that. Mitigation, it really truly does support the historic theater use and it's consistent with what is expected for a historic and a modern theater. Again, Toby will touch on the lighting study. In short, it does confirm that brightness is compatible with other local signs. And again, the lighting is dimmable. And then mitigation, the size is consistent with historic marquees and vertical signs specific to the Chief Theater. So here we have our four variances. I'm not gonna run through the development plan criteria overall. Staff feels this project meets the criteria other than of course the four variances requested. So we have parking on-site and off-site parking, CDC Section 302, Table 301. The standard requires 86 vehicular spaces, 18 bicycle spaces, zero are proposed on-site, which requires parking proposed off-site at private lots. We have requested a condition of approval for a parking management plan that would need to be completed and submitted prior to issuance of building permit to finalize all parking. And also how that parking is advertised on the website and potential attendees of the theater. We have building height, CDC section 217B. The standard requires a 28 maximum. for the commercial Old Town Zone District without residential on the uppermost level. They are proposed at meeting the 38 foot CO Zone District maximum for buildings with residential, but they are not providing residential. So again, this building height exemption for appurtenances, which is under 10% of the total roof area, this project meets that. I believe it's at just about 9.6%. And this does not result in an additional building height increase over 38 feet. The third variance is average plate height. This is naturally a variance if you're going up in overall building height. So they are proposing or the project proposes average plate height at 37 feet. I believe this says 37.6, but it is at 37 for the record. So this variance aligns with the 38 foot maximum for commercial structures with residential, but of course no residential is being provided. And then the rear setback CDC section 217B does require a 10 foot minimum rear setback for CO zone district buildings. The existing building has a zero foot rear setback. So the reason why they need this variance is because they are increasing the volume of the rear of the structure with the addition.

We saw for senior planner, I'll just talk through the parking variance really quick. So the parking requirement for an indoor event venue of this size is one space per four occupants. They're proposing a capacity of 800 occupants for large events. So that is 200 parking spaces that are required for large events. The CDC indicates that parking only has to be provided for changes or expansions of use. So the last approval for the Chief Theater was in 1991. That theater was approved with 368 seats and a parking requirement of 94 spaces. So that project was approved with a variance to provide zero parking spaces. At the time, the city accepted that level of parking impact for the Chief Theater use. The current project benefits from a 10% parking reduction for proximity to transit, which brings their requirement to 180 spaces. So including the previously approved 94 space parking variance and the transit reduction, the expanded theater is required to provide 86 parking spaces. Based on similar calculations, the bike parking is 18 spaces that are required. So the applicant's narrative does indicate that the theater will have large, medium and small events. So a medium event would have a capacity of 250 people a small event would have a capacity of 100 people. So based on capacity that required parking for a medium event is 63 spaces and 25 spaces for a small event. And if the theater had no events and only the restaurant use was open, the restaurant would need two parking spaces. So for all other uses besides the large event, the 94 space parking variance does accommodate the event venue and the restaurant use. So there's no net increase in parking required for the small or medium events or the restaurant use. So the parking variance request is only for the large events for the increase to the 800 person capacity. So as Caitlin mentioned, the mitigation of that impact is to provide offsite parking and shuttles for large events. We do have a condition of approval that requires a parking management plan. And that is supposed to be finalized prior to a temporary certificate of occupancy. And so not at building permit issuance, but at TCO, which is before a certificate of occupancy. And that offsite parking with a parking management plan, we find to be an acceptable alternative to the standards as it allows rehabilitation of this historic resource.

Thank you for the correction on the parking management being required prior to TCO. So again, The historic resource was constructed from lot line to lot line. And so if you were to provide parking on site, you would have to go underneath and you have a variety of other historic structures around it. And so that really does limit the opportunity to meet the secretary of the interior standards with the design and rehabilitation of the building. And again, the owner has secured letters of intent from Steamboat Ski and Resort Company and also from Ace Hardware. Copies of those signed letters of intent are in your packets. Building height and average plate height, I'm going to combine these because they kind of go hand in hand here. Again, the proposed building height of 38 feet and proposed average plate height of 37 feet will accommodate the event use without residential on the uppermost story. And then I want to provide a little information on the existing height of the structure. So the Chief Theater currently reaches 23 feet in building height. The proposed multi-level addition results in an additional 14-ish feet of height at the front elevation as measured from the top of the historic parapet, and then 15 feet at the rear elevation. What is resulted is an overall building height of 38 feet at grade from the rear, 38 feet at grade from the rear alley and 37.6 feet from Lincoln Avenue. And again, this criteria is met through acceptable alternative historic use continued and it meets the federal standards for an alteration to a historically significant property. And then rear setback, 10 foot minimum required in the CO zone district. Currently they are at a zero foot setback and they are proposing to basically increase their current nonconformity. With this, we are happy to respond to any questions as you continue your deliberation. Again, the project meets development plan criteria for approval, conditional use criteria for approval for an indoor event venue. event venue use with outdoor seating and proposed marquee with changeable messaging and vertical sign each of the four variances meet criteria for approval each provides an acceptable alternative to the standard staff recommends approval with the proposed conditions of approval thank you

All right, thank you very much. Do we have any questions from commissioners to staff or the applicant?

Yeah, I have some questions. First one I think goes to, I guess, staff, Toby or Caitlin. Are contracts required as part of the parking plan as opposed to a letter of intent?

Yes, the goal would be to get a formalized contract by that time.

But is that part of the plan? Correct. The second question is, you mentioned that a lighting study was a condition of approval, but I don't see it on our conditions.

The lighting study was not a condition of approval. It was a request by staff during our development review team meeting to be submitted to staff prior to our final analysis and recommendation. And it is included in your narrative as a narrative appendix. Okay.

I can summarize it for you if you have questions about it, Lou, or if you want to.

No, no, I just wanted to make sure it was in there.

It's an attachment to the applicant's narrative in the packet.

Additional questions? I have a few questions. Toby, on the lighting, I was a little confused reading the lighting study is what their plan was. And if you want me to ask the applicant, just tell me. It talked a lot about LED lighting, but then it had examples of marquees with actual letters that go up. What is the applicant actually requesting?

Yeah, they can probably describe that, but I think it's similar to that visual that they had in their packet. But yeah, they can tell you a little bit more about it.

That's my question to you.

Yeah, I think the renderings encapsulate how we envision the lighting scheme to work. But the beauty of modern technology now is the dimmable capabilities and the changeable messaging capabilities as far as getting the illumination to be in adherence with with requirements for planning. So I don't know if I'm particularly... Let me ask it differently.

So the renderings appear, and I couldn't tell in the text, either old-style letters that somebody puts up every other day or so, or an actual LED letters that change.

Yeah, so the changeable message portion of the sign is, and we could show some examples if we pull up that lighting study, because there's another sign that uses it, where it actually is a digital LED display, but it appears kind of old school, if you will, as if it were letters being placed up there by hand, but it is a digital display.

Okay, it was confusing because I think the Bluebird Theater, which was one of your examples, is old school. And then the next one was more of as you're explaining. So thank you. While you're up, I do have two more questions for you. One of the items on parking, the very first bullet point answer was one of the solutions was Uber and Lyft, but you have no Uber and Lyft drop-off as part of your plan that I saw. How would you handle Uber and Lyft drop-offs?

I think it would be very similar how the local shuttles run for all the different condominium complexes where essentially they pull off on a side street to let people in and out as far as location. And as part of the parking management plan, we hope to iron out all the details and make sure that we're conforming to the requirements.

I would ask that Uber and Lyft is definitely in your management plan. I drove Uber for a month or two. It's actually kind of fun. And people stop in the middle of Lincoln to drop people off. That will not work in front of the chief.

Absolutely not.

And then you mentioned, and I'll get the pronunciation incorrect, and Brian can laugh at me for this, but appurtenance. Did I get that right?

Okay.

So you mentioned the appurtenances you changed as a result of some feedback you received from the HPC. What other changes did you make? You alluded to other changes, but I didn't quite hear what those changes were.

Yeah, there was a lot of discussion about differentiating the old from the new one of Secretary of Interior standards is is when you create a new structures you don't want to confuse the timeline and our original proposal, we had a brick facade. That was set back. And so that was one of the other changes. The other, you know, the biggest concern all along, of course, has been the mass and the height of the structure. And so we've increased the glazing to accommodate a higher basically void to solid ratio in response to HPC comments.

Okay, and then if this commission would move forward, are you in agreement with the 15 conditions that staff laid out in their report?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'll go. Since you're up there, Tom. On page 17, you talk about allowing the sign to be lit beyond operating hours. How far beyond?

I believe we were talking about beyond the regular standard, which is, you know, they're supposed to be off at 11. But during operating hours and trace, maybe you can speak on this if if I'm out of line. But the idea would be that it would. It would be dimmed after 11 p.m. when there's performances going on, but as the theater and the structure is open for business, that the lights would be on. I didn't know if there was any intention beyond to have illumination on the... Yeah, and something to be worked out.

So we're talking potentially 24 hours a day or at least?

No, the idea is that we would turn the sign off when we're not operating, but beyond the regular at 11 p.m. per the way the sign code reads, you're supposed to turn them off unless, and there's an exception written within the code, unless you're operating beyond that time frame. So that's what we were intending to articulate, that when there's a performance going on that the signs would remain lit. Got it. Thank you.

Do you mind asking staff to add to that real quick? Just while we're on the subject, I feel like we're going to keep coming back to parking and then lighting and then parking.

Sorry.

Staff, can you help add more information to that on how that meets just our noise and lighting ordinances that we have in town?

Sure. I can add a little something. Caitlin might want to add something too. But yeah, so we do have lighting rules that do require lights to be turned off after 11 p.m., but there are some exceptions. So if you have a business that operates after 11 p.m., you can have your lights on for that business. So Schmiggety's or Old Town Pub, for example, other event venues that have events that might end at midnight or one or something, they can have lights on while they're operating. But when they close, that those lights need to go off. So those same rules would apply. Similarly, I don't know what their plans are, but let's say the restaurant, and the event venue are not open in the morning, we could probably expect that the lights would not be on until like the restaurant or the event venue opened also.

All right, thank you. I appreciate that.

Sorry, keep going. The shuttle parking, what level of beyond encouragement when you have a large event, will the shuttle operations be effective? I mean, how are you going to force people to use it or even ask them to use it?

So with the website, it would be integrated and potentially it could be worked out with the management plan on some sort of a concession basis. But the idea would be that it's strongly encouraged and essentially if you are not using a shuttle, then... you're either walking or riding your bike. I mean, most people don't necessarily want to drive, especially if they're going to a performance venue and presumably drinking alcohol. They may not want a vehicle and ideally, you know, inherent within the use and the function, especially what triggers for these larger events, which are, you know, headliner acts that

um you know i think driving a vehicle is discouraged just in its nature i guess so is the shuttle will settle be available for all events or what is the threshold that you will be offering that service

Yes, for all concert events, we will have the shuttle provided to the designated lots. When you receive a ticket, you'll receive the email with our full part to our website that's a designation on where to go for your shuttle, where to go from hotel shuttle services to Uber and Lyft. to the bus routes that come right to 7th Street in front of SBNY, to public parking lots, to the lights that we provide and the private shuttles that we'll be providing every 15 minutes coming from them to the venue. And at the end of the day, you can't force. It's the same as if anyone here goes to a concert. Half you might drive, half you might ride your bike, half you might get a ride. It's going to be up on the applicant to do that. Okay, thank you. Is that a paid service? We'll be providing the shuttle for the private lots, yes.

You will. And so then how does that work on the after side of the event?

Provided rides back to them as well.

until three in the morning? Like, how does that, like, help me more? Since there's no plan, I'm trying to understand the plan now. So help me with the context. Like the event goes until midnight. Do they do every 15 minutes until 2 a.m.?

Yeah, there'll be a section for people to get back to their vehicles. I mean, it's the same as, you know, most people would, how do you get back to your vehicle as you go out to the bars or a restaurant? You know, it's where there'll be, it'll be a private lot, but the goal will be to get people back to their vehicles to remove them from those lots as well.

But there'd be a limit where you would stop offering that?

Yeah, it won't be an all night party bus or anything.

I'll go back to staff on the approved parking management plan. Is that discretionary? Are you reviewing it and deciding whether it meets the thing? It just says that they have to have one. Is someone reviewing it to make sure it meets some of the goals that are established in this report?

Yeah, that's a good question. Every project is different. We do have examples of other projects that have utilized a parking management plan. Snow Bowl is a really great example. And so we would look at what are these considerations and also take into account what comes out of this discussion tonight. But right now we have talked about ensuring that we have contracts for the off-site parking, that there is a regular schedule and a commitment for the shuttles, and that there is very clear ticket on what our other transportation options are in town. We have a wonderful public transportation system, but if you're in town for months, you're not going to be familiar with it, right? And so really outlining that information very clearly, as well as outlining where our free city lots are, such as Stockbridge parking lot, also the downtown Howelson Hill and Rodeo Grounds parking lot, of course, not when the rodeo is in effect, because that will be full. And so it will touch on all of those items. And I know that we are open to any specific specifications that planning commission may have for that.

I'll just add real quick, a little bit more about the practice of how we do things in the planning department. This project will need a building permit for the chief theater. So the planners who do the building permit, Caitlin and I will review that building permit when it comes through. And then we continue to review it at the time of certificate of occupancy. So when we see a condition of approval on there that it needs a parking management plan, we will ensure to review that before we issue the TCO. Because either Caitlin or I will have to make that click to allow that TCO to be issued by the building department. So we will definitely review that plan, whatever it says prior to that TCO issuance.

And I will say we... Identified TCO as the best time just given the construction timeline. So that's between around 20 months. So that's almost two years to really outline what the options for parking are and what those permanence plans are moving forward.

To follow up on what you just said, how is it that both this applicant and any future applicant can just utilize public parking as part of their parking plan?

So the public parking is not part of their parking plan. It's already accounted for in their 10% parking allowance for public transportation. But again, we want to make sure that people who are attending this venue are aware of our public transportation. And so it may be a condition that the owner is communicating on the website and through email confirmation and including information about our public parking.

And truly before our, you know, our certificate of occupancy is we bring this parking management plan. It is, you know, we have a 20 month period here. There'll be a lot more private lots sought out, you know, from high school to Wells Fargo to BMO bank lot. There's a very large spread. We just try to, when we say the public bank lot, there's a very large spread. We just try to, when we say the public lot, that's more offering. I mean, you know, the Stockbridge lot has five cars in it a day and it's 155 spaces. If people are on the west side of town and they want to get on the bus and be pulled right up to 7th Street, you know, that's a good opportunity for them to utilize it. But we will do everything over the next 20 months to provide as much as we can to be sufficient for your needs. I do.

Before you sit down, as far as the letters of intent go, how many spaces do you have letters of intent for right now?

That covers 86.

It does cover 86. Okay. Thanks.

It seems like there's two separate, stay up here. Well, no, actually I'm going to ask them. You can sit down. I'm so sorry.

It feels like there's two separate conversations going on or are subjects within that.

One is we're solving the parking problem because public transportation exists. And the other is here are 86 identified spaces that are meeting the requirement. I believe staff and the applicant have both said that the 86 spaces are accounted for. That's what the letters of intent are for. And that's what you're basing your approval on tonight. How does staff move forward thinking that, I mean, you're talking about TCO. I'm wondering why you're not expecting it tonight in order to feel comfortable with how this parking plan is going to successfully serve this use.

We did request those letters of intent. So this project has gone through a lot of work with staff, as Caitlin mentioned, in a lot of iterations. So to ensure that we had some... some plan for parking other than the agreements now it is tricky to get those agreements but that's what those letters of intent stand for so we felt comfortable with that that we had two agent we had 86 faces accounted for through those letters of intent um and they are as solid as we can get at this point as the applicant said he's going to be working on other plans but it is more than just using public parking so that was that was our basis for the analysis it may may not cut the mustard.

What I'm struggling with is not equating it to somebody saying that they want to build a new hotel and we'll figure out if there's a parking lot in front of it later by the time we're done with the permit. It feels like that. Why is it not like that?

I think if you go back to the letter of intent, they're firm commitments. The reason why, and Trace spoke to this a little bit, is that he's working on other agreements at other locations. And so it wouldn't make sense to require the parking management plan now and then to go back and alter it and then to go back and alter it. and amend it every time that he secures another private lot, because that's also going to change the information that he's communicating out to the public. And part of the parking management plan will also require that we can actually see the website with this information on it. We have an example of an email confirmation and without the chief theater, not an operation, he can't do that yet.

The biggest thing about that is it is two years. A lot's going to happen. A lot's happened in the last two years, you know, from development standpoint. We're looking at potential lots and building parking structures. There's this, I mean, it's born and raised here. And my parents before me said, I remember my mom went to a chamber meeting in 83 and she said, hey we're going to be working on parking structures and went to one the other day and it's the same thing you know 40 50 years later we're still having a parking problem in steamboat and so as this evolves we're trying to really do everything we can but being planning approval and city council approval and knowing we're moving and not just like oh hey worry about that two years from now the next two years will be spent aggressively with all private lots and putting together a master plan that is going to be efficient for for everyone's needs

Thank you, I appreciate that. The context question is what if that fails 20 months from now to use the example that we're talking about? What if those letters of intent aren't successful? What if they change? What if those parking lots are developed on?

That's a good question. And again, it will be reviewed both at time of, you know, initially at building permit and then TCO. If that parking is no longer available at the SSRC lot or at the ACE lot, they will be required to provide, at the SSRC lot or at the ACE lot, they will be required to provide 86 vehicular spaces and 18 bicycle spaces offsite because that's what you're ultimately approving.

And that makes sense, but if they can't, then now they've built the building, they just can't use the building. So now all the work or damage or use whatever word you want has been done, but it can't be used because that failed. So shouldn't that be in place before construction starts?

I guess it's probably like a chicken and an egg question. It's a tough one that you guys can consider, but... We find that a certificate of occupancy is a pretty good motivator. So we will not release a certificate of occupancy, allow them to use the building, use all their money, use that huge investment that they've just made to make any money back until we have secured at least 86 spaces offsite in that parking management plan. We hope that that's enough motivation. Typically it is for that.

I understand your reasoning. Thank you.

Taking that into consideration as well, like, you know, I've looked at Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo has been in longstanding potential development and there's potential for that to change. So I have a good relationship with Ace, and that is after their business hours are closed, and they don't plan on selling anytime soon, and I have a good relationship with SSRC and the Meadows parking lot, although under all the other scrutiny we've seen for a while with Ski Corps, there's still 60 spots in after hours in a 1,150-space parking lot, so... I don't see either of those changing within the next two years. And there are a lot of what ifs, you know, and there are a lot of things that could change around, but we'll make it our goal. But I feel very strongly in both those lots and my relationships with both those organizations. Thank you.

Other questions from commissioners?

Just to tag on. And so the proposed condition about a final parking management plan, I would have expected it to say subject to director approval or something like that. But Toby, I think what you were saying is it's subject to CDC approval, the 86 spots and the 18. If it doesn't provide those, it cannot, you will not click the button for TCO approval. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Yeah, that's correct. So this approval, this development plan includes a variance for 86 vehicle spaces and 18 bike spaces. We're expecting at least that in a parking management plan or this development plan won't meet its conditions of approval and we won't sign any building permits.

The presentation correctly. The parking plan was really only applicable to events of close to 800 people. Are there comparable venues and other mountain towns where you can give an estimate of how many events of close to 800 people per year we could expect?

But I think we went over that in our narrative as far as large events are concerned happening. I think we averaged, we were gonna have to look back through, but basically during peak times, over the weekend's peak, schedule, we were going to average one and a half events annually per week. So we were somewhere in the 60 events neighborhood. We could look through the narrative.

Just to clarify, 60 events of around 800 people?

Correct. Yes, large-scale events. However, we will be providing the off-site parking for medium-sized events as well.

Do you have any... limit on hours of operations for these medium and large events based on occupancy of your remote parking? I mean, a lot of you talk, oh, everything's going to be in the evening or on the weekends. Anything during daylight hours, both ACE and the Ski Corps in the winter will be fully occupied. So are you not having any events that would conflict with those operating hours of your remote parking locations?

Corporate events or weddings will be fully shuttled services. And then for all of the concerts, they will be in the evening after business hours at the other establishments.

But so I'm not hearing an answer to my question. Are you going to be operating at times when your remote locations are also in operation commercially?

As a business, yes, but not as a concert venue, not as a full capacity concert venue. So when we have concerts, I don't know. Don't know when I've ever been to a concert indoors in the middle of the day, especially during working week hours. But, you know, as they're in the evening, this will be after their business hours. And sufficiency, like, I mean, if you look at it, it's 60 spots from Meadows, which is 1,100-plus spots, and it's 26 from Ace, which is in the – I think they're in, like, the 47 or 57 spots.

Okay. And staff, is there anything in there – in this plan that says to quantify that, that these, and I think it's not just it's approaching 800, I assume anything over 300 and whatever the current, you know, the previous occupancy limit was, anything over that requires these additional spaces. Are we, do you have things in the plan that prevent any of these events from conflicting with hours of operation with Ski Corps and ACE or whatever contracts they have?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that that's written in the narrative now, but we would expect that kind of language in the parking management plan that any of those remote lots would have to be available during the times that they are operating those types of events.

Great, thank you.

I just will add that it is identified in the narrative, in the applicant narrative that one of the benefits of these two locations, both ACE Hardware and SSRC is that they are not operating during the time in which the large events Above 300 people will be held. As the owner, Trace, stated, for any private events, they will have private shuttles, which they, I believe, already operate a business that operates private shuttles, correct?

Correct. We have a wedding business out on 131, and everyone that has to come has to come on shuttle, and it's all hotel pickup or a lot pickup in town. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Is there any consideration for, we know that Meadows is gonna start charging if they were to charge for parking for like for this parking, is that acceptable as part of the parking management plan or does our code speak to that at all?

Our code does not speak to that at all. However, as you'll see in the letters, our code does not speak to that at all. However, as you'll see in the letters of intent, and then also in the narrative regarding the Meadows lot, there will of course be a separate agreement between SSRC and the owner Trace Adams to account for any paid parking. And that would be covered between the owner and SSRC.

Any other questions?

Someone tell me where the 18 bicycle parking spots will be at the remote locations.

Right now, we do not have an identified location for them. That's another reason for the parking management plan. We have identified that there is a vast need for right-of-way parking in our commercial Old Town, and so we are considering, if the owner and applicant are open to it, working with them. to be able to have some dual usage bicycle parking. Again, that bicycle parking requirement is for when there are large scale events, so up to 800 people. And so they're not required for daytime use, small or medium events. And so it would also allow others in the downtown area to park and walk their bike.

Talking about replacing a parking spot with a bicycle corral of some sort?

We haven't identified it that far. There are a few corners that are, I would say, that would be better than other corners or sites. And then we could also look at other areas, and there are also areas on private land.

I think that concept, just real quick, requires us working with Public Works a little bit to maybe provide some more information Long-term bike racks downtown, that's just a longer process, but could be doable during that 20 month construction period where we might be able to get some downtown on street parking that serves the chief and everyone else potentially.

And potentially on that, the big Agnes building, Bill Gamber is my cousin, and we've discussed there's 26 spots there, and it's their parking lot, and it's operated for their staff during the day, and it's city parking at night just under a year-to-year contract, and we've discussed taking one of those spots and making a bigger bike corridor.

Thank you. Other communities have taken away a parking spot, a vehicle parking spot for a bike corral, and while most car drivers don't like it, I think that's a great solution to be considered.

Question mark. Thank you. Any other questions? I want to change gears from parking for a second, talk about lighting and marquees, if you would help me understand it. And I apologize how high level I'm starting, but so we've got a marquee sign code section. I wrote it down as 509H. And then we've got our 504E is our historic sign code. And I think I'm understanding that the report is saying that it didn't meet either of these. It didn't fit either bucket. So see, that's how high I'm starting lost. I'm really not as lost as that. But let's talk about why it's not and or how we're not forcing it if it can't meet the historic to just force it into the bucket of the 509H marquee bucket.

Sure, I'm gonna start, cause this took a lot of analysis among staff and review of our code and thinking through the intent of the code. And so I'm gonna start and then Toby and Caitlin, you can jump in. So Commissioner Adams, you're correct. We do have a marquee as a sign type in our sign code. the proposed marquee does not meet those standards, size standards. So as Caitlin mentioned, the Historic Preservation Commission did review the proposal and the proposed new marquee. And they did make a finding that the proposed marquee is a contributing element. Do I have that right? Contributing feature to the historic resource. And so there was a train of thought that it would be eligible for that historic sign permit. In reviewing that though, we struggled with that. I will be frank, the historic sign, this is a new sign. And while I believe we could apply the historic sign permit to it, We didn't feel very comfortable with that because in granting a historic sign permit, it basically exempts you from all of the sign code. we think the intent of that historic sign permit was really to allow existing historic signs to continue and not then prevent a business owner or property owner from adding additional signage. Because what we don't want to do is encourage elimination of historic signs so property owners can put up a new you know, fancy sign. So while I do think that per the black and white language of the code, we could issue a historic sign permit for this proposed marquee that didn't feel like that was truly the intent. And we have, because this is a much larger marquee than what the sign code would permit, because it is in keeping with the historic prior historic marquees that have been on the property over the years, we felt like incorporating that into the conditional use for the event venue was much more appropriate. And the reason for that is because if this wasn't being proposed as a event venue, if they weren't proposing to reuse this building with the same historic use that's been there for many, many, many years, we would not be entertaining a new marquee. So that proposed marquee is really tied to the continuation of that historic use. And so that's why we landed on and felt comfortable and that it was most appropriate to evaluate that sign as part of that conditional use.

And thank you. So then moving forward from that, then we're at, it doesn't have a bucket it has to adhere to, and therefore it could be anything, or it has to have shown that it was at least emblematic of a historic sign that once existed, or how did staff start to interpret if what was proposed was meeting intents? Let's just say it that way.

Yeah, I'm going to pass this one to Caitlin, but you are correct. It does sort of then say it doesn't really have like a clear bucket, which is why we asked for the lighting analysis. And I'll let Caitlin speak to the prior historic signs.

Thank you.

I do just want to add that the current marquee in which we based our marquee sign standards off of actually exceeds what we state in our code as the maximum area, which is 100 square feet. The current marquee is 230. So it's kind of hard to analyze any marquee off of our current marquee code when what it was based off of exceeds what we placed in it. When you are... preserving something, you're preserving what is there, correct? We don't have a historic marquee there. The current marquee is over 25 years of age, so it could potentially be eligible for historic designation. However, it does not retain any historic or architectural importance as deemed by our program. So when you have a structure where you know that you have an original facade, right, beneath the facade that is currently there, and you know that that facade extends across a period of time, and you know that there are multiple marquees that also extend across that period of time, it's impossible to select one marquee to basically reconstruct to alignment with that period of time. And so in working with our Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, it was... their recommendation that it would be better to create a new marquee with changeable messaging and a vertical sign and to pull from some of the historic elements and present a new signage in a manner that is complimentary to the rehabilitated facade and complimentary to any alterations to the structure.

but you didn't force it to be, let's say there were three in that time period, three different signs that happened during that facade. You didn't say, here's three photos, you got to pick one, that's your style. And then that's what actually makes it acceptable to not just be forced into today's marquee standards, let's say as the alternative.

That's correct, we did not force it to choose one photo over the other. Another thing that goes into that decision is quality of the photographs, angles of the photographs. It would be very, very difficult to identify even what style bulbs they used, what style lighting. So really the only records we have are the photographs we have and then also our written documentation in old pilot newspaper ads. And I've included a few, but you can see the size, the lighting, the brightness, the types of lighting, the neon, like all of it has changed so many times over time. So again, it wasn't just a local analysis, we did bring in our state partners for that.

But that's the part I want to make sure gets answered for the record is, this is going to sound meaner than I intended to, but it's the cleanest way to ask this is, if you're not forcing it to be one of those, why not require this business to meet the same marquee, maximum 100 square feet that you would require of every business, theoretically, because that's our sign code? Why are we not, why is that not where we're at tonight?

Because we do want to honor the historic marquees and because all of the historic marquees were just as large in size. We can tell that from across the variety of photographs, but we can't narrow down one and map out the sizing of one.

Perfect. Thank you. And you believe that that is, in fact, what's being proposed?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Okay, so but now, how does that relate to lighting? And that's where I'm going to ask you all of my questions, Tom.

Sounds good. And I'd just like to reiterate that the current marquee that we've all grown accustomed to over the last 30, 40 years is not compliant to the code. And you've stated that, but that's important. And that This square footage that we're proposing of the new marquee is relatively the same as the existing marquee that's been experienced over the last 40 years.

I appreciate that. Thank you. One thing I want to add before we get into the lighting, in addition to what everyone has said, the reason that this sign doesn't fit into any buckets, so that's why we're talking about it as conditional use, because the conditional use we're talking about here also is the event venue. And we have found that an event venue has a marquee and has a big vertical sign. So that's what can be expected from an event venue, certainly a historic one. I'll also mention that while we've had our sign code for a number of years, we have not done a historic sign. We have not done a marquee. So we have learned a lot through this process, but our standards were not exactly right-sized. So We're working towards that now. So we are in a bit of a gray space, but that's, again, why we're talking about all these impacts holistically. We're talking about the theater, the chief theater, and using that use. So just keeping that in context. So that's why we're here and we don't have a specific variance for size. Caitlin was correct. The existing marquee that we're used to doesn't meet our standards. Oversight, we've learned. So we're in a new frontier now.

I appreciate all that. And thank you for walking through that. So it's so... cleanly on the record. I'm not sure if the fact that we haven't seen a marquee means that we were wrong to wanna declutter our amount of signs, which is why I think the marquee square footage was what it was. So we're kind of working in opposite of what that intent was for maybe very good reasons you guys have already voiced. I don't need to rehash any of that, but the idea that marquees are written in our code smaller, and this is proposing larger doesn't necessarily mean that our code is wrong.

I would just like to add, and I believe it is in my staff report, your attachment B, the HPC staff report. There are records of when, I liked your statement, declutter Commissioner Adams. We've been decluttering our signage along Main Street since the 60s. And every time it has come up to a objective body to make a decision, the community has supported the chief theater's marquee and vertical signage remain. So there is historic record of that. And I do think that that is a precedent to note. Thank you.

And I do think, it's hard to say what exactly our intent was. I do think when we created the marquee, the marquee is only allowed in two context areas in the community. It's only allowed at the base and it's only allowed downtown. So you can't have a marquee everywhere. It's where we would anticipate our entertainment areas to be. But I believe that we did try to base the marquee standards on the chief. And I'll admit that we, I, got it wrong, so.

And just to interject one more thing, I mean, the mark and this is maybe skipping record, but the marquee is really associated with the use. And there has been a story over the last century of the changing of not only the marquee, but the use of the chief theater. And so this is part of the story.

and so to extract the sign code and that's where um you know we've been tripping up with the planning department and working through this with historic preservation commission for the better part of two years thank you so you did some great lighting analysis but i want to make sure that i'm understanding it right so i'm going to use the foot candle analysis as analyses analyses um am i correct i think i saw so you um especially on your different sign examples, Fillmore, Boulder, what was the third? It doesn't matter.

The Bluebird.

You had different distances away, but I think one consistency that you had was from 30 feet away. Correct. I'm going to use that, and I think what you were saying is that the Bluebird is at 4.8 foot candles, the Fillmore is at 4.9, but the rabbit ear sign is at 9 feet?

Yes.

So the rabbit ear sign is, it's not twice as much because that's an exponential measurement, right? But substantially more than the Fillmore?

That's correct from the analysis that was put together by a third party agency. Understanding illumination and the capabilities that we have in-house to dim and to hit the standards Essentially, what you need is you need the sign to be constructed before you can run a full analysis. Obviously, photometric design works in a very linear space when you're talking about simple illumination in a square box. When you're talking about a marquee, it's exceedingly complex, and we've been working and retained expert in the field who works all over the region on installing and designing these signs and so they have the capability to adhere to whatever the standards are but through the analysis you're correct what was revealed through that is that the rabbit ears motel sign it would be brighter than what we anticipate our design under normal operation hours which could be dimmable and So it would be less than that, brighter than the bluebird, but less than rabbit ears.

And that got me to my last question that I wasn't sure of. When we talk about the dimmability of what's being proposed, the screen itself, the interchangeable screen, panel, whatever you want to use, screen might be too aggressive of a word. Everything is dimmable, but what is the, what is the proposed luminance that's coming out of it and what's being kind of held to within this development plan?

Well, when we were working with the sign consultant, essentially that portion, the changeable messaging, the illumination of that sign would vary depending on photo sensors that are brought into it. So, for example, during the daytime when the sun is blazing on the sign, it will actually illuminate at a brighter level than at nighttime where the perceived brightness is less. So the in-house capabilities of the dimmable can really be fine-tuned through modulation. So whatever we're proposing is conforming to the sign and illumination code.

Thank you. I appreciate that. So now add to that, if you don't mind, Toby or Caitlin, what is...

Just a couple things real quick and then Kaylin can say something. So what I would expect this sign to be approved at is probably what they've got the chief theater at in the exhibit, which is a six to eight foot, six to eight foot candle measurement. And then the dimmable materials that are also in that lighting exhibit, they are very technical and I can't say that I understand it, but there is a letter that outlines that says, our sign will be dimmable to the 0.3 foot candle measure. And so with the 0.3 foot candle measure is consistent with what our sign code has for sign illuminance. So I feel comfortable with this analysis in that when they add the dimmer to it, it looks like a complicated dimmer that has a couple different circuits on it. And I've also learned a lot about dimmers recently. You can't necessarily just put one on an existing sign. So you have to build it. with the dimmer. So this has some different capabilities from what I understand to be able to dim things at different levels. So I do feel confident that their sign construction will create a dimmable sign that can meet our standards. And the light temperature, which is another part of our standards, is also possible in their types of lighting that they presented in that study. So I feel like their image and their technical materials will combine to assign that is supportable. So the six to eight foot candles is again that impact that we're talking about. Are we ready for that in this community because our current marquee does not have lights? So that's kind of the question to consider.

But I think that that's kind of the crux of it is I definitely saw all of the hardware, let's say, within the report on what the sign was capable of, but I never felt like I saw anywhere what was proposed and therefore what was required to be held to moving forward. Like, sure, it canned him to this, but who's to say that it will be? It's just like everything needs to be itemized, right? I'm not saying you're not going to be a person of your word, right? But where is that written on what the measurable requirement is set at?

it is in the lighting study and it is on right after the foot candles versus knits page under chief marquee exterior signage summary metrics it provides a number of bulbs lumens per bulb and then it specifies the panel area of the changeable message at 108 square feet and and it confirms that the panel brightness will be at 0.3 foot candles with the ability to be dimmed. So what that is saying is it will be dimmed to 0.3 foot candles. But as Toby stated, with all of the circuitry and buttons and construction of the sign, yes, hypothetically, that could be turned up, but there... they are required to remain at 0.3 foot panels for the changeable messaging panel.

And just to close that loop, every sign is going to require a sign permit. So a sign permit is where we're going to see all these very specific pieces of information. So again, we're going to be looking at that sign permit. We're going to make sure that it's dimmable. It's going to have all the capability of all those exact technical things that they've used to construct that. we're gonna check that information against this development plan approval and make sure that it's consistent with what we expected when we did this development plan approval. And if it's not, then we have the ability to say, change your permit, change your sign, do something.

Okay. Thank you. That was fun lighting discussion, wasn't it? Any other questions from commissioners?

I had one for Caitlin. it's been referenced a couple times that the if there was residential proposed that that third the 38 feet that's proposed without residential would be acceptable would it what would be how would hpc have or not that's not the right question would hpc have had to look at this application differently if that if residential was included in a historical use context

That's a great question. So again, from a preservation standpoint, we review against the Secretary of the Interior standards. The standards encourage continuation of historic use, but they also encourage adaptive reuse. So that's where you take a historic building and you might continue its historic use, but you might also add on to its use, right? With this particular project, standard one is continuing its historic use and they are not really, They're not proposing to add a new adaptive reuse. The chief has almost always had a restaurant and tavern in it since it opened. However, keep in mind that the addition of residential units above a theater is not complimentary to the historic use. imagine if you lived in an apartment above a theater that would take uh that would take a lot of sound engineering for the interior and it would actually limit the ability to be able to construct a modern theater with those same view sheds that we've presented in the plan set does that help answer your question perfect thank you yes any other questions

I've got a question. So still on the sign. So I find it fascinating in the applicant's submission and the examples of signs, every sign except one is a static old style sign. When I think of historic, I don't think of an LED moving sign. How are you, as a historic preservation planner, how do you get your arms around that? Not thinking it's Vegas, think it's still historical.

That's a great question. So again, the sign is a new sign. It's not a historic marquee. And there are quite a few examples of historic marquees in particular, I guess not included in this report that have swapped out their changeable message signs. They are subject to vandalism. I know that sounds a little crazy, but people will pull up a ladder in the middle of the night and change the words. I would just say from a general maintenance standpoint, they get dingy, they get dirty, they get that yellow plasticky look. So it does require increased maintenance. And so as the historic preservation planner, I tend to look at what are some other examples. And it has been a commonly replaced feature on historic marquees. Okay.

And the question for the applicant is what, and if I missed it, point me to the right place, but are there requirements to how long your sign will stay static so it doesn't change every three seconds?

No, we're not going to be changing like that. To be very clear here, this is, we're not trying to be the sphere. We're not trying to have Elon Musk see us from space. I'm very, I want to create a beautiful sign. And as she touched on with, and sign-changing letters, those letters will stay the same. It's not going to be a moving board like Times Square. So they did that digitally. Slosher Signs is the company behind us, and they've built such a variety of signs from the Colorado State Football Stadium and all their signage throughout their university to – The one they recently did was Summit Theater and Summit Theater had like a 30 foot, it's a new venue in Denver, but it was in a historical building and they had a 30 foot boom that they have to get up to change the sign every time. So they had put this in place and it stays the same. It looks the same. The back lights are dimmed and you're able to go in on a computer and digitally change, okay, this is who's playing tonight. This is the time of the show without someone with a ladder every day out in the winter there, you know, on the sidewalk. Yeah.

I appreciate it. There's one historical sign, I think, with 15 feet of snow, which was kind of crazy. I wish we had that this year. Next year. Yeah, exactly. One thing, too.

Also, as part of the Secretary of Interior standards with new construction, you really want to differentiate and not confuse the matter as to what is historic and what is new for new construction so. While the marquee is proposed to nod towards its history, it wants to differentiate itself as being new construction.

I also just want to interject one thing too about changeable message signs. So we do have some standards for changeable message signs, and I would anticipate that we would look at those standards when reviewing this sign when it comes in as an LED screen. So we have, it's called like pixel distance, how much you have between each little light. So we require a larger distance, which makes a less, sharp picture so you're not looking at a television up there so you guys know that they can't have something as clear as a television up there it'll have to be a little bit less clear so if you think of an old like a football sign or something like that that is what our code would require and if they wanted to move outside of that type of LED we would have to probably think through the process on that but if they could comply with that Um, that would be best. Um, and then there's also, we don't allow anything to change, uh, any quicker than eight seconds.

So eight to 10 standard.

Yeah. Okay.

Any other questions?

I have one more on zero rear setbacks along the alley. We've seen a couple of times where both sides of the alley are going zero setback. Do we have in our right away room for snow storage when we're plowing the alleyway, what's going to happen if everybody on the alleyway goes to zero setback, where's the snow going to go?

So this, I think just, I want to keep it really focused on the existing structure that we have here. And that is, Removal of snow and snow storage is not changed or affected with what is being proposed. So the building is already at zero feet at the rear setback. And so snow will continue to be removed in the same manner. Increasing the volume of that rear setback is not gonna change snow removal. And we truly can't speak for our public works department and where they currently put snow or might be putting snow in the future.

Got it. Thank you. Any other questions?

The majority of public comment that we received was about the height, overall height and plate height. So I just want to acknowledge that and ask some sort of question about that. I think you mentioned in your presentation that there was the Howelson plan. And so... You all feel like the new height of the addition won't impact anybody's view of Howelson or Emerald or any other impacts?

That's correct. And I'll just kind of address the first part of your comment, building height in general, in terms of public comment. Yes, we do feel that the height as presented is sufficient and will not impact views to Howelson Hill. particularly it opens views to Howelson Hill. This establishment is not only for ticketed and private events, but you can walk up the stairs or the elevator and actually look at the ski jumping occurring, which is one of the most beautiful things I think of because I think I included a few historic articles, but the Chief Theater used to show still pictures and then movies of ski jumping. And so how wonderful is it that you can then go on the rooftop patio and actually watch the ski jumping right there? So I guess that's in response to views to Howelson Hill. And then, of course, Our CDC already allows additions in the CO zone district, and we do already allow building up to 38 feet with residential. And again, this project just eliminates residential.

I just wanna clarify though, I think we can all acknowledge that I think because the current building is a one-story building, this will impact a view over the top of that building from across the street. I mean, we can't, that's not, we can't deny that.

Yes, that is correct. And I believe there, when taking a photograph from across the street, you can see the very top of Howelson and some of the tops of those trees. So if you were across the street, that view would be obscured. But then again, there is that access to that rooftop and it's not obscuring views from either intersection.

I'd like to clarify that last point, make sure that we're, make sure that I'm understanding staff's position. Let's put it that way. I read the code for the RO zone district as commercial uses have a maximum of 28 feet and residential uses have a maximum of 38 feet. So this is not just, hey, all buildings should be 38 and this one doesn't happen to have residential, but all non-residential buildings have a maximum of 28 feet.

Yeah, you're correct. I would clarify that a little bit. It could be a mixed-use building. The 38 feet just is an extra allowance if there's residential on that uppermost floor. That is correct.

We don't have an intent statement behind that, but I know on past projects, staff has suggested that that was a... That's the word I'm looking for, a promotion.

Incentive.

Incentive, thank you. An incentive for providing residential as a mixed use use on our commercial buildings downtown.

Yeah, that is what we believe, why that standard is different. Yes, it was intended originally to be an incentive for additional residential downtown.

And then, yeah, no, I don't need to rehash that. My question for Tom, if you don't mind indulging me, is helping me understand why this use needs to get to 38 feet to be successful.

So the Chief Theater and its 100 years of history has served as a gathering place for the community. Obviously, historically, it's been movies in a fixed seating arrangement. However, what we're proposing here for our use is a continuation of a gathering space that can accommodate people. not only national headliners, but proms and weddings. And in order to accommodate the multifunctionality of the venue, utilizing some of the terrace space within the balcony space, It allows us flexibility from a business plan to be economically successful. But then ultimately for the large venue, we need that space to mitigate the sound, control the sound with sound technology. Baffles as well as lighting arrangements and in order to accommodate 800 people, we really need to terrace the structure to allow for the seating and standing capacity and the clear view lines down to the stage to get that height, so I don't know if that answers your question.

It's the answer I wanted to see. I mean, whatever answer you wanted to give. So thank you. I think I had one other follow up on that. Oh, can you help me with what the stage height is currently?

Off of the general admission level? Is that what you're asking about?

The height of the stage to the ceiling.

Oh, well, let me measure here. So we're at 38 feet for the overall structure. So if you were to accommodate the structure and the members, what we're anticipating, because we have not structurally engineered this yet, is at least a two foot structure. So simple math, the thickness of the buildup for the waterproof membrane. which is from the 38 feet working down, we're accommodating for roughly three feet. So that brings us down to, what is that, 29 feet. And then when you add that the stage is relatively level or slightly above the street level elevation, the height there would be somewhere in the vicinity of 27 feet. above the stage.

Sorry, how did we get to you said 38 minus threes, we were 35. Is that what you meant?

Yeah, 3534. I mean, I can measure here if you want.

I just wanted to I just wanted to understand why this specific venue use, which is not the only venue use downtown needs specifically the height that you're requesting. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what the applicant's position is on that.

To build this out to make this pencil to make this work across the board and not just from acoustically and the music side of lighting and sound and everything you need in the venue. The second layer, this is why this is traded hands again because the previous applicant didn't proceed with the previous plans that were approved. And to make this work on the level we put this together, that we have to have the height. And it all correlates to the bigger picture of why I'm doing this. And it's a big piece of this community. This isn't a nightclub. This is going to be the flagship of Steamboat in the community. And it's going to be a place to be used by nonprofits, high school dance, you name it, across the board. And to have the size and scope that we need, I put it in to go to this level based off a big part as well as why do people come to Steamboat? What is your great things you come to Steamboat? You go skiing, you tube the river, you go to the hot springs. I want to throw the Chief back in that mix and have a rooftop patio that is far and away one of the greatest in America and be able to see Mount Werner. You'll be able to see House and Hill. You'll be able to see Strawberry Park and watch sunsets over the... What's the other side? Sorry. I'm drawing a blank. Sleeping Giant. Yeah, drawing a blank. But that's the goal for the rooftop. But, you know, it's this... This isn't for me. This is for us, like truly. And that's a big part of this that I want to say to everyone here is this isn't easy. This isn't fun. There's a lot of easier ways to make money and there's a lot less stressful ways and all that thing. But I'm very compassionate about making this work because it is my passion and this town is a great town and we need more vibrancy and vitality. And this is going to be a big part of that.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions from commissioners? Okay, we'll take a break and go to public comment. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? We ask that you give us your name and address and keep your comments to three minutes. If there's anybody online as well, I'd ask that you can go ahead and raise your hand on Zoom, your reactions area, and we'll call on you.

My name is Kim Keith. I am the executive director at Steamboat Creates at the Historic Depot, 1001 13th Street. I am here speaking in support of the Chief Theater and the variances requested to make this very important project viable. As leaders of Steamboat Springs designated creative district, we understand the value of historic assets and how they contribute to cultural identity, economic vitality and sense of place. The Chief Theater is a rare and meaningful landmark in our community. Its renovation will preserve a legacy while addressing contemporary needs for performance space, community gathering, and creative industry growth. Located in the heart of the Creative District, this project directly supports the goals of Steamboat Creates and the State of Colorado's Department of Creative Industries. by strengthening Steamboat Springs as a year-round cultural destination and advancing strategic investments in creative infrastructure. Communities that invest in arts, culture, and historic preservation are better positioned to diversify tourism, attract and retain workforce talent, and build resilient rural communities. The requested variances feel appropriate given the unique constraints and challenges involved in rehabilitating a historic building. This kind of adaptive reuse often requires thoughtful flexibility And in this case, the proposed improvements respect the theater's historic character while bringing the facility up to modern standards. The property owner has demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining the Chief Theater's historic integrity while creating a functional community serving venue that will enhance Steamboat Springs' creative ecosystem. Strategic investments in Steamboat's cultural corridor and spaces like the Chief Theater reinforce the creative sector's essential role in our economy, identity, and quality of life. I respectfully encourage you to support the renovation and rehabilitation and the request of variances. Thank you for your consideration and for your dedication in preserving the spaces that define Steamboat Springs.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Sarah Leonard. I'm the CEO at the Steamboat Springs Chamber 125 Anglers Drive. We're very excited to offer our support for the Chief Theater and the variances that they are requesting. As Trace kind of alluded to, there's a lot of developments that could happen in that space that would make a lot more money. So we were very thrilled. that a developer came in that wanted to keep the historic use of the Chief Theater. The Chief Theater is one of downtown's most visible cultural landmarks and restoring it is an investment in our shared history and character that defines Steamboat Springs. The project honors the space that has long connected residents, visitors, and local artists. A revitalized Chief will draw more activity to Lincoln Avenue, supporting neighboring businesses and enhancing the overall economic health of our downtown core. Additional evening activities in the area are excellent motivators for neighboring shops to extend and standardize hours of operation. and cultural venues play a proven role in increasing foot traffic and extended dwell times, benefits that ripple throughout the district. We know that investment in cultural infrastructure supports job creation, long-term businesses, sustainability, and a more diversified economy. A vibrant active downtown remains one of the region's strongest economic drivers and the Chiefs restoration contributes meaningfully to that ecosystem. Average profit margins for music venues in Colorado typically fall within the range of 10 to 20%, similar to national averages for well-maintained venues. However, recent data from the National Independent Venue Association indicates that profitability has become increasingly challenging in this current economic environment. That's why we support the granting of the chief and their requested variance on the front end, giving the venue the best opportunity to be successful. The redevelopment captures the spirit of Steamboat while protecting what makes the community special. The variances being requested allow the project to maintain historic character while meeting modern needs and approach that respects both form and function. The developer has demonstrated a commitment to doing this responsibly, investing in historic preservation principles while investing dollars to a beloved community asset. The Chamber appreciates their willingness to work collaboratively and transparently. And on a personal note, I've known the Adams family since I have been very little. I went to high school with all the Adams boys, and I don't think that this project could be in better hands than with someone who really, truly loves Steamboat and wants to see this place hang on to a lot of its history. And, you know, bringing back an asset that's really important, I think, to both our business community and... our visitors our residents and our local artists thank you for your time thank you for your comments any other public comment great

Good evening. I am Betsy Grasby. I'm executive director of the Steamboat Art Museum at 807 Lincoln Avenue, 801 Lincoln Avenue and 57 1⁄2 8th Street, if you really look at all our addresses. I am a 50-plus year resident of Steamboat Springs and dedicated my career to the arts and culture of this community in 19... I was a founder of Strings Music Festival and a part of building that for 26 years. I've gone through the building of the establishment of the tent, the building of the pavilion, and then thinking I was just going in to help the Steamboat Art Museum renovate the facility and be there for nine months. That was 10 years ago. And I'm proud to say that now the Steamboat Art Museum is culturally, it's one of the major anchors for arts and culture in downtown and nationally recognized for our significance. Both Kim and Sarah have expressed to you the importance of arts and culture and the economic viability of what it does for our community. As a neighbor, I highly support this. I have lived with the blight next door. We have this beautiful building, historic downtown. I am very impressed with the job and our communication with Trace and his family and his investors in talking to us, carefully thought out. And if he didn't do it, I can't imagine. I look at... Horrified, it's what's happened. We've watched the squatters. I've watched skateboarders climb out the top and try to skateboard across roofs in downtown. This is a really positive, and it is very difficult. It won't be often that they have 800 people. I've been in the business too long, but I look forward to having a neighbor like this. and feel it's a wise plan. I commend all of you and particularly the Historic Preservation Group that's worked so hard to mitigate things and make this work. So I highly support that and being partners and working with them. And I want to say with that dimmable sign, I also look that it can change to say new art exhibit next door. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Gabe Selko, 7-4 East Maple Street. Been a community member for about six years, but I've been a... an industry veteran for about 30 years promoting, you know, live music concerts and presenting live stage, live stage shows all over the world. And I can tell you without a doubt, there are easier ways to make money. Um, so this in fact will be a community amenity. I hope it's very successful financially, but it's, it's, it's a steep hill to climb and it's going to take everybody really, um, supporting this, um, at all levels to make this financially feasible. Um, Truth is, we really don't have a theater in Steamboat. We don't have a venue for headlining acts. It's very hard to bring in those acts if you don't have a certain capacity. But outside of just musical acts, the scale is definitely needed. you know, to your question, why do you need this much scale to have a proper fly system and to have a stage with wings so that you can properly present, you know, performing art shows, musicals, theatrical productions, and even to rig lighting trusses for headlining acts. You just simply can't do it otherwise. So, so I guess in, in summary, I think this is going to be an absolutely huge benefit for the community. I'm a huge supporter of this for whatever that's worth. And I really hope you guys approve this.

Thank you for your comments.

I am Chris Allen. I own Allen's Clothing, 828 Lincoln Ave, across from the Chief Theater. I'm in support of this. I think it'll be greatly beneficial to our business, just giving something that's not a vacant building across the street, which kind of has been for a while. I've known the Adams family for a long time, and I'm in support of them. Trace has... hired local builders, local designers, which speaks to his volume of working with the community, which I think will go forward. So really, I'm just for it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Probably all of our in-person public comments. I see a few names or a few hands are raised online. We'll go, I believe the first one I saw raised was Wendy, excuse me, Bowman. Sorry if I got that wrong. If you could, you can unmute yourself and give us your comments.

Hi, I'm Wendy Bowman.

Wait. Bowman, sorry.

Did you get me?

Yes.

Yes, I'm Wendy Bowman. I'm here to speak to I am impacted. My view is impacted. I rent an office since 1988 upstairs at 810 Lincoln directly across the street. But I am also in support of the project. I have looked at it from every angle of how I think I won't be able to see the judges tower anymore on house and but to me that is a small price to pay for revitalizing the chief. And again, I'm speaking as somebody who is impacted by the view, and I'm fine with the project. And I think I've also known Trace all his life, and I'm really in favor of it. So thank you. That's all.

Thank you for your comments. The second name I saw was Colin Kelly.

Hello? Yeah, there we go.

There we go.

Hi, so did you all miss me?

Excuse me, can I interrupt for just one moment? They need to turn their cameras on.

Oh, thank you. Yes, this is quasi-judicial thing. So if you could make your video on and then for the other person too, you can get that ready as well.

There we go. We see you and hear you.

all right sorry there we go uh hi there so um i'm here to speak unsolicited in favor of the project uh and on trace's behalf uh he didn't ask me to be here but i i thought it was important because i think this proposed project will not only reinvigorate and vastly improve uh downtown uh you know valuable and beloved historic resource but it's going to generate an energy and a vibrancy downtown that's been missing for quite some time. That pre-theater buzz, uh, that stopping by for a cocktail or a dessert after a show, uh, this is going to benefit our restaurants and retail stores on Lincoln and Yampa in a way that hasn't been seen since the chief was last open. Um, you know, I've been a restaurant owner in town for 16 years and, and there was a buzz when the chief was formerly open that is gone. Um, Guests of the theater are going to come downtown. They're going to eat. They're going to shop in all of our stores before and after. And that is going to add invaluable revenue and sales tax dollars for the community. My question, you know, Aspen has the world famous belly up bar. Why can't we have the world famous chief theater? shouldn't be giving these guys a hard time about blocking some pedestrians view from across the street there's plenty of vantage points they can take a photo and from across the street all you can see is tree tops and the top of a ski jump that's now closed uh i just went over there to confirm it and you there's they're they're going to go to the intersection to take a photo the matter of parking this this roi that will be generated downtown for the city uh the city should be offering up the house and hill lots for free in my opinion this is going to be a boon for our entire community. And when we have a sales tax funded community, we need things like this to keep our downtown vibrant. And they're going to figure it out because the private sector always figures it out. Holding on to their CEO, that's the perfect means of motivation that will ensure that they figure it out. It'll hold them accountable beyond all belief. But the main reason I wanted to encourage you to support this project is twofold. One is Trace and his family are forced to sell this project because they're unable to take it forward. Who do you think is going to buy it? It's going to be AEG, Live Nation, some multinational billion-dollar company that has absolutely no tie to our community. And they probably won't be someone who was born and raised here at the very least. It won't be someone who keeps the money that this thing generates locally. It's likely going to be someone – from out of state or from, like I say, a billion-dollar hedge fund-backed company, not someone who donates to your kid's school fundraiser or the local Boys and Girls Club bash or the Winter Sports Club's latest fundraising drive. The Adams roots here are beyond question. And trust me when I say they've all been here longer than any of us. So the second thing that I think that is kind of being overlooked here, much similar to a recent project y'all just approved, is that this building is dilapidated, sitting vandalized, deteriorating rapidly due to many years of neglect. If they don't get this through the public process and they're forced to sell it, they have to list it, sell it, the buyer has to redesign it, submit a DP, go through the process all over again. It's going to add years, likely several years of decay and damage to the chief. So if we don't let someone revitalize it soon, this so-called, you know, and a lot of our local buildings that we say are historic buildings, case in point with the double Z that we just had to tear down, it's going to be beyond repair. And eventually it's going to end up falling in on itself or getting torn down and be beyond repair and salvage. This community spoke loud and clear that they do not want a ski time square 2.0 and empty lot sitting on a scraped parcel on Lincoln Avenue would be a disaster. We've got locals who are invested.

I'm going to ask you to wrap up your comments as we're well past three minutes.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

Well, that's okay.

I was summarized, but if we all agree that we don't want it torn down, that I think it's important that someone who went there, you know, for movies as a kid and dates in high school and not the company that operates the ball arena or mission ballroom or red rocks, be the person to take this forward. So that's what I got.

Thank you for your comments. And then lastly, I see a iPhone is you have your hand raised as well. If you could turn on your video and your microphone. Perfect.

I'm not exactly sure how to put my name on there, but I only eat 55 Missouri Avenue. Unfortunately, I end up commenting on a few too many of these things, but one of my big gripes right now with the city, and I've been here 25 years, I've raised my kids here, it is completely offensive to me that we are talking about trying to tax vacant homes and at the same time giving people that are trying to do economically productive productive things with our real estate a hard time. And it's really difficult, and I know it intimately from a real estate standpoint, to make projects work. So things like height variances and, you know, some far stuff. It's really important that we, as a community, allow... people that are willing to commit and invest in our community, we give them some variances and some leniency to take the risks to try and make projects work. These things are not like if we just stuck to our code and we said no variances, we'd end up with a really boring town. And we'd end up with like zero vibrancy. And we just have to tax the crap out of all our citizens because nobody would create anything that created anything, you know, vibrant or fun. And, you know, you could debate me all day long, but you could see it on right next to meat and seafood. So meat and seafood is the exact example of what happens when we stick to our code and we act like jerks to people that are trying to create economically vibrant, real estate developments, which require some variances. And I just think that, you know, you got, and Colin too, like, I mean, I would say Colin, who was just talking, you know, Colin, somebody that employs how many people around town and he was just putting a project through. Trace has grown up here his whole life as a family with his family. He's not trying to like ruin Steamboat and turning into something that's like terrible and, but he's trying to make something work. He needs some extra height. Does he need like a rooftop deck? Yeah, he needs a rooftop deck. It would be awesome to have a really cool venue with a rooftop deck and something fun. Like we've taken our zoning and economically viable, fun projects are constrained to a very small area. And now we've got people trying to do things in those areas. Let's let them do this. Like, let them go. So anyway, I'm very much in support of, you know, Trace and the idea of revitalizing the chief. I think it's awesome that we are taking a community asset that's been in blight for a long time and turning into something that could be really cool and an economic generator for our community. So that's all I got to say.

Thank you for your comments. I'm not seeing any other raised hands on Zoom or anybody else in person. So we will close the, nope, maybe I do see one more hand, a late hand. Is that Scotty Stoughton? You can turn on your video and there you go. Give us your three minutes.

Hey, thanks for having me. I didn't catch a lot of the presentation, I apologize. I just kind of want to speak to the entertainment factor. I produced a festival here called Winter Wondergrass, also in Lake Tahoe, operate in Baja, California, Chaffey County, and done things in Vermont. Lived in the mountain communities for 30 years. I'm a current steamboat resident for about seven. Finally got smart. Lived in the Vail Valley for quite some time and saw a whole lot of development and destruction and kind of a Just a losing of culture. And it really started there with a lot of the loss of the live music venues. I've noticed a lot of changes since I moved to Steamboat six years ago. It's interesting to witness it coming from where I came from. and spending 15 years in the Vail Valley. When I used to play music more so, I played the Chief, loved going to the Chief, thought it was an amazing location downtown, like what a gem to have a place like this in a beautiful community like Steamboat. When it went away, it felt for me who hasn't been here a long time, it felt like something was missing. So when I kind of learned about this project and dug into it and saw what it was proposed to be, I was really impressed. I also understand the historic nature of a town like Steamboat and you wanna keep the character and the fabric as best you can to maintain the heritage of the past. But to find somebody, honestly, to put in that kind of money to recreate and bring a piece of history back to life in a modern way to rival some of the best 800 cap theaters in the entire country at enormous risk is incredibly rare and I would even say a bit crazy. I've owned venues, I've owned bars, restaurants, been in this business a long time and it's an extraordinarily high risk thing. To get someone that comes in with passion and a vision and has the culture and the history, it's incredibly unique. So I also believe that it will bring a lot of vibrancy. It will keep us on the map as Musictown USA and be a world-class facility for people that are living here and visiting. It's a lot of work. I commend the process to create something like this. And I think it could be something you'd look back on in 10, 20, 30 years from now and feel really proud about it. So I just want to leave those comments.

Thank you for your comments. All right, I think now... We're out of public commenters, so I'll close the public comment portion. I would come back to you first for any final follow-up, but being that it's 7.10, does anybody need a quick five-minute break? We usually do that every two hours, so if you don't mind indulging us for a couple minutes in case anybody needs a break. Maybe we'll come back in five minutes.

All right. Thank you.

Actually, the one like ours. I really do. Our one. Chief, the chief's son. Well, but I'm thinking.

What?

Yeah, it's going to be a white light. We could just change real time. We could.

Okay, I think we're ready to reconvene. If you are, Tom. Sure. I'm coming to you first. So after public comment, first, we come to the applicant for any final information follow up you wanted to provide.

yeah uh it's less information just um you know we've been working on this project for nearly two years have been working with historic preservation commission planning department uh we're honored to be here in front of you after a journey You know the way the code is written, obviously we focus in on the Community development code, because it. At the surface level should be the most black and white and objective criteria from which we can design, but when we start looking at these structures and we have to think about. Not only it's a historic use over the last hundred years, but some of the visionary plans, looking into the future as to how steamboat wants to develop, which has been clearly articulated in the downtown plan and the Community canvas plan. Those are wonderful documents that speak to the aspirations. And so taking the life force of the Chief Theater and its historic use, and trying to fit it into the constraints of the Community Development Code, we've really worked in a very coherent manner. We've addressed every criteria for approval, not only the conditional approval, but the Development Code itself, as well as the variance. all contained within our narrative. And we're very excited for this project. And, you know, as had been iterated with a lot of the public comment, this is going to bring a lot of vitality to the downtown. And we're excited to bring a pulse here. So we hope that you can stand with us on this project. And thank you for your time.

Thank you. And collective staff, do you have any final follow up as well?

No, we do not. Thank you.

Great. Any final questions from commissioners?

Just to touch on the parking and the lighting, like the biggest goal here is to get every single thing we can done to make this work. And that's, you know, having this, it's a step-by-step process. It's a marathon. It's not a sprint. And with finding more lots, with securing these in hard contracts, the current LOIs for parking, And in addition to that, the sign is to be vibrant and beautiful. The sign is to not be bright and Las Vegas. That's just to be very clear. So the, the, that is dimming and all that is very much in our plan.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Okay. I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and emotion.

I'll start. When I first looked at this, I was concerned about the height variances, honestly. When I looked and understood the nature of the venue, what its potential is, what it hopefully will be used for, I care less that we have residents above the theater than having a venue like this, which could be one of a kind. The rear setback to Xero doesn't bother me, because that's what it's been for the last, I don't know how many years. I have to applaud the applicant for the detail put into the the marquee and the signage and also staff for the details they've gone into in making sure the marquee and the signage are as much in compliance as they can be and we can accept it. I do have a concern about parking. I think this will be a new adventure. I am comfortable that staff has a final say before the TCO in terms of what that parking plan ends up actually saying. You know, so overall, I think this project, like I said, has the potential to add incredible vibrancy to the downtown area. So I'm very... very supportive of it uh i think uh what is it the skid row of steamboat springs uh it does bother me and it's bothered me for years now that the chief is what it is and um something like this i believe could potentially change the downtown area

I'll jump on right behind you because I feel very similarly. I think I was really concerned about some of the variances it felt. Maybe I felt at first when I first oriented myself to the project similarly to some of the public comment that kind of makes it sound like we're saying yes just because this is a historic thing we're trying to preserve. And the more I dug into it, I don't feel like that at all. I don't think that we're just throwing a yes at this to get the chief back. I think that the rear setback is, just like Lou said, an obvious yes. It's been like that for, presumably, since the beginning. And the height variance, my reasoning is really similar to yours as well. I think that this is a really unique resource for the community, and I would rather see it get to develop to its full potential than to see residential placed above it just to get to that height. And whether that's an acceptable alternative, in my mind, it is. Obviously, that's... for each of us to decide. But in my mind, that is acceptable. And I think that it should be said that staff has spent a ton of time reviewing this, and that this is not just being supported because it's any one thing. Every detail has been looked at, and I think that it does meet the criteria for approval. Yeah, I think that's all I have to say at the moment.

I'll go, I was wrestling with a few things. The parking one, Lou said it, it'll be an adventure. And then, but I've said this before with parking is like, one of our goals is to make everybody to get out of their car anyway. So why, you know, until we change the code in a way that we all agree on it, I constantly battle with whether, how much we need to really be enforcing parking. So kind of have to trust staff on that they're gonna keep an eye on it. I thought just as kind of a side note, the reference to the Snow Bowl as one that we've seen recently doesn't equate. People are gonna drive to the Snow Bowl, see that there's no parking and then drive to the remote site, which is right next door. Are people going to drive downtown, see there's no parking and drive out to the remote sites? I don't think so. That's why I was really key on like, how are we going to force people to use the shuttle? If there's 800 people, we're going to get 500 cars coming into downtown. Do we have parking for anywhere for 500 cars? I don't know. But on that one, I'm willing to leave that one to staff and trust them on that. We heard people talk about our economic vitality and goals, our creative arts and arts goals that we have in our plans, and in my mind, versus the historic goals that we have. The biggest thing I had a problem was when I looked at the public comment at the HRC meeting from what I saw, two prominent commenters. One was Historic Routt County, And one, the one name that if anyone asked me who's the most important person, you know, historically about historic preservation, I would have named that person as well. And they both said that the massing and the height was antithetical to the historic that really they didn't feel that it matched the historic part. And that's the one I really had the biggest challenge with, looking at the difference in massing, the second story, you know, and all that. And as I mentioned, there is no... There is no residential. Brian said it. We have that height exemption for to encourage to get residential, not because we're opening the opening that can of worms. And I don't know that residential would be compatible there in the first place. So I'm kind of and the other challenge I'm having is not respecting HPC and their decision, just like I don't like it when city council doesn't respect our decisions and overrules us. It's like they did a lot of homework and did their due diligence as well. But I had a hard time discounting those two comments that I saw from the HBC meeting and their, I would say, importance, for lack of a better word.

Yeah, good thoughts.

Yeah, so first, thank you, staff, for all the work you put in. Two years of work. I think the applicant said that. Applicant, thank you. Rich, as you mentioned, number one is I'm sure you would rather everyone ride their bike all the time, as you do. But I agree with Lou with his comments. I am struggling on one item with the sign. Digital LED signs can be a huge problem. I've seen them a problem. And then the owners not change them. What I heard from the owners, what I've seen in the documentation is you've built it in a way it can be changed. as well as you've made it very clear that you will. I hope that that is true. I can't ask you officially to go longer than eight seconds, but eight seconds probably does not speak historical to me. I hope you can keep a sign on for longer than that and still meet your marketing goals. I agree with the other comments regarding height and rear setback, etc. But I do hope that, one, we've got a code that we stand behind for the sign, but asking you to go above and beyond what the code has.

I think about the potential economic impact of bringing in a couple hundred extra people to downtown and how incredible that would be for restaurants, businesses, lodging, particularly in April and October and November. That could be a huge economic impact. I certainly don't discount that. I put a lot of weight in neighbors in strong support of it. I didn't hear any neighbors. Um, have reservations about the brightness of the sign, um, or anything like that. Neighbors are in full support. Um, as far as parking goes, um, all the concerts I've been to, there's never been any parking. Um, it's part of the experience when you go to a concert downtown, uh, parking is going to be an adventure and I know locals and, um, Other people are going to wrestle with that, and it's going to be adventure for everyone. But the parking issue, I trust staff that they're going to enforce the parking plan. So, yeah, I just trust them on that. And then as far as, you know, the applicant being a third-generation steamboat local, I don't believe that he's going to come in and – be obstinate with the sign and if it's too bright and neighbors start complaining, he's going to say, nope, nope, nope, I'm not going to change anything. I don't believe that he's going to operate that way. I think he's going to operate in good faith and he's going to be a good neighbor. So, yeah, I'm in full support of this project.

I'll go to that. I mean, the easy part is what you guys already said, but I get to say it too, is that this is fantastic. I mean, there's so many things that are really exciting about it. And that's the easy part. So that's where I'm going to start is it's fantastic that this was put on the registry, don't wanna be wrong with my terminology, in 2015, that's fantastic that it's a protected building. It's fantastic that they're working in how to do right by that as they're providing this new context above it. It's fantastic that they're revitalizing downtown, all the things that you guys have said as well, things that are very wonderful and needed. And doing something that is as large as this offers more potential for it to be fantastic, just to keep using that word for a second. The problem is that we also have to wear the other side of the hat, which is, is it creating any problems? it might be all the more successful on its own, but is it creating problems for everybody else by doing that? And that's where we come in and I have to verify that. And of course, staff as well and historic preservation, as Rich, you mentioned. I think my biggest worry that I was trying to get to the bottom of earlier in my questions regarding parking was most often when we get a use, right, a commercial use coming in that we understand what its parking and transportation impact is, whether that's an impact to a street light that needs to be installed, right, on certain projects, but what is the impact of that traffic and parking? Here, We don't have one. In my mind, it's very similar to the analogy, and I know no analogies are great, but the analogy of somebody proposing a hotel to us saying the parking lot is coming later, trust us. Maybe it is, but maybe it's not. And isn't it our job to verify whether or not that impact is being mitigated? There's a lot of paths forward where it will be mitigated, but there's also a lot of paths forward where it won't be mitigated. And isn't it our job to... to make sure that something has been proposed and that it will be successful for everyone. The idea that it's not only not being presented tonight, but not being presented before permits and only after construction when they're trying to get a TCO is, I don't know how we say, oh yes, the criteria of conditional use has been met when I haven't seen anything except that there's thoughts. That was the hardest part for me. I'm not sure if I'm past that part, that we're just not reviewing that tonight. The sign, I had a lot of questions about the sign during. I think that the biggest concern is, again, it's that same hat. It's not that I don't think the marquee that they're proposing and suggesting could be just awesome and not too bright and really fit and add only vibrancy but not glare. There's so much potential for it to go right, but there's a lot of potential for it to go wrong. Help me understand why it won't go wrong. I was very satisfied with the answers that we were given. There are written maximum illumination levels, and that can be held to, and I understand where the size is coming from within the sign code buckets to kind of tailor back to that. So I'm very satisfied with how that part is done. fitting into the conditional use and of course the conditional use overall we haven't really talked about because i'm guessing nobody has a problem with is that this conditional use downtown is a great use downtown it is complementary to and landmark-ish of downtown and so the use in and of itself is great as long as it's mitigated properly um the last thing that i stressed out about a lot was um what you both have already three have already mentioned which is the overall height and how is that um how are we making sure that i'm not i'm not sitting here and saying okay well i love live performances, therefore 38 wasn't high enough. Let's go 50. No, let's go 80. No, let's do, like there's a limit. What is the limit and why is this use need a height that is not the same height that everybody else is expected to build to? Of course, more is better from the standpoint of the venue that that seeks for more, just like if a hotel could go an extra three floors, they would seek to do it. So why are we making sure that this is not a negative impact and that we're not just approving it because we want to? Like, how does it actually fit the criteria? I would have loved to have heard that there was some technical reason why the stage needed to be as high as it was in order for this to properly work as a venue, knowing that, of course, single story venues are happening downtown at the moment. So it's not live performance in general. It's something specific about this. I was not satisfied that I felt that there was a answer to the criteria that said that 38 feet was more necessary than 35 feet or 28 to meet it. But that it was not just, well, we could get extra levels and we could get extra people and then we can sell more tickets. We're not supposed to make our decisions based on that. So I'm a little stuck on how it fits the criteria specifically. So I'm stuck on both that and parking. I would have liked to have seen those better tonight. And I don't know how I feel like it's a successful, this checks all the boxes that we're supposed to check in our quasi-judicial fashion, which is very different than whether or not I think this is an awesome opportunity.

I'll follow up and maybe push back a little bit on the height issue. It is as high as we would have allowed if it had residences above the theater. But only if we offer residences.

Only I'm sorry, only if you offer residences, is it as hot, right? That's what's allowed to be there to me.

And I'll follow up on what Kalei said from my perspective. In this case, my preference would be to have this kind of venue than to have residences over that venue. Okay, I mean, that's not code-ish, but it is, I think, within the realm of our purview.

I appreciate that, Lou. That's where I'm stuck. If it was hard. Our purview is not to ignore code. Our purview is to see how the applicant and staff have presented what's in the code and how the project meets in a quasi-judicial manner.

In the best interests of the city. And to me, that is at the heart of this. That's why we have variances to the code.

And to touch on your parking item, I hear you. Can't get a CO unless they present a plan that covers all of their parking spots. They've taken the first step by getting LOIs in place. But we're two years until opening. They're not going to have a solid agreement in place from third party two years in advance. But having an LOI, in my opinion, but an LOI in place, or two LOIs at this point, exhibit good faith. Good faith doesn't equal done. I agree. but it exhibits the next level. And then staff has made it very clear, they're not gonna click the button unless everything 168 is there, plus 18.

We heard a lot about that tonight. We really pressed and tried to make sure, and there is a lot certainly on record as far as what that expectation is. And certainly we've asked a lot of questions regarding what if this part goes wrong and hopefully that's all heard, but also it's not verified tonight, right? Like that's the flip side, but I understand where you're coming from, absolutely.

Yeah, I mean, my thought on that and what I did ask a question about it and talked about it is they can buy 86 parking lot spots somewhere out west and say, okay, we've met it. If nobody uses it, then you're not addressing what Brian had brought up. What if all those people try to park downtown? What if now there's no place to go to park? Cajinos to go to other restaurants and you know, they're getting you know, the everybody comes down for that That's where parking and that issue becomes realistic. Oh, I'm not gonna go downtown I mean we already have that people say they won't go across town, you know we're all excited about stuff going on the west side those that live on the west side because we were getting more services and we don't have to drive through downtown you may have the same thing from other people like oh, I'm not gonna go downtown for X Y or Z because now There's an event going on. And to some degree, you may even have that now when we have free concerts downtown and things like that. And that's what just saying that we have a parking plan, especially this parking plan in place, does not address. Maybe nobody uses those parking spots. They will maybe for the wedding events where you say you have to. But everybody else, everyone that's coming for the opera or whatever, they're going to try to park downtown. And then as far as the height, it's not the actual height for me. It's the historic preservation. When you look at that building, it doesn't look hardly anything like what it looks like, I don't even want to say what it looks like now, what it should look like or what it has looked like in its prime, that second story and those windows. And that was what was brought up with the HPC commentators, public commenters. And that's what bothers me as much as the 38 feet is that you're changing the look of that building. And in my mind, I don't see how it still looks like a historic building. And if it doesn't look like a historic building, is it historic anymore? I'm not the professional I understand, but as a citizen and as a citizen commissioner, that's what I'm struggling with. That's the biggest thing I struggle with.

The thing about the parking, and I think we all share the same concern about the parking. We have a plan, but we really don't have a plan. We have a plan to have a plan. which is, you know, I get comfort from the fact that staff is going to review it, and somebody's going to spend a lot of money to build something. And if they don't have parking that's acceptable to the city, then they've got lots bigger problems than parking problems. I'm also fascinated by the fact that this is an opportunity to have the use of mass transit. If people do park at the Meadows and they do park at ACE and then they can grab a bus and just go downtown, isn't that what we've been trying to promote? Is this an opportunity for that? Is there a risk? Of course. Is that a risk that has mitigation through staff purview? Yeah, I think so. So I'm well, I'm not at ease with it. I'm you know, I'm more comfortable that that's how it's set up.

I think I somehow managed to forget to mention the parking at all the first time I commented, because that was my major concern as well. And I was tempted to even suggest that maybe we talk about moving that timeline up to before building permit. But then I realized that I don't have any less trust that staff is gonna hammer that out correctly at the end than at the beginning, if that makes sense. And I also think that... the applicant has even more motivation after they've put all this money into a build. They have even more motivation to make sure that they get a parking plan in place that staff's going to be okay with. And I trust that staff believes that parking is as important as we do and is going to get that right. So that one, I kind of talked myself in a full circle around. And when it came to height, just to go through the actual criteria for approval, will it adversely impact conforming uses? No more than the residential version of this building is where my head went. And yes, I know that it doesn't have residential on it, but the impact would be the same. So for me, that one is a pretty easy yes, because you can easily build this building at this height, in this location, and nobody can say, really anything about it. Not in this manner, but the impacts, I just don't, I can't find the impacts. And in my, and this is what I was saying before, oh, is it compatible with the community plan? I think that's obviously yes. And then the acceptable alternative to me is kind of putting that emphasis back on the community plan, the acceptable alternative is we're going to build this building at the height that we would be able to with a residential use on the top floor. But the alternative to that residential use is that we're going to put in an economically viable, large theater space that we don't have anything like in Steamboat. And so that alternative is... That works for me. I think that satisfies the criteria, in my opinion. So maybe there's the more code. That's my version of the more code-savvy way of saying it. But that's how I worked my way around it.

Yeah. Oh, that's all helpful stuff for sure. I think the hardest part, because you make such great points. I appreciate that with your points on the parking, because that's the two sides of the coin that I'm seeing at the same time. I think what I'm most frustrated with is that As with any development plan, why is that not resolved while we're reviewing it, and why are we in a place that, man, we really have a lot of trust and a lot of people, sure, good, smart people, and motivated on both sides, but why are we in a place to be doing that? Why are we not just, it's been reviewed? And why have to wait until as far as we're being asked to have to wait? That it's already been built at that point kind of a thing. You know, what if something goes wrong? The what ifs are what we're supposed to mitigate. And I'm so stuck on that. I agree with you on how it ought to go at this point and who the incredibly competent people are that are trying to resolve it. But why are we here?

I agree with you entirely. I was shocked that that is being put off. And... Yeah, very surprised, very curious why. It just doesn't seem like something that we've ever seen or would, probably won't see again. Like we're used to seeing development plans that have all the ducks in a row when we see them. And so I'm really surprised by it. But I'm also OK with it based on specifically what we're punting down the road and knowing that staff views parking is so important. I think that they'd probably put together a better parking plan than like better ideas for the parking plan that I would personally. So I'm comfortable with it, just like I'm comfortable with the Historic Preservation Committee reviewing parking. the massing of the newly proposed building. That is not my forte. I don't know that code like I know the CDC. So I'm very comfortable saying these are the experts in this particular arena and I'm comfortable with them being in control of it at this point. But I am really surprised and wish that it was not that way. I wish that we were seeing an actual parking plan. I get you.

I agree.

While the LOIs are non-binding, it shows that they've made an effort and they haven't done nothing on parking. Are the LOIs, do they hold any weight for you?

In the world where I worry about worst case scenario, no, right? Because I feel like I'm supposed to be in that world instead of just being like, this looks awesome because that's a much easier world to live in. But I don't feel, I don't know, whatever. Do they for you? Like, I guess maybe that's a better question. Do they hold that weight enough for you?

It shows a good faith effort. If they came in here and said, ah, parking, maybe, I don't know, Howelson or Rodeo Grounds, maybe that. Like, it shows that they've made contact with... know with the c-suite at um at the steamboat resort and with management at ace and so it shows that it's on their radar and they they have every intention of following through on it so yeah definitely it's it's certainly more than nothing cool does anybody want to make a motion yeah i'll uh

Like I said, I really like this project. I like the potential of this project. And Trace, I wish you all the luck. I know this is a significant investment and there's significant risk associated with this. But I'd really love to see this thing succeed beyond everyone's dreams. So with that, I'll motion to approve PL 2025-03. Is that a 4-0? Yes, 3-4-0. 3-4-0. with the associated 15 conditions.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Any other discussion on the motion? I'll just try and clarify the point I was trying to make earlier on the overall height that I think, for me, when I'm trying to look at the applicant's analysis and staff's analysis and say is one right or the other wrong, especially if they disagree or if they're They weren't disagreeing so much as not saying the same thing, right? One was one part of the third criteria and one was the other. You know, what is the reason? What is making this successful? I wish I would have seen something that gave me a better technical understanding of why this was not just... more for more's sake, because I don't believe we're supposed to use that analysis. I would say that, Kelly, your analysis of that third criteria was the most compelling for me tonight on how it fits within that. And I was kind of stuck within, well, no, neither one of these say something that I feel very ready to support on its own face. The fact that it's as big as something else next to it I'll be a broken record, you've heard that recently at other meetings, is not a compelling reason. The fact that it's as big as other things that are not it are allowed to be is not a compelling reason, but if it has its own reason, that would have gone a lot farther for me. I was very stuck on how that's meeting the criteria. I think I could go with your criteria. I'll give you credit for it. But that, I think, is the biggest hang-up component for me. I didn't have the average plate height. I feel like none of us have talked about it because I feel like it's the exact same conversation, and why have it twice? The rear setback is a... I mean, those alleys are potential problems, right? It's worth at least stating for the record that those are, and we do need to mitigate those problems. I'll call it an alcove. I think it satisfies the... the needs of the alley well enough. And so that combined with the existing conditions and the nature of the expansion of the existing condition along the zero foot, I think is very successful and meets all of its criteria easily. So I wanna make sure I said that. Any other discussion on the motion? Call for a vote. Aye. No. Aye. Aye. Aye. And that motion passes five to one. Thank you for all your time tonight. Can't say we didn't dwell on it long enough. All right. So do we have a director's report this evening?

Not tonight, no. OK.

We have one old business, public hearing minutes from March 12th. Any comments, changes, or do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve March 12th meeting minutes.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

I believe that's it for us tonight. Does somebody want to make a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second. A motion and several seconds. All in favor?

Aye. Great. We'll adjourn.