Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, go ahead and get started.

This is our June 11th Planning Commission public hearing. And I start with roll call. Jonathan Hayek, David Box, Rich Levy, Brian Adams, Lutador, AJ Summers, and online. Kelly, you there?

I was talking. Is she not allowed in?

Kelly, I can I can see you. Are you coming in?

All right.

We'll move forward. We know she's here. We've I know, Kelly, can you hear us?

She can't hear or talk.

Can't hear you.

No, she can't hear us.

And she can. She's not muted, so it would be something about our audio to her. All right, well, if you can do what you can, Kelly, in the meantime. First, we'll start with public comment for something not on tonight's agenda. Is there anybody here who wants to give us public comment for something not already on our agenda? I don't think I want to be unmuted, do I? All right, in the meantime, I know nobody is here for public comment for something not on tonight's agenda, so we'll go to our first agenda item.

This is... Do I have to fix that first? If she wants to participate. Yeah, so I... Until we fix it, whether it's her end or their end, don't we?

I don't think it's our end. I think it has to be on Kelly's end because she's unmuted here. Send her a message to try and... Maybe, yeah, log off and back on, Kelly? Okay.

She can't hear us, so we can't.

True.

Did you text her that? Anybody know sign language?

Send her a message.

No, I think that's kind of what comes with Zoom sometimes. I think we need to move our meeting forward.

Hopefully she can participate.

Our first agenda item is EL20260066, T-bar temporary structure. Is the applicant here for presentation?

He is online. So John Holloway.

I see him. Yeah. So if you can, you've already got your video on. If you can unmute yourself and give us a presentation when you're ready.

Good evening. Thank you for hearing our application. It is good to be back. After those five years went quickly, we've had a great experience with the planning staff. They did a great job. We agree with and approve and are in agreement with the conditions of approval. And unless you have questions, I think I'll leave it at that. We've done this many times in the past, as you know.

OK, great. Yeah, we'll let you know if we have questions. Thank you. Toby, do you have a staff presentation for us?

Toby Stauffer, Senior Planner. So this is a conditional use approval request to continue this operation at the ski area for five years. So this property is located at the base of the ski area on the south side of Ski Time Square Drive. The site includes two modular buildings, several small structures, an asphalt drive and parking area and some site development around the existing buildings. The first building was approved in 2001 as a temporary structure to house the triage facility for the resort. The structure was used in that way until 2010 when it changed to the current restaurant use. An additional temporary structure was added to this site in 2023 to support the restaurant use. From 2010 to 2023, the T-Bar has had five approvals that have allowed the expansion and continuation of this restaurant use in a temporary structure. The most recent approval in 2023 expires in August 26th. As I mentioned, this is a conditional use request to continue the use in a temporary structure for five years. No expansions or changes of operations are included with this request, and no significant changes have been made to the site since the last approval in 2023. Restaurant use is a limited use in the G2 zone district. The application meets the only use standard in the CDC. And again, A temporary structure is required to be reviewed through a conditional use process. There are very few standards that are met by the current site and the building. In the past, the existing development has been acceptable with the condition that the use and structure are not permanent. We find that the use is acceptable to allow continuing because the restaurant adds vitality to the area. Current development on the lot doesn't preclude future development, any future development um, would need to meet standards and the temporary structure does provide an interim use on the property. Um, regarding the community plan and the mountain area master plan. The mountain area master plan indicates that development projects should not be reviewed to further specific concepts, but instead should be evaluated on whether the project will be incompatible with the proposed goals or if the project will hinder achievement of the vision and the objectives. We find that the continuation of this use should not hinder the goals or objectives in the mountain area master plan. The future land use district for this property is the mountain core, which anticipates a mixed use area that supports the ski resort and captures economic value from tourism. While this development is less dense than the long-term vision for the area, continuation does not prohibit redevelopment and it is compatible with the character of the district, um, The T-bar also continues the sense of place and economic vitality of the mountain area, which is supported in both the community plan and the mountain area plan. Regarding impacts to adjacent properties, this use has been in place for about 17 years with no adverse impacts of note. Continuation of the use in the temporary structure should not cause any impacts that are different from how this use has operated in the past. The visual impacts of the structure are softened by the existing landscaping. The colors and materials are similar to other buildings, and restaurant operations are subject to noise ordinance, liquor licensing rules, and other standards that are meant to manage impacts. On page five of the report, I have a list of which standards the project complies and does not comply with. That is to address the fourth criteria. Again, consistent with our previous reviews, we find the use to be acceptable in the current configuration because it manages impacts from parking and snow storage and the structure should not inhibit future development. So the site and the building do not meet CDC standards, but we continue to find that The existing use should not have any impact on the surrounding area and, again, should not preclude future development of this property. So we do recommend approval with the four conditions that are listed.

Great. Thank you, Toby. Any questions from commissioners?

I had one question. Toby, in your recommended motion, Condition 1 says all structures must be removed from the site no later than June 30, 2031. Would that be unless an additional conditional approval was approved?

Yes, that's true. So that would be the expiration date of this use approval. But, yeah, they can always pursue a different process to seek permanent approval or another temporary approval if needed.

Thank you. Other questions? Yeah, for Tobe. Has anyone from the city go out there and say, wow, this building is okay, it's not going to collapse?

We don't, but I would imagine that to receive a restaurant license, and John may be able to speak to this, there's health inspectors and health code people that go out there and check to make sure that at least it's functioning as it should. But I'm not sure that any building inspector does that for any existing building after it's been built.

Yeah, I mean, I would imagine that there's a certificate of occupancy for the building. Is that what you're asking?

Yeah, my concern is, you know, it's been there a long time. We've had, you know, temporary use for 20 years or whatever. At some point, your temporary building, you know, the reason it's a temporary building is because it doesn't meet any of the codes that you need to meet.

Yeah, it was turned into a restaurant in 2010. I imagine we had building codes and certificate of occupancy requirements at that time. So it had to meet the 2010 standards. Thanks.

Other questions?

Are there any implications from now that the Stockman has broken ground right next door, there's no shared access for emergency vehicles, or do you anticipate any unintended consequences as three and a half years down the line, there's now the Stockman fully built out, anything like that?

Yeah, the applicant could probably respond to that, but there is no shared access. So the T-bar property has its own access and emergency services, as does the Stockman.

Would you like to hear the applicants as well, or does that satisfy your question? That's sufficient. Okay, just making sure. Other questions?

Yeah, I vaguely remember we did this three years ago, and we made it a three-year period. And I'm trying to remember what our logic was.

That approval was to add to this conditional use, and it had had an approval two years prior that was a five-year approval. So what we did at that time is we just kept the five-year approval from the previous one that talked about the use, and we only talked about the expansion of the use three years ago. So it was approved for three years, but it had had a previous five-year approval.

Thank you. Ask a quick question. The annoying question, which is how do you define when the stops being an interim use? We've asked that three years ago. We asked that the five years before that. I don't want to ask it.

We're in a loop, all of us. No, it's a good question. I do still believe since those three years have gone, we've seen fair amount of development happening at the base area. So maybe now there will be some development pressure that land value has to be quite expensive, I'd imagine. And so I think over time, the development economics, I would think would win out. But again, as we've said, that is up to you to decide if this is Not an appropriate interim use. That's what the conditional use is asking. Maybe the structure is not appropriate or maybe the use is not appropriate. But again, our findings are that it is not hindering to either of our plans. It's consistent with the vitality of the area. It adds to the ski base area, adds to some character and should not prohibit any development that we hope to have there someday. Okay.

Which is great. And I understand that, especially from a... I understand what your economic perspective is, or, I mean, your, the applicants. I understand the lack of adverse impact, but I feel that... The other thing I guess I'm worried about is equal application of the CDC to all land users. Maybe that's the way I want to put that, right? And so... I would say a lot of the things about a development plan are not necessarily because if you don't follow it, you're harming your neighbors. It's because that's the expectation we have for people who are owning and operating on properties in our town. And so why are we not feeling the need simply because they're providing economic support to our town that we don't feel the need to ask them to abide equally that everybody else is doing, that Stockman is doing, for example. Granted, it's a much bigger project, but... But why are we not, I mean, I don't even know exactly what it would mean, of course, but what's the parking that's not being followed or the landscaping or the materials or the roof slopes, like what is really being avoided? And at what point should just everybody after 15 years, especially or something, whatever number we're at, 17 years, be expected to also play by the same rules, I guess is the easiest way to sum that up.

Yeah, and we did evaluate that with this project. We asked ourselves the same question, should this be a permanent approval? We've done this a number of times, allowing this to continue. There is some level probably of unfairness that this project isn't meeting all of the standards, which is why I tried to provide that evaluation. We could request that they seek a development plan with lots of variances or request that they put some infrastructure into that site to make it it meets standards or that it's not appropriate anymore. I think that's, we have decided that at least our recommendation is that because it's a temporary use, we have to reevaluate the conditions every couple of years. We have to go through this process. It's a public process to hear if there are impacts or know if there are impacts from this use. And so we find that that temporary use, Nature of it does sort of mitigate some of those impacts. If it was not there, it would just be vacant. So the site is still not meeting base area standards. So again, this use probably has some advantage because other restaurant uses do have to meet those standards. So those are all aspects to evaluate of this conditional use. But again, we find that it meets the criteria as a temporary use for the site.

Thank you. That's a really helpful answer. Would it be fair then to kind of summarize that if this hadn't existed previously, if it was being proposed brand new on an otherwise vacant lot, that maybe staff would be interpreting it differently, but the fact that it was already there and is just not being asked to be removed for no other apparent reason is really the different light that is being shed on this.

It's hard to say, but we have had other... temporary structure approvals that have allowed a use to expand or continue or be more efficient. So we have had other locations in this community where we have approved a similar temporary structure that would have required a lot of variances to meet, but the use in question was not impactful to the area. The development was not impactful to the site. So this is a strategy that for how to use vacant properties to add vitality. I would think if it was a completely vacant property and they wanted to start the T-bar tomorrow and nothing was there, we might go through a similar exercise. We would probably have them implement some of their infrastructure that they have, like the parking area and the drive aisle. I don't think we would allow a restaurant to have a non-paved parking area or a non-paved drive aisle. So there's always some limit to the development and similar There is a Yampa Street development, the boatyard. It had a paved space that can be used to manage some of its impact. So other temporary sites that I'm thinking of around the city have had, or temporary structures and uses, have had some level of infrastructure on the property to be able to be developed. I don't know if we would allow or support a restaurant in a trailer on a dirt lot. I don't think that we would do that. But it's, you know, it's speculation.

Understood.

We can kind of only look at what we've got in front of us.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions?

Yeah, this is for the applicant. Vaguely in the back of my mind, I remember that previously you had an annual lease on this property that was renewed every year.

Yes, that's correct. And that's still how it is today. It's been that way.

That's still how it is today.

Yes.

Thank you.

And if I could address it, if I have the floor for just a minute, we do have a paved loop. And I do believe that if the parking requirement is three parking places, we certainly have more than three parking places. And we have abided by all of the conditions of approval, including emergency access from day one. And it's been a Wonderful thing for us because we have had emergencies that required ambulance service in there. Finally, we have annual fire inspections every fall. We have intermittent and regularly scheduled health insurance or health inspections every year and have had very successful inspections on both counts for all 17 years we've been.

All right, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, I'll go to public comment. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? Okay, not seeing any online. John, first, I would come back to you if you had any final follow-up you wanted to offer. I think maybe you just did that, but if you have anything else, I want to give you that opportunity as well.

Thanks very much, Brian. No, I don't have anything further. I mean, As you know, the Stockman has broken ground and they will be, and they're doing a lot of work on our property as far as drainage and storm drains, et cetera. We'd love nothing more than to have a permanent structure there and maybe sometime in the next three or four or five years, we'll be able to do that. But right now we're gonna be dealing with a very large building being built next door to us for the next 40 months. So we're not looking forward to that, except for they've been extremely nice and working with us. And we're hopefully working with them as well to be as, you know, add to the vitality of the area as much as we can.

Thank you. And Toby, anything else?

No further comments.

Great. Any final questions? I'll close our public portion come to commissioners for discussion and emotion.

Obviously, everybody's familiar with the T-bar. I do think it has vitality, especially during the winter. It drives me, the question you asked drives me crazy. When does it become not temporary or an interim structure? But regardless, I'm motioning to approve 20-26-066 with its four conditions.

Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Rich.

Okay. A couple of things that I think of is One, to say there has no adverse impacts or that when the land prices and the uses match up, they'll be gone. One thought that always crosses my mind is what if the possibility is that because the T-bar is there and the landowner is gaining some financial benefit, that's deterring them from actually redeveloping them, or in this case, just developing the property. And to say that it doesn't, I mean, it's got to have some impact. So that kind of weighs on me, that it's potential that this product is keeping a more modern, appropriate building from being put there, even tomorrow, because now you have a little bit more of a discussion versus just an empty piece of land. But what I would be looking for would probably be for some neighbors to say, like what you were talking about, other restaurant owners, other, you know, there's a lot of interested parties in Ski Time Square and at the Gondola, for them to say, this is hurting us, that they have too much of an unfair advantage and, you know, it's time for them to move on. That would probably be the one thing that would change my mind from supporting this. But otherwise, all the things we've talked about, the economic benefit, it's obvious that everybody loves that place. And as long as there's not a physical problem, hazard than a temporary, a conditional use in a temporary building is okay with me.

All right, great. Thank you. Any other discussion?

Yeah, I kind of wanted to go back again, and I think Rich, you kind of touched on this, what is temporary. If we don't have that guidance in the code, I think it might be a good idea for staff to maybe try to find that guidance for us to make a decision on, because 17 years is not a temporary use. I'm supportive of the T-bar. It's a piece of character in Steamboat that will be missed when it's gone someday. and I support them moving on with operations until that time. But I really do think we should have some guidance as to what temporary really means.

Yeah, good point. Other discussion?

Ski Time Square Drive is going to look really different in five years from now when we could potentially be having this conversation again. And I think I'm supportive of it now, but I think if in five years we're having the same conversation, I think it's a different conversation because the character of the area is going to be so different in five years from now.

I'm the only one that hadn't spoken. I agree with Commissioner Summers. I think it's a great thing for us to go through in a work session with some initial guidance from staff, and let's talk through it so we can define it for the future.

Okay. Yeah, I don't have much to add either. I think you guys covered it. I think it is a... a great part of our community. And I love that about it. Economic is great, but even just character, use, what it brings to the experience at the base of the ski area, those are all great things. And of course, I want to support it immediately because of that. And I get caught making sure that I'm asking the questions that Toby answered for me to my satisfaction really well to make sure that it's not about that. It's not about playing favorites because of something that looks successful, but making sure that it's not... getting some kind of special consideration because of its, prolonged existence there and that, and that it is, uh, playing by the same rules to use that again, or making sure that it's not doing that, um, by not playing by the same rules, it's not creating a problem. Um, I am convinced again, this time, as I was the last two times that I've had the opportunity to be convinced, but, but, uh, uh, No, I'll just, I'm going to leave it at that. I continue to be convinced today. Anyway, I like your point that maybe five years from now, that's going to be a different landscape anyway, and might be a more interesting conversation. So we have a motion and a second, unless there's any other discussion. I'll call for a vote. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Then that passes unanimously.

Thank you, John. Thank you all very much. We hope we're not back in five years asking for this. And I doubt seriously we will be, but we appreciate your efforts and staff. Thank you so much for the, for the work you did on it too. All right. Have a good evening.

All right, so now we'll go into agenda item number two. Our remaining ones are for recommendation to council. This is PL 2026-0065, SSWSC slash SSRC Voodoo Water Ramp Jump Complex. I'm going to recuse myself from this one, making sure that my information that I had outside of this meeting and involvement with the applicant doesn't appear as bias for Planning Commission's decision tonight. So thank you.

Thank you. All right. Does the applicant have a presentation?

Hi, I'm Gavin Malia, Vice President of Facilities with the Steamboat Skiing Resort Corporation. And this is Brian Krill, Executive Director of Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club. We also have Cam Breton here from Four Points Engineering to answer any technical questions as needed. We don't have a presentation per se, really just here to answer questions. We think this is a great project, great collaboration and partnership between the resorts and the club, and really for the benefit of the youth of this community and the competitive ski family, really. So yeah, we're really just here to answer any questions unless you have more to add.

Maybe I'll just provide a little historical context. This is a replacement of a facility that's existed at a private property out at Bald Eagle Lake going back about 22 years. That was supposed to be there for a couple years, maybe like this last discussion. But the homeowners there, the MacArthur family, are now gone. building homes on that property and we've been looking for a new location for this going back about three three years or so so that's why there's been a pretty long timeline with this project we had a had a pre-meeting with with city planning I think back in December just because the uniqueness of the property are the project and and the uniqueness of the partnership and but this is uh again i just wanted to make clear that it's a it's a facility that has existed for over 20 years here in steamboat and we're seeking to relocate it uh with up up at the resort with our partner uh steamboat resort thank you and does staff have a presentation uh toby staffer again so this is a

As mentioned, a joint project between the Winter Sports Club and the resort to construct a water ramp and trampoline training facility on resort property. The site is within the Greenhorn Ranch subdivision. If you're familiar with the ski area, it's kind of between the Vogue and Voodoo ski runs, and it crosses the Huckleberry Trail bike trail. It is at the base of the current freestyle complex and within the big air run out when that happens. The property is zoned OR, open space and recreation. The project includes building a private access road and parking, constructing a ramp and a deck with four trampolines, construction of three support buildings, and seasonal placement of portable toilets. The facility will be used in the summer and fall for Winter Sports Club athletes and approved visiting teams. There's not going to be any public access. The project includes two variances to parking standards and parking surface. So parking standards, two parking standards, excuse me, parking surface and the amount of parking. This use is considered to be an outdoor amusement use, which is a conditional use in the OR zone district. Outdoor amusement uses are conditional because the use could have impacts on other uses in the district, and they could be more intensive than might be expected in an open space area. The project will add developed features into an area that does not have any structures, and it will cause the relocation of some trails on the ski area property. The The location of this use is in an area that has had developed outdoor recreation and more intensive uses in the winter. It is a use for a private organization, so it will have some impact on public uses on the mountain. The project does include the two variances. Parking surfaces require asphalt. However, there is a provision in the CDC to allow gravel surface in open space areas. And outdoor amusement areas require a minimum of 10 parking spaces. That standard assumes that the use would be open to the public. As a private use, this request is for four spaces, which mitigates other impacts from placing parking in an open space area. We do find that the This project is compatible with the preferred direction and policies of our community plan and our mountain area master plan. The future land use district for this area is recreation, open space, trails, and natural areas. And outdoor amusement use is part of the vision and character of that district. as it includes areas that vary in size, management, maintenance, programming, and level of infrastructure. That's information from that section on the code. And that development can happen depending on surrounding context. So we do find that this use will contribute to the general planning and long-range considerations for this district. It is consistent with the purpose for the zone district. Again, that purpose is intended to provide areas for recreational uses, including ski areas. A jump facility is similar in impact and infrastructure to other uses in parks or more traditional athletic facilities. So we find it to be consistent with the district. Regarding negative impacts on surrounding properties, this use will mitigate its impacts by limiting access to the facility limiting use of the facility to summer and fall seasons. Trails will be rerouted. That's mountain bike trails. The ski trails aren't impacted. And there will be public gates to keep the public people off of that area in the summertime. Offsite parking will be managed by the sports club to ensure that the public trailhead parking is available and not impacted by this use, and that only athletes and coaches can go there and that they will use the required shuttles. The drive and the parking surface will be an all-weather surface to limit the dust and mitigate the impacts from not paving a portion of that road in the open space area. We do think that this development plan is consistent with the character in the immediate vicinity. There are other nearby facilities that support ski activities and are similar in character to this development with more intensive ski jump or race terrain. This facility will add some structure to an area that is undeveloped in the summer, though that area has a greater level of development in the winter. So it should be consistent with what is expected. It'll just have more development year round. So we do find that to be consistent. We also think that this development will provide adequate access for users of the facility and for emergency services. So that was reviewed as part of this request. Again, transportation to the site will be limited and managed. Users will have to arrive by shuttle, and there should be no impacts to the public trailhead parking. The parking space arrangement does allow for emergency services to get up there. So in the project materials, there was a a turning template to make sure that emergency vehicles could get up there.

Regarding the variances, the first one is for surfacing.

So again, the code requires that parking and driveways should be paved with asphalt. They are proposing a gravel all-weather surface for this use. We don't think that this variance should impact other uses. Again, the development is within a larger ski area property. No adjacent property owners should be impacted by this variance and should not see it where it's in. So it would only be an impact to users at the resort. Impacts from gravel can be dust or tracking dirt onto roadways. This area does already include gravel and dirt roads, so the surface will not be out of character or impactful. As noted, the future land use district is open space, trails, and natural areas. Again, an outdoor amusement area is part of the vision and character depending on the context. And again, this context includes facilities that do support more intensive skiing and ski activities. We find that the project does provide an acceptable alternative to the standard as there is a provision in the code that does allow gravel to be in open space areas. So it furthers those standards in the off-street parking section. Regarding the parking amount, as noted, 10 parking spaces are required, four are being provided so that variance is mitigated by the shuttles and that the ski area that the resort club or the winter sports club is going to use. So that should provide enough parking for their need. It should limit the parking there and limit the impacts on the open space. Again, there are limited hours and seasons and access, so that does limit the impact of the number of spaces. And the variance does meet an acceptable alternative. It does meet the purpose of the standards. So two purposes of the parking standards are to prevent a shortage of parking and that parking be designed and operated efficiently. in a manner that ensures their usefulness. So this parking is designed for the use and should not provide a shortage of parking at the trailhead. It should provide enough use for this parking, and it'll be consistent with the other parking driveways and drive aisles on that ski area that are gravel or dirt. We do find that the project does meet criteria for approval for the variances and the conditional use, and we do recommend approval with six conditions.

Thank you. Questions from commissioners?

I have a question for Brian. Where are you guys planning on shuttling from?

Either managed parking with the resort, so the Noel lot, or right out of the club, Howelson, so teams would meet there and go up. We also do have some parking for our facility down in Torrey and Plum, so that would be like for coaches and people operating the facility.

Great, thank you.

Mm-hmm. I had a few questions. Toby, are there restroom requirements for a facility like this? I see on the plans they have a portable restroom, but these are kids who need to go to the bathroom.

Yeah, I think restroom requirements are typically building code requirements. So the land use code doesn't have any restroom requirements for any land uses. So they have to build restrooms in compliance with our building code. So, yeah. I think they're providing the portable restroom because they understand that their users will have needs, but I don't think that there is any, well, there's not any land use code requirement. When they get a building permit to do this work, they'll have to determine what is required for this work in the building code.

Okay. Then I have a few questions for the applicant. Can you address that question? I know it's a building code question, but it's an honest question. Is it the portable restroom is what you're providing? Ryan, I don't know if that's for you or...

Yes, that's our intention and that's consistent with the current facility that's operated that way for a long time. We have it serviced regularly and it's been totally adequate for the use. And David, most of the users out there are out there for a session of about two hours. So there's not a lot of, I mean, staff is out there a little longer, but there's not people out there all day typically.

Got it.

And then Toby touched on emergency vehicles. With all the lines, it's very difficult to read the plan set. I'll just be real honest with you. But can you, someone describe, maybe it's you, or how does an emergency vehicle get up there? Because the worst case could happen. And how does that, will they come from Thunderhead? Or what's the idea?

It comes from it comes off of the access road will come off of shortcut is that is a shortcut shortcuts and um the idea is that we as we do now we'd have not necessarily an emergency vehicle but a vehicle dedicated to evac um at all times and we haven't worked out all the details with the but we will be 100% responsible for the safety and emergency protocols, but we will collaborate at any time that the bike park is operating and ski patrol is on site. Any of those operating hours, we're gonna collaborate with the mountain for collaborative emergency evac.

Great, thanks. And this, as the others, is a little above land use, but maybe a question for the resort is, really cool to watch the kids jumping, let's just say. What type of safety and wayfinding will there be for tourists and others? They will go up here. We need to provide safety for them. What's the plan for that, if that makes sense?

It does. I think if I understand your question, so access would only be available via pedestrian or bike. No one will be able to drive similar to current conditions. But we do intend to accentuate this as a cool feature that people could go check out. We're still kind of working on some details, whether we put some benches out there that people can sit on, but it is adjacent to the Thunderhead hiking trail. So people will be coming and traversing directly on the South end of this facility. Um, and they will be having some signage on there that still kind of being flushed out, but certainly we don't want to, we, we will restrict people from entering the facility, but being right next to it and watching. Um, and there's even talk of, you know, would we host events there in the future competitions, that kind of thing, similar to what we do for, or they do for ski jumping at house and for 4th of July, for example, expose that type of thing.

Or the jumps in the winter that were near the same location.

Yeah. Their facility will be closed in the wintertime. There will be none of that going on. But in the summertime, the resort is certainly open to it.

Okay. And then I would imagine it's a building item for pond and water safety. Is that a building item or is that our city code?

We don't check it in our review of the code. So I think that there would probably be some review during the building permit, I guess. I would imagine. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions? I have one. You have called out a couple of aspens that are being removed. Are those ones that are called out the only trees that are being removed for this project?

The only trees over 12 inches have been identified. I don't know that there's a whole lot more, but that's just what the site walk came up with.

Okay, so... So following up on that, the area, I see some of this quote unquote forested area near the top of run where the deck is, does encroach on what looks like a forested area. Are you saying that those are just smaller trees and they won't be disturbed or that's all going to be taken away?

No.

Evening, everyone. Cam, work with Four Point Surveying and Engineering. And we surveyed the trees within the limits of disturbance for the entirety of this project. Basically flagged any tree that was over 12 inches that was going to need to be removed. There is other vegetation associated with it. You could kind of look at the footprint. I believe there's a green hatch on the plan that kind of outlines where existing vegetation is present and smaller scrub oak bushes and things like that. But we did not identify every piece of vegetation just per kind of the tree removal associated with the code. We identified trees 12 inches and 24 inches and above, and only trees under 24 inches are being removed, and they've all been identified on that plan with the circling.

Perfect. Thank you. And Toby, is that accurate that we only are, quote unquote, concerned with trees 12 inches in diameter and larger?

We only have tree preservation standards for trees that are 12 inches or greater. You need to preserve 50% of those that are impacted. And then 24 inches or greater, you have to preserve 75% of those. So I did ask this team to let us know what their tree preservation plans were for those trees. So they are removing some of those and they are preserving some of those consistent with our code. We don't have any requirements for preservation of trees or vegetation for any other purpose in the code. You can use vegetation, existing vegetation towards your landscaping requirements and preserve it in that way. But the open space and recreation zone district doesn't have I think any landscaping requirements. So this they don't have to provide any landscaping. So then we look at we also look at grading in the code. So when you're grading a large site, you have to get a development plan approval. So they're meeting all of our aspects for land disturbance.

Great. That was going to be my question. Go ahead.

If it's determined when they start construction that there are more trees than expected with 12-inch or more diameter, that's part of my question. Is that something that would then require additional review? Could it require mitigation?

If they were unable to meet the code, so again, they could remove up to 50% of those trees that were 12 inches or above. So if in their development, they found that they were not able to do that, then there's two paths for approval. There's a substantial conformance approval. So that's a minor change to that. I don't think we have a specific tree preservation standard. We have a couple of different criteria within the substantial conformance process. So it would just have to be minor changes And that would be determined by the director. And then the other path is if they were unable to meet those tree preservation standards, then they would have to get a revised development plan approval.

Are you saying if they move trees that are not designated on this on the plan set that they don't have to do anything unless they're removing more than 50% of those trees?

Only those that are 12 inches or above.

Right. They've called out, I think I saw three. If they were to remove five and it still wasn't more than 50%, that would not be any type of adjustment needed.

No, I don't think so.

Okay. Did you have any more on that? And you said they met all the grading because they are on steep slopes, but I don't see that as a specific review criteria other than the overall environmental impacts.

Yeah, we don't have grading standards. So they did have to provide stormwater management that has to meet our code. There's some wetlands in the area. They have an Army Corps permit. So they have to meet those requirements. We have grading requirements, but not specifically for development. So we have grading requirements for subdivision when creating lots. So they have met those standards and they would have to stabilize the slope as required in their building permit plan. So the specifics of that will have to be achieved. Obviously the structure of their deck and their jump and their trampolines, all of that structure has to be approved in a building permit. So that should incorporate grading that. They do show some rock walls on the plan set that's probably going to assist in their grading, but the project team may be able to expand on that more.

Thank you.

Is the magenta line the limits of disturbance for this project?

I don't know that. I think it's the limits of the project area.

All right, I can answer that question. It is on that plan, and I'd also like to add that as we are progressing this set for a building permit, that is changing a little bit. We want to have the best and most stable grading design. Also, all disturbed areas will be revegetated as part of our CDPHE permit that will be required for state stormwater. Can't close out or held liable until that has been completed. But that magenta line is going to shift a little bit With the grading design. But that is what it's on the plan for currently.

Okay. So I have a follow-up to that. I see eight trees in that area that are being removed. I see zero being preserved. Okay.

We only circled the ones that will be removed. I believe the largest tree identified in that area was a 30-inch caliper just to the plan west of the access drive. That is being preserved.

So there's a lot of trees that are not shown on this plan?

All trees over 12-inch caliper within the area of disturbance are shown on that plan. Only the ones that are circled are being removed.

So where are the ones that are being preserved?

Perhaps if we could look at the plan together at the same time, I could identify them for you.

I mean, I see a couple outside of the magenta line, but I don't see any preservation inside of it.

I can share my screen and show you the plans.

So within the Magento line is where grading equipment will be reworking slopes, doing compaction, and that is where The tree, yes, so looking at that plan, you have that kind of T turnaround area near the bottom of the page. Just above that, you'll see those trees within that fill slope unfortunately cannot remain in that area. Just north of that is the larger, darker green one. That's the largest tree that we identified in the area. It's outside of the limits of disturbance and will remain as such.

Okay.

There's two trees in the middle of the access aisle just next to those storage structures. Those will need to be removed for the access aisle to be installed. But just to the northwest of those structures are two more trees that are larger that aren't circled. Those are being preserved.

So I guess it kind of leads me to when you're building something in a natural habitat, how do you determine what the limits are? Because you could naturally just make your project larger and larger until you reach your tree preservation quota. The bigger the area, the more trees are naturally going to be in it, right?

You could make it larger, but I don't think it's in anyone's interest.

It's more dirt to move and it's- No, I don't mean actually grading anything. When you're counting these trees and you need to keep half of these trees, you could just make the area you're counting larger to preserve half of the trees.

Well, it's 170 acre parcel, right? So there's hundreds and hundreds of trees on this site.

Yeah, so I guess what I'm getting at is what are you defining as the site so we can get a real count as whether or not we're preserving enough trees? The entire site? Like the entire parcel?

It is my understanding that planning reviewed this as the plot of land in which this project is taking place.

We looked at the site as the purple outlined area. And we had them identify the trees over 12 inches in that area. So looking at these plans, it looks to me like there are about four trees being removed and four trees that are being preserved on this plan and in this magenta space. A little bit outside of the space, but area that will be impacted. So we didn't have them. survey or review the entire property or much more outside of this magenta area. So we found that this plan meets the standards.

I guess in the code, it's the whole parcel that would be counted towards the total tree count. Obviously, you wouldn't have someone survey every three hours.

Yeah, I mean, for large sites, this is not uncommon for us to determine a smaller area. We've done that on pretty much any project on Halison Hill and other properties that are hundreds of acres, Mount Werner water sites, sometimes some other city properties. So when there is a really large site and there's only development occurring in a small portion, we typically establish a boundary and apply the standards to that boundary. So it is probably a little bit different than the black and white of the code, but we also have standards or statements in our code that indicate that we can only apply reasonable impacts. So it would probably be unreasonable to apply tree preservation to the entire property or have them survey all those trees.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. That would be a lot of counting trees. Thank you.

Just to be clear, I'm counting eight trees that say they're being removed, not three or four.

It looked like about equal in our review of it. So it looked like it was about four. And I think they've said five and three. It seems to be about 50%.

I'm sorry, five and three. What are you saying?

Looking at the plans, it looks like they are saving what I see as four trees and removing about four trees.

So I'm looking at page two of six. One of those tree labels. I counted eight, eight notations that say removing trees of 12 inches or longer. There's four along the, what I would call the Southwest corner. There's, it says remove one. And then to the West of that, it says three, remove three, 12 inches and one 18 inch. And then there's a, I don't even know. Above that, it says remove one 12-inch. And then above that, it says remove two 12-inch aspens. To me, that adds up to eight, not five or three. So kind of what AJ was asking, where are the eight trees that are being preserved?

Again, it looks like there is some trees within that magenta boundary or adjacent to it that are preserved. slated, they're not labeled as being preserved. So the ones that are being removed are labeled. So the unlabeled trees are the ones being preserved.

And who's responsible for counting the number of 12 inch and larger trees? Sure that they aren't taking more than half.

The applicant did survey the site and provided this information and then we reviewed it and found that it met the standards.

And I'll ask the applicant again to confirm that there's more than eight trees being preserved since there's eight being removed.

I can confidently say that there's many more than eight trees being preserved. If you look in some of the larger green swaths, we kind of only worked around the areas where we knew we were going to be close to. There's many more areas in denser vegetation that have trees that are being preserved there.

OK, thank you.

We're happy to do additional tree surveying if that is a condition of approval.

Other questions? Other questions? Seeing none, anybody here for, is there anybody here? Anybody online for public comment? No. I don't know, Walter, if you're here for this agenda item. Otherwise, I don't see any other public. I will close public comment. Come back to the applicant for any additional comments. No? Staff?

No comments.

All right. Close the public portion of the hearing. Come back to commissioners for deliberation and a motion.

I think the tree commentary is extremely important. I did hear the applicant say they would be happy to do an additional survey. Let me ask staff, if I can, would that benefit you to have that information?

We felt confident in the information they provided. So we didn't feel that we needed any additional analysis or a condition of approval. So we're comfortable with the plan set as is. You're welcome. It's a conditional use request. It is a conditional use request for outdoor amusement. That is a more impactful thing on an open site. If you can tie it to criteria or impacts, then it seems like it could be potentially reasonable for a condition.

Thank you.

Any other ideas? My question to you, David, would be, is somebody different doing the tree survey than did it the first time?

I guess I'll go. I'm supportive of this project. I'm glad Winter Sports Club found a spot for their water ramps, and I think it'll be a nice addition to the bottom of the mountain there. I'm glad that they're not going to let parents drive up there, and it sounds like they've got the shuttle logistics ready. Lined up as a parent with several kids who are or have been in Winter Sports Club, that would be a complete nightmare for you guys if you were letting people drive up there. And there's a lot of trees on this mountain. I just kind of wanted to point that out because I counted eight trees as well and four to stay. Obviously, there's a lot more trees than that up there. So I'm supportive of this application.

Yeah, I'm also supportive. I have no problem with the variances. That's all that's up there is gravel roads. So I'll motion to approve PL 20260065 with six conditions.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion?

I was tempted to say, Hey, let's have them do another tree survey. I think your comment is it's who's going to do it the same person who did the first one. So the outcome is going to be the same. I think what you were saying, I think that's what he said.

I think they can find a couple more trees and just find them.

Okay.

Nothing else.

Anything else? And I'll call the question or vote. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously. Thank you, and good luck. I'll let our chair have the pleasure of the next important agenda item.

All right. Get ready for our next agenda item, which is, excuse me. Agenda item number three is PL 2025-0260, Riverview PUD Subzone D Amendment. Toby, but you don't have to come. We're just going to postpone this indefinitely.

Toby Stauffer, sorry, I forgot that that one was on there. That's okay. Yeah, the applicant would like to postpone this indefinitely. They're thinking through some options.

Great. All right, thank you. We don't need any discussion. Anybody want to make a motion to postpone indefinitely?

Just one question. Why are we postponing this again? Is there a reason?

The applicant would like to consider the changes. They're not quite sure that they want to. move forward with the project they've proposed. So they might change their project, change their plan. So that's all I know.

OK. No problem. Can we postpone indefinitely, or does it have to be a date certain? Indefinitely.

If you postpone indefinitely, we'll just have to do additional notice.

Anybody want to make that motion? Motion to postpone. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. I guess for this all in favor. Aye. And we'll go on to agenda item number four. Excuse me. This is PL 20260060 1377 Manitou Avenue lot consolidation. Is there an applicant? I don't know. Maybe there's not an applicant tonight.

There may not be if you don't see someone from Cruise Builders online. I do not.

So I guess we'll go to Steph.

Sure. Yep. This is, as you know, a preliminary plat and major variance. The reason we are, it's a very small consolidation of existing historic lots, but because of the major variances that we're going to address here briefly, kicks it into preliminary plat. which comes to you for recommendation and will go to city council for final decision. If you guys are familiar over on Manitou, we have historically platted old town lots that front Manitou. Behind them, there was an alleyway platted on paper. There were lots behind that and then an additional road that was platted and then we get to Emerald Mountain. The lots that we're looking at today are situated sort of on that back row behind the alleyway that was platted and has since been vacated. And as well as the additional road that was to the south of that between the lots and Emerald Mountain has also been vacated and by our sort of rules of vacation absorbed then into these pieces of platted property. So looking briefly at the preliminary PLAC criteria for approval, we found conformance with the CDC outside of the four variances that we'll address here. The lot is... had a building on it, it is developable. We found it will continue to be developable once consolidated, conforms to all applicable regulations, compatible with the development pattern. It's obviously consistent with the single-family homes that are in the area. This plat will ultimately result in a single-family home or duplex lot, which is consistent, and the site itself is suitable for development. Each of the four variances come out sort of of the existing conditions of the site and the reason that we're discussing them today. The first of them, variance request being we have a maximum lot size of 12,500 square feet. A couple or a little bit of a context to this and how we're sort of arriving at this situation, I was independent of the criteria. When the standard was created, if you're familiar with our old town lots, they're about 25 feet wide and have dimensionality that when you put four of them together, you arrive at 12,500 square feet. In this case, though, because... We are consolidating four historic Old Town lots, but we've absorbed part of the alleyway and we've absorbed the vacated right of way to the south. We're now in excess of that. It doesn't necessarily mean that that's a shoo-in for approval, but gives you a little context of how we've arrived at this predicament. We assessed whether or not there were any adverse impacts to creating this larger lot than would otherwise be allowed. We looked around, we saw that it could potentially increase the FAR on it, could result in a slightly larger building, but if you do look around on those rear lots, Because of the way access is situated, most of those rear Manitou lots that abut to Emerald Mountain are larger in size, so we do believe that it would remain consistent, even if allowed to be slightly larger. The community plan, when we looked at the future land use map, identifies this as compact residential. That does cover... somewhat larger homes, but it would still fit within that definition as provided for our compact residential district in the future land use map. And in this case, we found that this is an acceptable alternative, again, mostly keeping in principle with this consolidation of four historic lots. The second variance before you then is similar and feels technical in nature. We have a 100-foot lot with maximum in the residential old town zone district. This is 100.46 feet. How that happened by some sort of surveying error is anyone's best guess. But in this case, reviewing the criteria for approval, looking at potential adverse impacts, consistency with the community plan, and this acceptable alternative, we found that this 0.46 feet in excess of the lot width maximum was fairly de minimis in consideration. Looking at variance request number three, all lots shall abut a public street or private street. In this case, obviously, I mentioned that the alleyway was vacated at the approval of the city. The rear right-of-way was vacated at the approval of the city. So in this case, we identified the most critical criteria here is the unnecessary hardship that They do not have access to right-of-way. These lots, as you recall or what I said, they are already platted, historic sort of old-town lots. You know, when we broke everything up. So these are platted lots already. Again, we're looking at this sort of preliminary plot scenario, not because we have unplotted land, but because we have so many variances that are going to apply to this particular consolidation. We don't find it reasonable that there's any way they could make connection up to a right-of-way without land acquisition. Certainly we... We would have different considerations if this were sort of raw and unplatted and they were dividing things, but we're left with these four lots as they are today. We don't think it will have any adverse impacts. It's been functioning as access. They have a shared access with the neighbor to the west of them across their property and across a sort of jointly owned piece of property that does abut the right-of-way. So they have platted access to it. We think that in this case serves the purpose intent of the CDC. Variance request number four and the final one. In order to access the site, as I mentioned, and as you can see in the plans, does exceed 100 feet in length. And the standard is, shall not serve more than two lots and shall not exceed 100 feet in length. That whole standard's unique to consider because, again, if we reflect back to the lot size standards, if we were to require them to perhaps subdivide, we're... sort of just reshuffling how we view the variances in compliance, because they would start to fall out of compliance with this standard, and that access would start to serve three lots, which wouldn't work in this case. So in this case, by leaving it as one lot, four lot size, that access will just service the two lots, It does exceed the 100 feet in length, however. In this case, it's 163.15 feet. We don't believe that it would impact conforming uses in the area. Again, it's dedicated. Fire has looked at it. They find it satisfactory at that length. Engineering has likewise looked at it. We think... Forming this lot in the way that's been proposed is compatible with the community plan, and similarly to the previous standard of abutting a right-of-way, this would be an unnecessary hardship that they've found themselves in because, in fact, this lot is not within 100 feet of an existing right-of-way because the city vacated the rear and the alleyway. With all those considerations, staff recommend that planning commission recommend approval of PL20260060, the preliminary plat with four major variances, and it has no conditions.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Any questions for Jeremy?

Can I go first?

I can wait.

All right. Jeremy, I guess I got a question for you because there's no applicant here. It might be for you anyways. Sure. Isn't the intent of the residential old town zone and the compact residential kind of future land use plan to promote additional density and infill redevelopment?

Yes, that is correct. The way that we could probably look at this, you wouldn't be able to subdivide it down more than two lots, and the residential old town zone district allows duplexes at the lot size of 12,500, or you split it in half, and basically for, off the top of my head, I think it's maybe 6,000, you can do single family homes. So the density doesn't actually change in the breakdown of the lot. I guess if that's not clear and I'm sort of talking in circles, they will be allowed to build a duplex on this lot. And the maximum density we could achieve, even if we made them subdivide, we wouldn't let them subdivide fewer than two lots and we would still end up with two residential dwelling units.

You'd end up with two 8,000 square foot lots that you could put a single family and an ADU on though, yes? That, go ahead, Rebecca.

Yeah, that's true. And I, can I jump in? Please. So I think, Commissioner Summers, the question that you're asking, we struggled with internally as well, like kind of the trade-off between density and the intention of the future land use district. and the Old Town Zoning, I think given sort of the context of this particular block, as well as the access situation, we felt it was most appropriate to allow for the consolidation. There is not a very, there's not, we have an access that already doesn't meet the standards and we felt adding potentially two additional units to that beyond what could be achieved maximum on this consolidated lot would not be the preferred outcome.

Thank you.

Other questions?

I don't understand why you're making it sound like subdivision is an alternative to this consolidation. Aren't that there are I don't understand. Is there some necessity that they would have to subdivide? I don't understand that as an alternative.

I thought maybe that was what A.J. was implying.

I think he meant like if there's one lot, you could split it in two, kind of like where I was going, which would be a subdivision instead of a... Or consolidate into two rather than into one.

I think, yeah.

So I think what's... considered lot one that does have an access easement of some sort already. So they don't need this lot on the public street to actually gain access. Access to these lots already exists. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay, so then I'd be following up with what AJ was saying. I mean, the compact residential district is pretty clear. It says most development is intended to occur on small, less than 8,000 square foot and lower to medium 12 to 18 for a duplex. So I don't understand why we think it's okay to go to this maximum size, at least not without a restriction that any redevelopment can only be a duplex. Why would we want a single-family home on an 18,000-square-foot single lot? I'm not sure.

Jerry, do you have a vicinity map that would be helpful? Yeah. Are you in the meeting?

No, I'll be there in a second. I apologize.

I can share.

Okay. I'll race you there.

so we're talking about this slot right here um

which what you're seeing on this map is the outline of the parcel layer, which incorporates all four of the lots and all of that vacated right-of-way. It's all under common ownership right now. So for all intents and purposes, it is one existing developed parcel. It is comprised of those four individual originally planted lots. So you can see the access to it comes from the northwest across this parcel here. This is a shared access easement that accesses both this lot as well as the subject parcel. And so, as I already indicated, we did have quite a bit of discussion about whether it was appropriate to allow these four lots to consolidate into one or whether they should consolidate into two smaller lots. Again, kind of looking at the surrounding context and also that existing access situation, this access easement exceeds the length. It's already providing access to two lots. The neighboring lot has the ability to add an additional unit to it. And we felt that that access easement it would not be the ideal solution for that to be serving a potential of six total units. And then just kind of given the context of the rest of those sort of back lots and how they're all larger with kind of these access easements or flag lots coming off of Manitou to the north, we felt that that was pretty consistent with the existing context of that block.

So we are talking about consolidating what appears to be lots 20, 21, 22, and 23? Yes. So the four lots we're consolidating.

That's accurate. Got it.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you for the visual. I've got like four different maps over here trying to make sense of what's happening. Am I also remembering from the report that the current structure is on a lot line, which further complicates any other solution? It would be crossing a lot line, yeah.

Okay. Any other questions?

I don't know if this is one you guys can answer. This would probably be more, well, maybe it could. The current access makes that lot to the northwest somewhat undevelopable. If this was to come before us with a development plan, would you make them relocate that existing gravel drive so it's actually inside of their access easement?

That lot to the northwest is owned in common by the two, the subject parcel and the parcel to the west of it. So they own it in common for purposes of access. And it is encumbered pretty significantly by the access easement itself.

30 feet of the 75, if I'm correct. Is there a way, I don't think the, I'm going to call that dairy, is that old dairy road? Is that what that's called? Yeah. The elevation drop, I think from their access to like, just say, try and go straight across. They'd have to first easement across another property that is private, but even if they could, that's, that's a bigger issue than the connection they already have. Correct.

Yeah. We could turn on the contours. I don't know how possible it would not meet engineering standards.

I agree. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We don't have public, so we'll skip public comment. Well, maybe we have public comment. Do we have public comment on this? No. Okay.

That could be public comment.

Nope, they're gone. Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Jeremy?

No, that's all.

Any other final questions? Close our public portion. Come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

I think this is pretty straightforward once I figure it out. Well, it's straightforward now anyway. I don't see any problem. I think it's probably the best solution that we have. That pretty much exists. as a usable space with those four lots already. And all the variances, as mentioned by staff, already exist and already seem to be a safe and reasonable option. So I'll be supporting the motion.

As I can say, I really get a kick out of these lot sizes whenever I look at them.

I'm not sure what they were going to build on there. Or rather, what I get a kick out of is looking at the original plats that seem to have absolutely no idea that there's actually topography in there, right?

I think that subdivision was a barroom survey, to be honest. I think it may have been, yeah.

Any other discussion or emotion?

I think. I mean, four lots that equal one parcel basically today, making it one lot. That's in essence what we're doing, correct? And the only thing that sticks out, and I think it's what the conversation was about, is variance request one, which is 30 percent over the standard. But looking at what staff showed, you'd be leaving one sliver of a lot by itself undevelopable if we said, no, you can only do three of the four. I'll be supportive.

Well, you can do two and two. Say it again. You can do two and two. You could, but there's a structure sitting on top of it. Oh, they're going to bulldoze that. Say it again. They're going to bulldoze that. Oh, I know.

Any other discussion? I'm going to motion to approve PL 2026-0060, and it's zero conditions.

Okay. We have a motion. And a second.

Any other final discussion? Yeah, the only thing that bothers me is being over the lot size in the RO district. And I think there's been other circumstances when we've said no to it. But this is a very weird property configuration where this is essentially a landlocked piece of land. So in this particular instance, I think it's okay, assuming they're going to build a duplex there.

I'll agree with you and build on that, that while we have found instances where that wasn't the case, I think we found more instances recently where that was the case in a couple of places in Old Town. Do we call Old Brooklyn Old Town? I guess we could still call that Old Town. But that one's one of the examples. And there's one over kind of near Forth where a landlocked kind of afterthought of the. uh the original plat just creates non-usable area that became owned by them and that's circumstantial not the fault of the current owner and we shouldn't penalize them for that it's kind of the way i look at that yeah if they were fronting a public street i think this would be a no on that variance for me but since they're not yeah yeah other discussion then i will call for a vote Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

And that passes unanimously as well. Thank you, Jeremy, for your help. Do we have a director's report?

Not this evening.

OK. We have three public hearing minutes. The first one is from March 26. Do we have any changes, or would somebody make a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Terrific. Our next one is for public hearing on April 9. Same thing, any changes, corrections, or motion to approve? Move to approve. Second. Motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Great. And then lastly, for public hearing minutes on April 23, same question.

Move to approve April 23rd.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

And that does it for us for this evening.