Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I mean, that's forest camp for you. All right, we'll go ahead and get started. This is our Planning Commission public hearing for Thursday, June 25th. Can I start with roll call, please?

AJ Summers.

Jonathan Hayek. Ryan Adams.

Lutador. Kalei Cruz.

Rich, are you? You are screen on. Thank you, sir. Rich Levy. Thank you. I think that's it for us, right? Is there, before we begin agenda items tonight, is there anybody who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Okay, seeing none, is there anybody online? If you have public comments online, you can raise your hand and then we can call on you. Okay, seeing none there as well, then we'll go to our agenda items. Our first one tonight is PL 2026- 0395 Western Resilience Center.

And I need to recuse myself from this item. My firm's on the design team.

Perfect. Also, this item went to HPC before it came to us. So I'll give the same disclaimer from our last project that had that, that my wife is on that one and has seen this project and we have not talked about it or had any other discussions communications, but if anybody has a concern, let me know. Then we will jump into does the applicant have a presentation?

I'm going to kick this off. Good evening, chair and commissioners and city staff. Thank you so much for your time this evening and this opportunity to discuss 602 Oak with you. We're very excited. My name is Michelle Stewart. I'm the executive director of Western Resilience Center, and it is such a pleasure to be here with you. Our mission at Western Resilience Center is to serve as a leader, resource, and catalyst for building a sustainable and resilient Yampa Valley region. Each day, our team of 15 full-time dedicated staff work alongside government, businesses, schools, organizations, and residents to advance practical solutions and collaborative initiatives that put our region on track to lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience to the impacts of changing climate, which we experience as increasing temperatures. by action this means that we work collaboratively to advance clean energy and building electrification connected transportation systems and behaviors that reduce vehicle miles traveled water conservation and watershed health and regional circularity As Northwest Colorado faces increasing challenges from drought and wildfire to changing energy and economic conditions, our region really needs places that bring people together to learn, collaborate, problem solve, and take action at the local level so that our natural environments and our communities can remain healthy and thrive as we undergo ongoing conditional changes. This is exactly what 602 Oak is designed to become, and we're really excited to have it be considered this evening. In addition to serving the city and our region as a go-to hub for climate solutions and a place to convene our community and strengthen our partnerships with over 90 entities per year, our goal is for the building itself to be a living demonstration of our mission. Our proposed project showcases both historic preservation and lead by example new construction, and between the existing 1907 building and the 2027 prospective completion date, our building represents an opportunity to bridge 120 years of building science, and that's a pretty exciting opportunity. The building at 602 Oak has been serving our community since 1907, first serving as a residence for the Bogue family, which went on to found the Yampa Valley College, now CMC, and then moved into the late 1960s as the beloved Brown Bookstore. Rather than replace that history, we have chosen to preserve it and invest in its future, and importantly, design the addition around the historic structure to achieve our program needs while retaining the cultural and historic identity of downtown Steamboat Springs. Our proposal carefully preserves this historic resource while placing a thoughtfully designed addition at the rear of the lot. The result is a building that honors Steamboat's past while serving its future. The addition, which is thoughtfully designed, is consistent with historic preservation best practices. And I want to sincerely thank city staff as well as the Historic Preservation Commission for working with us so closely to make this possible. And it also presents an opportunity for leading by example for low to no carbon construction. In Route County, about 75% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from how we heat and cool our buildings as well as our transportation systems. And we have really centralized this in the core of our design as we move forward with the building. So we are showcasing clean energy solutions such as geothermal heating and cooling and rooftop solar, as well as foregrounding transportation solutions and programming that reduces vehicle mile trips in our staff through our Responsible Riders program. Other geographically appropriate elements of our design include water wise landscaping, wildfire resilient design, densification and walkability, ADA accessibility and below grade usable space as well. Our goal is for Western Resilience Center to be a place where residents, students, businesses, builders, and local government can see these approaches in action, learn from them, and ideally replicate them. We are honored to have the respected historic preservation leader, Ariante Stettner, having expressed her support for the project. You should have a letter of support from her, as well as the Colorado Geological Survey, which recognizes this building as an example of the state's Heat Beneath Our Feet campaign with the geothermal energy design. We see our 602 Oak building project as an investment in preserving an important piece of Steamboat's history while creating a community resource that will educate, inspire, and strengthen our region for decades to come. Thank you so much for your consideration of our project, and I, on behalf of Western Resilience Center Board, staff, and interns, respectfully ask for your support and approval of our project. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Michelle. My name is Chansey Keenan. I'm with Mountain Architecture Design Group, the architect for the project, and I'm excited to talk to you about Western Resilience Center. Here, I can share my screen. Thank you. All right. So as we said, we met with Historic Preservation Commission last week and received unanimous approval from them. We had had two consult meetings with them prior to that. So this has been a work in progress for a while, and we're super excited to be here with you all tonight. I'll talk about the brief history of the building, the vision for the future, and how we intend to sew these chapters together. So quick history, although Michelle did a good job of covering it as well. The original structure was built in 1907 as a simple single-family residence. Shortly thereafter, in 1919, there is record of an addition done to the rear, a two-story cross-gable addition to that structure. It did remain a single-family residence up until 1969 when it became the Brown Bookstore. There's some cute photos up there of the Browns in their bookstore. It's also been a thrift store and various other businesses, most recently valuation consultants and a variety of office uses. And in 2025, Western Resilience Center, formerly Yampa Valley Sustainability Council, purchased the building and we're excited to start planning the future and next chapters of the space. They chose this location for a myriad of reasons. Some notable reasons are location to our municipalities and their partners with the Yampa, excuse me, the regional building department, as well as the city. and to be an add to the nonprofit presence along Oak Street and accessibility through bicycle, walking, alternative transportation, transit lines, et cetera. So this is an important location for them. In doing the planning vision process, we're looking at how the use of this structure will work for the organization. And the vision is to have this function as a public education hub, a resource center, a partner co-lab space, and general headquarters for the organization. And in alignment with the organization's goals, we have set a high priority from the onset of the project to preserve that historic structure. Arionthe said early on that the most sustainable project is the one that already exists, and that's just been a mantra throughout the entire project. I do have the historic home floor plans here and the highlighted areas of the different periods of construction if we're interested in that. That was of great interest to Historic Preservation Commission, but we can come back to that if you have any questions. All right, looking at the site plan, the site lends itself very well to preservation standards. The existing structure is the lighter shaded area, the beige shaded area towards the front of the lot along Oak Street and 6th Street. And the addition that we're proposing is the darker shaded area toward the rear of the lot. The Secretary of Interior Standard Number 9 addresses additions to historic buildings, and some of those primary elements include locating the addition at the rear of the existing structure to minimize the impact on the historic resource, maintaining the existing primary facade of that resource, which we have accomplished from both 6th Street and Oak Street, and including a narrow hyphen between the historic structure and the proposed structure, which you can see we do have that setback narrow hyphen between the two buildings. and that is to create a visual separation between the two construction periods so that we're not creating a false sense of construction or diminishing the appearance of the historic structure. This proposed design does comply with all setbacks, height restrictions, lot coverage, We've accommodated refuse for trash and recycling. Serendipitously, the historic structure is set back to comply with clear vision setbacks. That was convenient. And we were able to locate the parking at the rear of the property off of the alley. I think most of us are pretty familiar with this site, but I will note that there is currently an existing curb cut on 6th Street that leads to a parking lot where the addition is proposed. We are removing that curb cut and adding a sidewalk along 6th Street, so we do get a credit for that parking space being provided along the public right-of-way. We do have four parking spaces planned from the alley. With a 50-foot lot, we could technically fit five standard parking spaces, which is the requirement for this proposed project. However, we do have a van accessible ADA space, which is significantly wider than a standard space, and that precludes us from having five standard parking spaces, which would be the requirement, and that is kicking us into the request for the variance for one parking space back there. I do want to, as Michelle also noted, Western Resilience Center does employ a responsible rider program with significant incentives to employees to reduce their vehicle miles traveled by 20%, offers free regional bus passes, provides e-bikes and standard bicycles for staff, maintains an employer sponsored EV, for work trips and tracks participation using digital commute tracking tools. We feel that the reduction in parking also aligns with the community canvas goals to reduce parking in the downtown area and therefore feel that this is a supportable request. All right, so now about the building itself. As I stated previously, Western Resilience Center's programmatic goals include a public education hub, resource center, partner collaboration space, and office headquarters. The downtown location is critical to their mission to be close to those partners, host events, and the walkability, et cetera, that we talked about before. As a historic resource, the intended use of the existing structure is a residence. The adaptive reuse is obviously an office space and there are some inefficiencies of residential spaces when we look at use as an office or a public education space. So in the early stages of design, we're looking at how we can program that historic space as well as have it seamlessly tie into the proposed spaces. along with the requirements of the Secretary of Interior Standards for that narrow link. We went through many, many iterations to get to this point and are pretty excited about the resulting design. I hate to say it, but we did look at removing the historic resource. just to vet all of our options in removing or demolishing the historic resource and completely redeveloping the lot, we could meet the organization's needs without the request for a floor area ratio variance. However, that is not in the spirit of the project. So we work together as a team and alongside Caitlin and Historic Preservation Commission to come up with this resulting design and are requesting a 14% increase in floor area ratio. This graphic demonstrates a section cut through the building. I think the center graphic is kind of the best here, where you can see that we have fully programmable space below the proposed addition. However, we are not able to extend that programmable space under the historic resource. Therefore, the resulting design to move that programmable space to the above grade areas of the building. All right, so speaking of floor area ratio, the intent of that is to reduce the perceived massing from the public way. The top right image shows the front of the project, the building from Oak Street, and as you can see, you hardly experience the addition from its primary facade. As you move around the side to 6th Street, that is the lower graphic here, we are preserving the entirety of the historic structure. I guess with one caveat, we are removing a non-contributing stairwell that was built in 1980, but the rest of the structure is remaining intact. And you can see the narrow link that is set back from the 6th Street facade to separate the visual structure. experience between the historic structure and the proposed structure. We've also incorporated residential forms in the project to kind of complement the historic structure forms. The primary roof structure is also set one foot six inches below the highest point of the historic structure with one small portion of the gable extending above that. So we feel that we have met the intent of reducing the mass of the building to meet the floor area ratio intent. I do have several graphics and perspectives of the project. I'm happy to pause here or refer back to them during any questions you have. But ultimately, we're excited to have this important organization continue to contribute to our community's fabric and provide resources and programming at this location. We're excited to model historic preservation as well as an approachable, sustainable building techniques for the public. And open this to any questions. Thank you for your support.

Thanks for your presentation. Kaitlin, do you have a staff presentation for us as well?

Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair Adams. I will try to save you from repeating some of the historic information that was repeated by the owner and applicant, but I may repeat a few points. So again, this is a development plan with two major variances, planning application number PL20250395 for the Western Resilience Center located at 602 Oak Street. This application and project was reviewed by myself and then also our development view planner, Jeremy Brown. He is out of town or he would be here today to present with us. Again, it was constructed in 1907. It was utilized as a residence. until 1969 when it became Brown's Book Center through Francis Brown. There was a large cross-gabled addition in 1919 which supports continuing to modify and change this site as time evolves and use evolves. There was also a rear staircase added in the mid to late 80s. It was enclosed. That is being proposed as removed, and that is not a contributing or character-defining feature to the site. This particular structure was inventoried and determined to be an eligible resource in 2002. And since its initial inventory, it has had minimal changes to the exterior. It is significant, both architecturally speaking for its architectural style and its iconic, I guess you could say, look and feel of an early 20th century residence right here in residential Old Town, Steamboat Springs. It is also historically significant as it truly does embody the change from residential Oak Street to commercial Oak Street. As Chancey mentioned, the applicant and owner came forward to HPC with two separate concept reviews. So we were able to tailor some of the physical changes specific to massing scale, height, and in addition materials. I also worked with them individually in between both of those concept reviews for final details. As a reminder, CDC Section 111A1 does state that the HPC shall advise City Council on implementation of historic preservation aspects of the community plan, and so Planning Commission is encouraged to take into account HPC's unanimous recommendation for approval. Specifically, some of the modifications that were made were the connector link that was significantly reduced in height and also pushed back from the front facing Sixth Street. The roof height was reduced from the addition. There was also removal of, I believe, two structural beams that were on the exterior that did significantly impact the overall character and massing of the historic structure. And then there was a change in material for the recess balcony and patio. Two variances are required to ensure that this rehabilitation can take place. One is for parking and one is for floor area ratio. specifically parking would require 5.5 parking spaces there is a 0.5 parking space reduction due to the allowance of a curb cut reduction which brings down the total standard for the commercial oak one zone district to five parking spaces the applicant and owner proposing four parking spaces uh far Floor area ratio for the zone district is set at a maximum of 50%. They are proposing a 14% increase, bringing the required FAR to 64%. Staff is recommending approval for a variety of reasons. First, the development plan criteria for approval. Staff has determined that this rehabilitation project is consistent with the character of the vicinity, particularly it compliments the transition from commercial Old Town in terms of size, scale, mass and use to that of residential Old Town with duplexes and single family homes. This project does minimize adverse impacts. There are no known impacts to the natural environment and such. This project provides and meets vehicular access, parking, loading, refuge management, among others. And it is compatible with applicable sections of the CDC and does further those sections and policies. Specifically, it meets CDC Section 111 , which requires all eligible resources to follow the Secretary of the Interior standards and our local historic design guidelines. Specific to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, those are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Subsection 68, 3B, 1, 3, 5, 9, and 10, amongst others, Standard 4 and 2 also apply. I just wanted to put a note on that. For the criteria for approval for off street parking, it meets criteria one and two. So it does not adversely impact other legal nonconforming uses of the surrounding areas. And it is compatible with the community plan and other plans. Specifically, the community canvas does reference strategies to increase walkability and bicycling along Oak Street. So it does call out Oak Street specifically. It also furthers our historic preservation and architectural standards and key initiatives within the community canvas. in terms of acceptable alternative for the off-street parking variance uh it is acceptable to provide four versus five spaces there is limited space due to the fact that they are retaining the eligible resource in its original location which also uh communicates the need for an FAR variance. So the more that you build out on the site, the less room there is for parking. I will know that they are meeting the requirements for ADA parking. The width of those parking spaces is much greater than a standard parking space, which also limits the availability to add that additional space. In addition, they are providing onsite bike parking, and the owner is leading a very exciting program called Responsible Riders Program, which encourages everyone in the community to utilize alternate transportation. For FAR, I'm not going to repeat criteria one and two because they meet quite similarly. However, when it does come to criteria three, staff does acknowledge the applicant's response that an analysis that FAR may result in being equal or better to an existing standard. However, staff does feel that sub criteria two is more applicable in this case where the application of other code standards and purposes and intents are furthered and bettered. And those code standards and intents are directly related to our historic preservation code, the secretary of the interior standards and the rehabilitation of this eligible resource. Happy to answer questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions from commissioners?

Not all at once.

Richard, if you have any as well, you can... Oh, you're unmuted, I believe, right? Yeah.

I have some... Can you, above the project description, it talks about that they'll be required to register as historic, be designated on the Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places as a historic resource prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Can you discuss what the background of that and what the implications of that are?

Absolutely. Thank you. I should have touched on that condition. And then there's another one specific to historic preservation. Because we are utilizing... particularly when it comes to that alternative compliance. We're pulling from our historic preservation code, our historic preservation standards. We felt that it was necessary to require them to locally designate the structure on our local Steamboat Springs Historic Register of Places. So this is a regulatory program. um and it will ensure that the structure will not be demolished moving forward even if ownership changes and because we are basing some of our criteria for approval off of our historic standards and guidelines we felt that that was necessary There's a second condition that also requires staff to continue to review the building permit and any potential, we all know once you get into a construction project, there might be minor changes here or there. And so staff will be required to continue to review the building permit and approve that prior to issuance of a building permit. The reason being for that other condition tied to historic preservation is once a development plan is approved, it exempts Historic Preservation Commission review. So it just ensures that this project will continue to meet historic standards and guidelines moving forward.

Thank you.

Yes.

Rich, you were about to ask a question. I'll come to you. I'm sorry. Was that for me? Yes.

I guess kind of following up on Jonathan's question, is the eligible designation of the Steamboat Springs register, is that something that's automatic?

No, our program is owner initiated. Commissioner Levy. And so it really does require the consent of the owner to place the structure on our local register. And with any condition, it is always wise to receive consent of the owner. And they have consented to place the structure on the local historic register. And I believe we have that tentatively scheduled for November.

So other than a CO... What requirement, I mean, obviously that would be a huge stumbling block, but what would happen if that doesn't happen, if CO is after the structure has been built?

Staff would not sign off on a CO and they would not be able to operate within that structure. So it's pretty decent leverage.

Got it. Thank you. The other question I had was on the incentives for reduced parking. I'm assuming it would be true that the incentives themselves could easily go away with new ownership and things like that. So that's not being considered by staff as a reason to approve reduced parking.

Are you speaking towards the 0.5 parking reduction for curb cut?

Yes. No, five spaces instead of four. I mean, four spaces instead of the required five.

So that approval would be part of this development plan, and if there was a different or new owner and they wanted to change that, they would have to come back to Planning Commission to change that?

I mean, well, I guess what I'm asking is their ridership... I forget what you call it, their ride sharing program and incentives for biking or using the bus. If there was a new occupant of that building, would staff actually be paying attention to that program?

I think the main acceptable alternative here is that there's limited space for allowance because they're retaining the eligible resource, placing it on the local register. And then there's ample onsite bike parking, which does kind of... I don't know, it complements that reduction of one space. And I think we're just lucky in this case that the owners of the structure do lead the Responsible Riders Program. So that is just an additional benefit to call out. And programs like this that are supported with our partners, the city has worked on, I believe, that partnership with Western Resilience Center. We hope that we can... calculate and accommodate for increased multimodal transportation for any project, not just this project.

Thank you. That's all I have.

I just have one question. I understand that the code allows for a 0.5 credit for parking, but how how much parking resulted from that curb cut being restored? Is it actually one additional parking spot?

Yes, that's correct.

Any other questions?

I don't have any either. We'll go to public comment. Is there anybody here who would like to give us public comment on this agenda item? All right, seeing none. Is there any online? You can raise your hand.

I don't miss anybody.

Okay, great then. First, we'd come back to the applicant if you have anything else you wanted to offer. No? All right. Or Caitlin?

No, thank you.

We think of any other questions? All right, we'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and emotion.

I think this is actually pretty straightforward. There's the issue of the parking space, but you've got the Responsible Riders Program, getting credit for that, getting credit for the curb. And the far... You know, leaving the building, the way it is, I guess, is the most desirable thing so with that I motion to approve pl 2025 0395 with 11 conditions.

We have a motion to have a second.

i'll second.

Any discussion on the motion. I'll jump in. I had no questions because for me it was very straightforward as well. Definitely want to stress out about variances when we see them and tried to stress out about it while I was reviewing our packet. My concern at first was that, especially with the fluoride ratio, that the justification of keeping an eligible resource, that that kind of followed into added floor area to be given to the project seemed very open-ended. And that kind of stressed me out in kind of a, I should stop using that term, stressed me out. I'm really not very stressed out about this. But it kind of led to kind of wondering, you know, is that really, you know, how is that to be applied? Is that just, you know, a blank check? You know, you preserve historic resource, you can do literally whatever you want. No, probably not. And so what does that actually mean and how did that turn into their 14% request? But I think ultimately at the end of the day, I think that that was a very obviously appropriate request for this project specifically. And so that's how I was able to... agree with both staff and applicants justifications on that one. And you already spoke to parking. I don't really have anything to add there as well. So I think it's easy to support the project.

I'll just add that I think that they did a really great job of reducing the mass. Could have been, it could have not mitigated that problem. an increase in floor area ratio. And so I think that they did a great job of mitigating the potential issue that could come from that. And as far as parking goes, I think that functionally they're providing five new parking spaces. And that also kind of, I know that they're not all on the lot, but functionally that's what's happening. And that is an acceptable alternative to me as well.

I'm in full support.

Rich or no? No additional comments. From either of you. All right. That's great. Then I'll call for a vote. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

All right. All right. That passes unanimously. Thanks for your time. All right. Welcome back, AJ. We'll jump into our second agenda item then. Agenda item number two this evening is PL 2026-0102, the zoning map amendment. What's the rest of the title? For 600 Harms Court. I see applicant here for a presentation.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Adam Wright with Craft Architecture Studio. I'll apologize up front because this presentation will be nearly as entertaining or interesting as the last one. Toby, I was going to ask, are you able to pull up the packet so that we can? I want to pull up the site plan or land use exhibit as a reference point. So yes, I'm going to present a summary on this zoning map amendment application for 600 Harms Court. The current zoning is MH for a manufactured home, and we are proposing a change to RN2. Can you go to the drawing, so to speak, plan, the larger format? aerial view, which is, I think I'm calling it the site. I think that's it, yeah. Thank you. So in this exhibit, shows you the context well, with the lot in red, outlined in red. Maple Street is across the bottom there, and of course the high school is immediately south of that. The light blue with dark blue line, that is the MH zoning. The balance of it minus the subject property, that also coincides with the Hilltop Homes PUD and HOA. The subject parcel is not a part of either the PUD or the HOA. lot size for the subject parcel is around 25 000 square feet as you can see it's it's quite large there is a no build zone on the northern portion of the of the lot so the net usable um or developable area is actually around 17 600 square feet Compare that with other lots in this MH zoning in this particular neighborhood. They range from about 2,800 square feet to about 5,800 square feet. So this proposed change will allow this lot to be put in a zone district that really aligns more with its size. It also gives an opportunity principally to do a second dwelling on this parcel. I can tell you we have not embarked on any design for what will happen on this lot, but I can say that the intent is for a single family home. And that would include the clients interested in doing an ADU. So additionally, we are very interested in, of course, keeping the scale, the type of design or the format of the design to be consistent with the neighborhood. It is worth noting that there is an easement provided for through the mobile home, or excuse me, the Hilltop Homes neighborhood that states the subject parcel could have two dwelling units on it. And then as outlined in application narrative, This change would support the community area plan in a few different ways. One, by providing a variety of housing types with that additional option for a smaller type unit. This is, of course, gives that potential for a more attainable housing type and supply. It would be an infill development. The existing home and garage are nearing end of life, so they're going to be removed. And then there's density that, with the additional dwelling unit, is sought, which, of course, we feel is appropriate density for this neighborhood. Um, in closing, um, we think this is this amendment or this change is reasonable, um, a reasonable change to the zoning. Uh, and it does bring an alignment with, uh, zoning in the greater neighborhood. Um, aside from the MH.

Thank you very much. Toby, do we have a staff presentation as well?

Sure. Um, Toby Stauffer, senior planner. So, um, This is a zone map amendment to change 600 Harms Court from MH, manufactured home zoning, to RN2, residential neighborhood 2. The property is adjacent to the Hilltop Homes PUD. It is not part of that PUD. It crosses Maple Street from the high school. Nearby zoning, as was mentioned, is MH, RN2, RE2, RO, and open space. The amendment will change this developed property from an MH, which is a dense residential district, to RN2. That is a district that allows more different types of residential uses, a few conditional commercial uses, including a bed and breakfast and a neighborhood store. It does allow greater building height, larger buildings, a larger lot size, more dwelling units per lot, and less lot coverage than MH. The amendment is consistent with the purpose of the RN district as it allows for greater residential development that's compatible with nearby areas regarding the massing and intensity of development that could be allowed on the property with RN. Buildings in RN can be taller and larger than those allowed in MH. However, the lot coverage does reduce the scale of these buildings as it restricts that. Future development of this lot should be compatible with the surrounding area. The advantages of RN2 versus MH are that this zone district does allow additional density on the larger lot and adds the potential for one smaller unit to the area. Additional density is consistent with the area and with long-term planning goals. The neighborhood does have some buildings that are similar in character to the buildings that could be proposed on this lot. So this rezoning shouldn't cause a disadvantage to the neighborhood or the community. Regarding impacts to the natural environment, residential development of RN or MH lots does have to meet some limited standards to manage and mitigate impacts. So this change shouldn't cause any different adverse impacts to the surrounding area or the natural environment. The final criteria is that the zone map amendment needs to meet one criteria, for approval. And in this case, it meets the criteria that it furthers a community plan. So the community canvas plan, future land use district for this area is compact residential. The vision for that district is to have a mix of housing types and subtle residential density by allowing accessory dwelling units One of the long range planning considerations for the district is to add new residential units to existing neighborhoods. So this proposed amendment does further that goal and prepares the lot for additional development, which would further the community plan. So we recommend approval of this project.

Thank you, Toby. Any questions for staff or the applicant?

I have a couple questions. In the MH zone district that's adjacent, and I don't know if this is for you, Adam, or for you, Toby, but what's the more or less building size for that neighborhood? Is it 1,200 square feet, 1,800 square feet, all those homes that you drive through to get up to this lot, just ballpark?

Well, I can say that MH allows up to 2,500 square feet for the zoning, and my feeling is that, well, the homes might be approaching that, but probably run from, yeah, 1,500 to that square footage, but I don't know for sure.

I would agree with that. The Hilltop Homes PUD does limit units to, 20 feet in height which for most of the homes out there results in a single story with a mezzanine level so the square footage is pretty limited and the the lots that were created were created from the previous mobile home park so the lots and the building envelopes are fairly small with limited potential for addition out there so i think yeah adam's probably right somewhere between 15 100 to 2,500 in existing houses that are part of the PUD. But again, there are some lots in that area that are not part of the PUD and have similar zoning, RN zoning, which has no square footage, maximum or minimum.

And then I guess one follow-up, this is a pretty big lot. How big of a house could you build potentially on this lot if you were to rezone it RN2? something like 9,000 square feet. If I'm just doing the math off the top of my head.

Yeah. I think I'm just going to look up the lot coverage real quick. That would be probably the main factor in it. Um, I think the lot is about 17,000 square feet with the no-build area excluded. And then there's a 35% max lot coverage. That includes any buildings on there. So that would include any.

Does the no-build count towards that lot coverage, though? I don't think it would, would it?

It would. The lot coverage is based on the entire lot size. Right. So they would probably be able to have 35% of that entire lot. Pretty big house. Thanks.

Any other questions? Looking through the packet, I couldn't find any public comment. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Did we hear anything from neighbors? Anyone having any comments on it?

Nope, we haven't received any comment.

Other questions? Toby, just curious. How much M.H. ? coverage do we have in the city, do you think?

Not very much. There's this subdivision and an additional subdivision on the way out west. I forget the name of it right now, but it's behind the cemetery up on the right-hand side of the road. That's about it for MH zoning. We have some manufactured home parks. They don't all have MH zoning. Some of them do, but some of those parks I think are commercial zoning.

And this was previously a mobile home park. Thank you.

Any other questions? Rich, do you have any?

Yeah. Toby, is there anything that would preclude this lot from being subdivided?

In the future, no. It would just have to meet the minimum lot size standards for the zone districts, which is 8,000 square foot. So I think we would probably look at the entire lot and the no-build area. So I think the lot is about 20,000 or whatever was mentioned. So it does seem like it could be subdivided perhaps once or in half.

And all access is through Harms Court, I assume?

Yes, that is a private road with an access easement.

Thank you.

Either to Toby or to Adam, how much street frontage does the property have?

I'm not sure about that.

I guess the question is, How, you know, when we talk about subdividing, it's the square footage of the lot, but it's also the frontage, the minimum required frontage. So when we talk about density, you know, if you took mobile home lots and tried to divide it, 25,000 by 4,000 sounds like a lot of lots, but I'm assuming that the actual number of mobile home lots that you could get out of this based on frontage and based off of the no-build zone would be substantially less than 6%.

It does have, I just did a quick measure on the interactive map. It's got 94 feet of frontage roughly. The minimum is 30 feet. So there's room for two lots at least to access and have the correct amount of frontage if they put it on that property. However, I do think that the access easement that Adam mentioned might preclude some of that development. It does only indicate that one additional unit is allowed. So that's a private covenant, for lack of a better word, that would need to be worked out between the property owners before they could subdivide.

I think that's the part that I'm the most confused on. That's going through the lot, the easement?

I believe so. Adam might know a little bit more about it. I believe it runs up Harms Court to the lot.

And Harms Court is the easement. Is that what you mean? Or yeah, the easement is part of Harms Court or is Harms Court is used for the easement.

Yeah. So I think I'll just pull up this picture again. I think Harms Court Is this is the street that provides access here and that all of that road surface and area is a private easement, private access easement that is controlled primarily by the Hilltop Homes PUD and then the other people associated with that through that access easement that have access from that easement.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? None? All right. We'll go to public comment. Is there any public comment here for this agenda item? Seeing none, I believe we have a raised hand on Zoom. Hi. My name's Auburn. So that's great. Thank you.

My name's Auburn Feinberg. I'd like to make public comment.

Thank you. Yeah. If you can, yeah, your name and a rough address and, and give us your comments, try and keep them to three minutes or less.

Thanks. My name's Auburn Feinberg. I live at four 35 Dabney lane. Hello everyone. Commissioners, Mr. Wright, commissioner suffer. By the way, thanks for the long phone call a few months ago, as you did a great job of educating me and encouraging me to show up to this meeting. Could you pull up the land use image once again, I can maybe provide some clarity here as I live next door to this property. Awesome, thanks. So just a couple things to point out here. This RE2 district here is actually at the bottom of a 200-foot hill, more or less. This RO district here is also at the bottom of a hill. My house and property is this T here right next door. So I'll be speaking about what we call high school hill neighborhood here. Dabney Lane is here, ends in a cul-de-sac. And Ruby, sorry, my pointer isn't keeping up with me. Here, the cul-de-sac ends here. I'll refer to a little open space as Ruby's Way, which is a cut through between Dabney Lane and the overall neighborhood. Once again, my house is here with the T from the aerial image at 435 Dabney Lane. I do want to point out that RE2 here is actually not an adjacent neighborhood because it's entirely at the bottom of a hill, as well as RO is also not an adjacent neighborhood based on the geography of this piece of property. My wife, Erica, and I own the property at 435 located directly to the east of Harms Court. Our home sits at the end of Dabney Lane and on the Dabney Lane cul-de-sac. We share a direct and continuous property line with the applicant's parcel in the adjacent Harms Court HOA open space, known locally as Ruby's Way from a dog that used to live there. I was not able to encourage the other members of the neighborhood to attend. However, I feel that I represent the general neighborhood opinion garnered from our dog walks, neighborhood encounters and other informative conversations that came once the signage was posted that there was going to be this meeting here today. Ruby's Way is a popular cut through from Harms Court to Dabney Lane and our High School Hill neighborhood. So I'm here tonight to voice my opposition to this application and recommend the Planning Commission potentially deny the zoning change or provide alternatives that are less impactful. The applicant claims the zoning map amendment creates local continuity by expanding RN2 zone. However, a quick look at the city zoning map reveals that Harms Court is geographically and physically isolated from our High School Hill neighborhood. Although this zoning change, as Mr. Wright stated, gets the property more into alignment with lot size, however, lot size is not neighborhood character. The lot is physically cut off from Dabney Lane in the Greater High School Hill neighborhood. It sits on the opposite side of our shared property line and naturally framed by the Harms Court open space. And to the north, what I believe is actually Butcher Knife Canyon City open space. If I could pull that back up. If I could pull my pointer back up, sorry. This parcel right here.

And I'll also ask you... Sir, if you could also kind of summarize and wrap up your comments at this point.

Great. So under the current restrictions, I'm in alignment with the rest of the commissioners and asking questions about the total size of this property. I believe that if you look closely at the neighboring properties, that this actually is not bringing this large piece of property into character with the other neighbors. The size of the buildings in the existing Harms Court neighborhood are particularly smaller. The size of the buildings in our neighborhood average around 2000 square feet. So I would argue that this is not compatible with the surrounding area. It also is not a logical and orderly development pattern based on the HOA that exists in our neighborhood. So I'd encourage you to look at the character. And these changes are not in alignment with current neighborhood character, although within the zoning codes. And I'd ask that if the zoning was changed, for the record, we're adamantly opposed to any and all variants or subdivision that might come with this future project. As there's no future plans.

All right, sir, I'm going to ask you to, we're well past the three minutes that we typically, not typically, always keep fair for everyone. So I'll thank you very much for your comments. I believe he's our only public comment. I don't see any others. We don't have any in the room. So we'll close public comment then and first come back to the applicant for any final follow-up.

Only a comment just based on the public comment that was just made to say that the change in the zone obviously comes with setbacks and the lot area restriction or coverage, excuse me. So, you know, I feel like for one, the open space, which is, as noted, a common pathway through is not impacted by So that's it.

Okay.

Thank you. Anything else, Toby, from staff?

The only thing I would mention is just that when we look at a zone map amendment, we do try to look at all nearby and adjacent zoning to this property as a comparison. Character does vary based on streets and based on neighborhoods, but this property is adjacent to RN2 zoning and RO zoning just at that top corner, even though it is downhill. So just kind of looking at a flat map, but so there is some nearness and adjacency. And then also the the RO zoning is the most characteristic zoning of the compact residential future land use district. It's not exactly aligned, but that provides some context for the future land use district for this area.

Thank you, Toby. Any other questions? Toby, I have maybe one. As you were just talking about with like context and neighboring areas, we've got a lot of properties to the east that are similar zone districts are into to what is being proposed. Some of them have very small properties. Others have very large properties. Are any of those restricted on how much square footage that the building can provide? Anything beyond that lot coverage?

No, our N2 lots are not restricted on square footage other than lot coverage.

So we just have minimum square footage that defines an acceptable property, right? We have minimum lot width. Beyond that, there's really not a lot. There's no maximums within any of that. Yeah, correct. However, in the mobile home zone district, there are some maximums, and that's kind of the unique varying characteristic in this.

Yeah, that's true. I think typically a mobile home district zone designation in our community comes with an existing mobile home or manufactured home park or a former manufactured home park. So the intention with that zone district and that zoning has often been to maintain the smaller footprint houses that are there and the density that comes with a manufactured home park. So when we, in this case, when the park became a subdivision and the land was given to the owners to own, it was given with the intent that it remain small homes, hopefully attainable homes and small lots and small sizes. So that's why there is the restriction there. We also don't have similar setback distances between the homes as manufactured homes don't have. It's a different type of zoning than most all of our other residential zoning. So it can be challenging to develop sort of a single MH lot that's not really connected to the rest of this subdivision. This is a pretty unique situation in that this property was never included even though it's adjacent. to that subdivision, it's probably just all old and how it was brought into the city.

Thank you, Toby.

Do you have any of the history of how this was zoned MH, but wasn't part of that, none of that?

I don't, I mean, we've done a lot of research and we have history about the PUD and the Hilltop Homes subdivision. But from the beginning, it started as two pieces. So one piece was this piece, and the second piece was the entire MH park. So my guess is that perhaps an owner split their own lot off and kept some land for themselves is my best guess. And why we went with the zoning for the whole thing, I can't tell you. But typical... sort of zoning practice. You wouldn't really like kind of split a lot out of its subdivision. You would kind of typically zone an entire subdivision with one zone district is really just my best guess. I don't have all that history.

Thanks. Any other questions? Yeah.

I'm trying to better understand the public comment that we got. And I think one of his points was that It seems like directly to the south of this parcel, there's some sort of community, like a social trail or something connecting Dabney with Harms. And it sounded like maybe there was concern that that social trail would go away. I'm looking at one of the plots of the subdivision, and it indicates that it says, parcel C, open space and snow storage area. Do we think that that's where... what the public commenter was referring to. And so it seems like that space isn't gonna go away, even if the zoning changes, even if there's a new big house built here, that sort of public space will remain.

I'm gonna try and look at the PUD. So I think that, yeah, it does look, when I look at that subdivision, I can share it. So we're all looking at the same thing. Yeah, so it looks like this is an open space easement, open space and snow storage area, this little pocket right there. And it does look like that is approximately where that trail might be. So if that trail is in that open space and if that trail is allowed to be there, those are all big ifs because that's all private property management and rights. So it would be... Probably the Hilltop Homes PUD is likely the owner of that open space, so they would have to allow that trail to be there and have to be consistent with their PUD. But if all of that is legal, then I would think that that trail could remain open. And that this lot or this zoning wouldn't change it this. So the lot boundary would be up here on the other on the north side of it. So unless a portion of that trail is on that property, and then it's within this property owners right to to remove that trail from his property.

Thanks. Any other final questions? Rich, do you have any? No, thank you. Okay. Great. Then we'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

From a discussion standpoint, this appears to be a larger lot among smaller lots in the MH zone. Although the RN zone seems to have some larger lots as well. And it seems compatible with being in the RN zone. If it's the future land use district, I'm not sure I understand the concerns that are being expressed. But this lot is different. And that's about all I would say about it.

Any other discussion?

Yeah, I'm a little hesitant to remove a zone district that we have very little of already, especially considering the potential size of a new development on this compared to the smaller homes that are going to be directly adjacent to it. It's, you know, we very rarely see a rezoning and then they come in with a proposal for like a 2200 square foot house with, you know, 800 square foot ADU. You know, something like that doesn't typically tend to pencil out. And then we'd be looking at a gigantic complex, basically on the tail end of like a mobile home park.

I know they're not mobile homes.

They're, you know, single family houses, but it has that feel in that neighborhood.

I mean, just to push back a little on that, it's, Should this have been in the MH zone to begin with? And I don't think there's such a thing as an endangered zone.

What about industrial?

I did ask the question how much it was out there. So, I mean, that doesn't bother me. The fact that there might be a bigger house out there, well, you know, it's your property.

It's true. But we do want to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods.

Rich, you had something?

Yeah, I'm thinking along the same lines as AJ is, mainly when I think of advantages versus disadvantages. The potential advantage of an ADU is enticing. One of the main points was that two units would be allowed instead of one. But I feel the disadvantage of a larger home among much smaller homes, and in my mind that there are other possibilities to achieve more density, are weighing on me. And As the public commenter mentioned, this property is a part of the Harms Court neighborhood. It's not really a part of those other neighborhoods. Yes, it's adjacent. And not even considering the geographic difference, it's a part of Harms Court. And that's the neighborhood that needs to be protected. Our community canvas plan specifically calls out our goal for getting attainable housing. Not necessarily more, well, it does include some more housing, but the right kind of housing. And I don't feel that the potential disadvantages of this rezone would achieve that goal.

Any other discussion?

It certainly would, in my view, change the character of the neighborhood. And so I think maybe in one of the narratives, there was an argument that the, you know, the character would be retained. And I don't really buy that if there's, you know, amongst other mobile homes, there's now, you know, a brand new modern home. large home um and so i'm i assume because we're here there's a you know a yellow development proposal sign in the front yard of this lot and so i'm a little surprised at um that we don't have comments from from anyone else in the neighborhood i would think if any of the neighbors had strong feelings that we would have heard something. And that would have made a big impact to me. And so the fact that I, aside from the one public commenter from the lot behind, aside from not having any fellow, you know, mobile home neighbors, no comments from them is, I don't know, is surprising, but also says something to me, like maybe the neighbors don't care that much. So I'm kind of struggling. That's kind of where my head is right now.

I always wonder if they're just not waiting for it to go before city council, since this is just a recommendation from planning commission.

Yeah. I mean, I understand you guys' point regarding disproportionate size of structures to neighboring communities or neighborhoods, I should say. I take a little issue with it being...

Always listening.

I didn't know if your phone was going to add into the conversation as well.

I don't know how.

Maybe I did. Maybe I asked Gemini something. I take a little issue with it being described as the right kind of housing and kind of... How does our future land use map define what kind of compact residential can be in this entire neighborhood? How uniform it all needs to be? I worried that maybe that's not really the intent of our code is to say that literally all of it in that area needs to be exactly the same thing or else it'll fall apart. So that's where I can't really follow your guys' train of thought that your guys' I'm giving Rich and AJ credit for at the moment. But I don't know how to justify that we need to limit the size of the building specifically because the neighboring house is the size that it is.

I think too, just with the size of the lot, the frontage available, and maybe they are limited to only two more units from Harms Court PUD, but there's plenty of room to split this into two lots that you could have two 2,500 square foot homes on, which would absolutely fit the character of this neighborhood. as opposed to one lot with a very large potential footprint. I don't know that we need to say that people can't do what they want with their own property, but this is currently zoned MH. And if our goal is infill and increased density, one large house with an ADU, okay, maybe it's the same amount of units there, but from a density standpoint, I don't know if it's the same thing.

Thanks for adding to the conversation. Appreciate it. Any other discussion?

Yeah, I'll push back a little bit on density standpoint. It depends on how you define density, but...

It does. No side comments, wait for it.

I mean, having two units there is having two units. I don't know whether it's 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 people per unit. Then that's how many units you have. And that's, in theory, how many people you would count. But, you know, getting back to the discussion of, you know, is this going to be a big house? I don't know if it's going to be a big house. We're changing the zoning at this point in time. I assume there'd be a development plan at some point in time.

You know that's what I was struggling with to is is making a decision based on likely direction right how does that work, I mean you could say well right now that could have been and that's kind of what I was starting to ask the question towards but then. Realized essentially what I was asking towards regarding that lot frontage was that you know if the lot frontage supports three mobile home units. Does that mean anything more than, say, the RN2 could support two lots, but those can have ADUs, so that's actually four units? Now I'm actually encouraging more, but really I'm not, because neither a subdivision of three mobile home lots nor just subdivided into two RN2 lots are even being proposed. This is not a decision based on that. There is one lot that could be... forced to be a smaller home or one lot that could be allowed to be a larger home and maybe an ADU. Well, and for sure it could be an ADU, but whether or not one would exist or not is not the case. So we're not really, a decision yes or no is not defining density, really. A decision on, you know, a tandem subdivision application would be, and that could be maybe be an informed decision, but this is not, this is on its own face.

I am also interested in the fact that it has always been held apart from the rest of... I don't know how or why it ended up getting zoned the same as the rest of the small lots that were turned into the PUD, but it was clearly always held apart from that and not part of the chopped-up smaller lots. So... Yeah, I mean, I understand where you guys are coming from, and I hope that we don't see a 7,000-square-foot house on this lot. I think that would be a really interesting decision to put a massive house on there, too, and I just don't see that being the direction of what someone's trying to do, but I understand they could. Actually, I don't know if they functionally could, but theoretically... Theoretically, they could. But I just, yeah, I think I'm with Lou and Brian that that, would I like to have seen it subdivided? Maybe, but that's not what's before us. And I think that it meets the criteria for approval, even if I may have my own personal opinions on what I think should be the outcome of it. A rezoning and what should get built there. That's neither here nor there. This is what's being proposed. And I don't see any code based reason that we can really say no to it.

I appreciate that. That's what I was tripping over trying to get towards before when I was talking about like the future land use or the community plan is kind of how is it meeting the criteria and I failed at that. So thank you. That's it. That's very much I agree with you on that.

Jumping off on that, you know, I'm still kind of going back and forth, so either Rich or AJ. So based on that, are there specific things that the staff report... seems to show that it does meet the criteria for a zone change. Are there specific things that you all are looking at besides, you know, your opinions on what the final product might be that, yeah, are there specific things that you all feel like it does not meet the criteria for a change?

One thing I was looking at, and it's not in the staff report, it's actually in the Hilltop mobile home replat that was done in the year 2000. That's where this original parcel turned into the parcels you see today. And on that replat, it's all one piece of land. So I think Toby may have speculated earlier that, you know, maybe the owner, the owner of all of this land replatted did a PUD to have this mobile home park and retained this piece of land for themselves. but that in essence makes it part of this neighborhood. Kind of like, you know, we've all sort of talked about this lot is part of this neighborhood and has no access to any other neighborhood. And if it's gonna be redeveloped, I think it should be congruent with the rest of the neighborhood it's a part of, as opposed to rezoning it just because it is a big lot and is a big development.

But it's being rezoned also because it's compatible with its adjacent properties. The RN zone is there.

Yeah, but those are all like 2,000 square foot ohms. Like directly adjacent to it. Directly. If you go up around the horn. But is there something in the code that says that...

that X lot is part of X neighborhood and we need to make decisions based on that? Or is it like, I guess where, what criteria does it not meet based on what you're saying?

I don't have the criteria in front of me, but I know, you know, in our community area plan, part of redevelopment and infill is matching the style and feel of the neighborhood. pre-developed neighborhoods.

I'd also say that the manufactured home zoning is also adjacent to this lot. To ignore that just because there are bigger lots to the other side, that's a level of encroachment and upzoning that I don't see that our community plan says we want to do. Increased density, which is number of units. Intensity is how much each building is used, which is why I laughed at Lou's comment. Density is clearly defined. But as I said before, the potential disadvantage of what could happen is much worse than the possible advantages of leaving it alone. And that is a criteria for evaluation.

Any other discussion? Or, of course, always a motion.

I'll notify a motion to approve 2026-0102. There are no conditions. I second that.

We have a motion and a second. Any final discussion on the motion? Something not said? No, I appreciate, Rich, your last point about intensity versus density. I think that... There's a place, there's a point at which I would agree with you. For example, if this was turned into multifamily, that could be 63 feet tall and turn into apartment type height and density, that would add density, but that would be wildly out of character. I don't think going to RN2 with its maximum heights is going to get to an intensity that is... desperately removed from the surrounding character in this circumstance. So I understand where the concern is coming from. I just don't think the RN2 is going to cause that for my own vote. That's the last part I'll add. Anyone else have any final... Then I'll call for a vote?

No.

No. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

No. Okay. That motion fails. Does anybody want to talk about anything that would change your vote? Or are we at a stalemate?

I just want to remind us that We're here to base our decisions off of code and not our personal opinions. And I totally respect that that can be interpreted many different ways. But when I asked a couple of you guys what criteria you're basing that on in code, no one actually answered that question. And so, yeah, no one actually answered what criteria they're not meeting. And I would just love to hear an answer for that if you're going to vote against it.

I got it. That's to use the code 720 B. Three, the advantages of the proposed zone district substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the community or neighborhood. I've said it three times now.

Thank you for citing it.

Thank you for looking it up.

All right. If there's not any other discussion or a reason to change a vote, then we will call this a failed recommendation or I guess a 3-3 recommendation to council.

A draw.

It's really not failed anymore, is it? Because it's a recommendation. And we'll leave it at that. So thanks for your time. Best of luck at council. Do we have a director's report tonight?

I do not have anything to report.

We have a couple of meeting minutes we can approve or change or something. First one is public hearing minutes from May 14th. Any changes or is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion and second. All in favor? And then the second one that we have is the public hearing minutes for May 21st. Any changes or is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Perfect. That should do it for us then this evening. So we make a motion to adjourn.