Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right.

If we're all ready, we'll go ahead and get started. This is our planning commission public hearing for July 9. Can I start with roll call, please? LA Cruz, David box, Brian Adams, Jonathan Hayek. Right. Before we do agenda items, do we have any public comment for something not on tonight's agenda? Unless you wanted to add something else too?

No?

Okay. Then we'll go into our agenda items. Both of these are for recommendation to city council. They are related items. Did we want to do a single presentation and discussion in two different votes? Are they different enough concepts that you wanted to keep them separate?

Definitely different enough. The subdivision could happen with or without the development plan. So we can probably summarize some of the history in our presentations, but probably okay to do them a little bit separately.

Okay. That's perfect. Then we'll just start with the first item itself. This is PL 20260095, Route County Search and Rescue Barn. Is the applicant here for a presentation?

Jake Milkey with Steamboat Engineering and Design representing the Route County Search and Rescue. This is Harry with Routt County Search and Rescue. My presentation kind of loops them all into one. It's pretty short and sweet. So I'll kind of, you know, if I need to come back up for another one, I can. But tonight I'm presenting the proposed project for a modest addition to the existing Routt County Search and Rescue Barn located at 911 Yampa Street. The application includes the preliminary and final plat with a major variance to the lot width, a development plan with a major variance to the floor area ratio, glazing and front setback, and as well as a conditional use request. The proposed project extends two of the existing five apparatus bays to accommodate a larger modern emergency response vehicles. that currently don't fit in the existing building footprint. The extension remains within the existing footprint of the building's buttresses and does not extend beyond their current limits. Rowe County Search and Rescue has operated from this property for more than 30 years following the city's grant of the site in 1992. At that time, the property was not formally platted, creating the need for the preliminary and final plat with this application. The proposed plat will formally establish the property boundaries that were granted in 1992. The requested lot width variance is necessary because when the lot was granted, it was 114 feet, which exceeds the CDC's maximum permitted width of 100 feet. Strict compliance with the 100 foot maximum is not feasible as the city established the property with its current 114 foot width back in 1992. No changes to the lot dimensions that were granted in 92 are proposed. The subject property's use is classified as community public services as a public safety facility per the CDC, which requires a conditional use permit in all zones. The requested conditional use is consistent with the preferred directions and policies outlined by both the community plan and downtown plan. The variances include an increase to the floor area ratio and encroachment into the front setback, both of which are minimal. The glazing variance is requested to address public safety concerns and operational securities concerns. Because this is an existing facility with no proposed changes in the use, none of these variances are expected to have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties or the character of the neighborhood. If these variances are denied, Route County Search and Rescue would likely be required to relocate in order to accommodate the new modern emergency response equipment, which would have a detrimental effect on its operations and its ability to effectively serve the community. For all additional analysis and supporting information, please refer to the application narratives in the staff reports.

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

Sure. Yeah, so this is a one-lot subdivision to formalize this lot for the search and rescue building. The property is at 911 Yampa Street. Search and rescue building has been there since about 1992. The property is zoned CY1. The search and rescue building functions as an important public safety facility for the steamboat community. In 1992, the city approved a transfer of the property to this rural fire protection district, and that was established through a resolution. So while this conveyance gave the property boundaries, it was never actually subdivided, so that's what we'll do tonight. The one-lot subdivision does include two variances, maximum lot width, and we will talk about the FAR variance with the subdivision and with the development plan. So while it's usually a development related standard, the existing building already exceeds the FAR variance. So we'll talk about the existing condition and then the proposed condition in the two different projects. The proposed lot is developable as it contains the existing building and it's operated that way for many years. It will just formalize these site conditions and it does meet applicable zone district development and subdivision standards subject to the approval of the associated variances in conditional use request. The plat is compatible with the existing and planned land development pattern in the vicinity. It shouldn't adversely affect future development of the surrounding area. It doesn't introduce any new land use or substantially alter the established character of the site or the Yampa Street corridor. The property is served by existing infrastructure and access. So we don't anticipate any environmental hazards, topographic constraints, natural resource, or any other feature that would prevent continued use or development of the property. Regarding the lot width variance, as we've mentioned, the proposed lot has been the same size and shape since 1992. This width hasn't caused an impact during that time. And it is consistent with other lots along Yampa Street. So the variance should not have an impact that's notably greater than the existing unplatted lot. Formalizing this existing property supports continuation and modernization of the facility. Maintaining a civic use for public safety is consistent with the downtown plan and the community canvas plan. Using this existing property with minimal investment is a sustainable path to providing modern public safety services. So this project and variance are consistent with the long range planning goals of the committee. The project does propose an acceptable alternative to the lot width standard. Again, the existing land has long operated in this fashion. The only change is that it will be formally platted through this process. In this circumstance, strict application of the maximum lot width would not achieve the purpose and intent of the standard. The variance doesn't lead to additional development intensity or create a new pattern that's inconsistent with the surrounding area. It'll just, you know, allow the existing site configuration to be established that was established by the deed in 1992. Additionally, the application of other standards and purposes Specifically, the subdivision purposes are met by this project. Regarding the floor area ratio, so there is a maximum, 100% maximum floor area ratio, and the current building with the current lot sits at 102.9%. So this, again, this building and the lot have been in place for many years without impacts, so the platting of this shouldn't create any new impacts. The size of this building is consistent with others along Yampa Street and shouldn't change the character of the area or have any impact with this subdivision. Strict application of the FAR standard would not achieve the purpose and intent in this circumstance. Again, The requested variance is the result of platting the existing developed site within an established use and the existing FVR already exceeds the standards. And again, the application of other CDC standards by allowing this lot to be legally platted and meeting all of our subdivision standards, those purposes are met through this variance. So we support the subdivision with the two variances, no conditions.

Thank you very much any questions from commissioners.

Just a question for the applicant one for Toby to the applicant you'd calculated, I think one or 2.8 for the far staff calculated one or 2.9 are you in agreement with the recalculation and okay with that.

Yes, Toby and I discussed that via email prior to the meeting right, thank you and Toby just.

If you could help me, so this preliminary plat, does this one FAR variance run with the property? So if this facility was no longer on the property, the variance would be in place or would it need to be reapplied for?

Need to be reapplied for. So it's only for the existing building. So if they decided to take down this building, the new building would have to meet all the standards or apply for new variances.

Thank you. Any additional questions?

Yeah. I'm trying to understand a little better what happened in 1992. And so my understanding that there was a, the city gifted this plat to search and rescue and it was, there was a legal description, but it was never mapped or where, where, like, where was the disconnect? What was not done? Yeah.

So I think there was probably the, piece of land and i don't know all the details but the piece of land includes the parking lot that kind of is at the end of ninth street there so the city probably owned that parking lot and had a little extra space gave that extra space to search and rescue um for the fire protection district at that time where they built that building um and so the probably the tract itself had a legal description that the city was able to buy and then by leasing that piece of property to this organization, they created the boundaries of the lot. So I think it was probably just a lease area that will now be a lot that's subdivided.

And we didn't- It was not a lease area, right? They owned it, right? Yeah, fee simple. So I guess- Sorry, just, yeah, because I've got some of the history on this as well. They basically deeded it without going through a subdivision process. So they should have gone, I think, unless the rules were different at that time, which they might have been. They should have been going through the subdivision process before they deeded that parcel.

Because on the survey, there were, I don't know what you call them, but the points, the rebar is in the ground, right, from 1992. So that's just the confusing part to me. It's like all the pieces were in place, but it's not on the map.

Yeah, they had to create the survey to get the boundaries to exchange the deed for that sale. What they didn't do is create a subdivision plat that got recorded at the clerical recorder.

Yeah, and probably the difference between what we're doing now, like if we were doing it then, we would have reviewed that piece of property for its... HAB-Masyn Moyer- compatibility with the standards at the time, if there was a lot with standard a lot area standard, we would have checked to make sure that the right of way had. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The correct amount of space and all of that on it, so we missed those pieces of the subdivision process by just eating the land so. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Creating the the legal definition is one part of a subdivision process and then checking it sort of against its standards is the other part so we're just kind of doing that that part now.

Thanks. Well, that leads me to where I was confused. Kind of along the same track is, so like on the GIS map, for example, that kind of supports what you're talking about. The whole thing, parking lot and building, look like they're one property. And so if this is a subdivision of that bigger property in order to create this one that has a variance, then doesn't the subdivision... creates two properties. And why are we only really seeing information about one of the two properties?

Yeah, I think that that's, we're just leaving the remainder property as is. It might still have to go through a subdivision property. It could be legally non-conforming, but we will create a separate lot out of this, probably because the city is still the owner of that property and we didn't include the city in this application. It's probably just for the search and rescue, but I'm not sure why that second property wasn't included.

Isn't it something we should generally try to avoid is taking a unplatted piece of property and only platting a portion of it and letting the other remain illegal is such a strong word out of conformance.

We do, we do have a specific, we have some exemptions in the code for city properties. There is a number of city properties that exist in this configuration that are attractive land and haven't been subdivided. So typically there's a lot of subdivision process that would have to go through and those subdivisions would have to have a lot of land. So I think the theory being with that exemption in the code is that the city lands will, any use of it and development of it goes through lots of public process when it happens. So yes, we would try to avoid this in the future, but we have a minor guarantee in the fact that the other piece of the property is public and we wouldn't be able to do much development on it without any sort of approval.

That makes sense. And so then, but the, the way it seemed it could have been cleaner and help me understand why that's not something to think about tonight is the things like the FAR requirement or something like that could be resolved if this newly platted line had shifted over into more of the parking lot in order to make those ratios correct. I know that there's an ownership thing, which has already kind of helped me from when I arrived at the meeting tonight. But as far as like, we're trying to figure those things out, it's like, well, this line that's being created seems arbitrary. Why didn't we make it solve problems for us? And why didn't we make sure that not only that that line could help solve problems for us, but also... how do the interactions of continuous asphalt and things like that between the two properties start to meet subdivision standards and access standards and things like that if we are in fact subdividing and is it because we're letting the city do what the city wants that we wouldn't let a developer do what they want yeah i can try and speak to that i think what's going on here is surgeon rescue came in

Right, just to add some space to their building, right? And then it was like, oh, it's not a plot of legal law. And then you got to do a subdivision. And then the history showed that in, whatever, 1992, that the city deeded that property to them. So that's done, right? That line is there in 92. So it would seem unfair to make search and rescue take on the expense of platting the actual the the rest of the city lot so they could do their development so we're really doing is just cleaning up this particular block with this application and not holding them hostage to a bigger problem that was probably shouldn't have been there to begin with you know so that's kind of well i appreciate that that's the kind of honestly the answer i was hoping to hear is that it has a lot more to do with the

past sale that's already in place is what kind of sets us down this course, essentially.

There's another standard that I'm not going to state correctly in the CDC, but it says that we can only apply the specific hardship or impacts to the request. So because all they want to do is formalize that deeded property If we made them, like Bob said, subdivide that entire property, that's probably exceeding our authority in this case to make them take everything into compliance. Similar, and we would probably do a similar thing with private development. If it was a similar type of activity, we would probably just consider the rest of the property, the rest of the lot, just non-conforming.

Okay.

make note of that, like that we, you know, if this was owned by two property owners, we wouldn't force that other property owner as it is sort of in this case, wouldn't force that other property into subdivision if they're not doing anything, which the city is not doing anything. So they'll have to, the city will have to conform that property owner will have to conform whenever they want to do anything with that development. Otherwise, it's just existing as conforming or non conforming as it has been since 92.

Perfect. Thank you. I guess that's the only question I had for this agenda. Didn't anybody else have any additional ones? We have no public, so we'll skip that part. Do you guys have any other final follow-up you want to offer?

Just one more follow-up. The original deed was actually initialed 85 and it didn't get put into the book until 92. So this is one of those things that probably happened, you know, speculating here, but happened kind of more on the handshake deal type of thing and just... you know, as Bob and Toby have said, just never went through that formal process.

Okay, great. Thank you.

The only thing I'll just mention is with that context, I mean, we had some subdivision regulations, I think from 71 or 77, but we didn't have the same subdivision regulations back in those times in 85 or 92 that we do now. So some of this may, truly just be non-conforming. They probably should have, the city probably should have gone through a subdivision process and done that a little bit more formally. But, you know, probably thought it was city land and we could do what we want with it. Times have changed.

Yeah, and with that information, I mean, who knows when the handshake occurred? You know, it could have been before we had zoning. So, anyways.

Anybody think of a question? I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Seems like it meets all the criteria for approval. And I have really not a whole lot to say.

I'm ready to make a motion unless Jonathan has a comment.

No, I understand that it's kind of cleaning up mistakes from the past when things were a little looser. And so yeah, wouldn't hold them to today's standards for something that happened 30 years ago. So yeah, I'm ready.

Motion to recommend approval of PL20260095, a preliminary plat and major variance application.

Second that. We didn't have any criteria. There was no questions. Correct. Great. And Kelly, you seconded? Yep. Great. Any other discussion? I don't have anything to add either. You know, how cleanly things are put together, why things are left out, very cleanly and... carefully answered um and i fully understand where they're coming from and how we got to this point and why it's creating the the variances that it is so great um so i'll call for a vote hi hi hi hi So we're done with agenda item number one, and then we'll move into our addition component. This is PL 2025, zero two one five route County search and rescue addition. And Jake, I don't want to make you stand if you don't want to, if you feel like you already gave us a good presentation or yeah. And we'll ask you questions if, if we have any. Okay, cool.

Um, so this is the development plan and conditional use, um, for the addition to this facility. Again, it's at nine 11 Yapa street. The project will extend to existing apparatus bays to accommodate modern equipment and improve operational functionality of the facility. So the project does include requests to exceed the floor area ratio, encroach into the front setback, and provide less glazing than is required by the standard. The use is considered a public safety facility that is a conditional use in all zone districts. So this request is necessary to expand this use. The same time as the building expansion, a public safety facility could have impacts such as increased vehicle presence noise or traffic or activity at non traditional business hours again this facility has been in place since. 1992 or maybe 1985, operating with little to no negative impact on the surrounding properties. So we expect that this use will continue in much the same way as it has. Similarly, the increase to floor area ratio and the encroachment into the front setback are minor compared to the existing footprint and scale of the building. As we've noted, the building and site were donated to search and rescue with a limited amount of land designated for the use or any expansion. The conditional use is compatible with the preferred direction and policies in the community plan and the downtown plan. Again, it supports provision of civic and public services within the downtown and maintains an established character in the area. And it also doesn't require them to construct a new facility elsewhere that might be less functional. This facility does contribute to the mixed-use character of Yampa Street, and it also provides us with some essential emergency services. We think that this development plan is consistent with the character of the vicinity. It does complement the existing uses, structures, and activities in the area. The project and site already have adequate vehicular access, parking, loading, Rough use management, pasturing facilities, and service areas as it is developed, and there is established access from Yemba Street with its supporting infrastructure. Regarding the setback variance, the standard is a 10-foot minimum front setback, and they are proposing 1.21 feet, I guess I should say. There are features of the existing building that currently encroach into that front setback. There's some buttresses in front of the building. So this addition, these bays, will add some structure within that front setback, but it will not get closer to the front property line than these existing building features. So it should not change the Yampa Street elevation very much and have minimal impact on the building's appearance and character. The setback accroachment, again, supports continuization and modernization of this facility, which is consistent with our plans. Strict application of the front setback would not achieve the purpose and intent of the standard in this circumstance. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that development is compatible with the surrounding uses. Again, this development has been there, the proposed addition is limited in scope and should not create anything that's inconsistent with the surrounding corridor and it does generally align with the existing elements that are already in that setback area. Regarding transparency, the existing building is nonconforming with regard to glazing and has been in place that way with little to no impact for many years. The change to this elevation shouldn't change the appearance or the character of the building and the windows that are existing should remain. Again, the proposal is limited in scope. Strict application of this standard would not achieve the purpose. In this circumstance, the extension of just the two bays does maintain the established architectural character and the door pattern of the building, requiring substantially increased transparency would not meaningfully advance the intent of this standard. And finally, the third variance for FAR in this case is, again, there's 100% max, and this expansion would bring this building to 105%. So as we've noted, it's an existing building, been in place for a lot of years. This change shouldn't change its mass and scale. It's likely that the increased FAR might not be noticeable, but we still need to talk about it. Strict application of the standard doesn't achieve the purpose in this circumstance. Again, the purpose of the FAR is to ensure that this development is compatible with the scale around it. And this addition does generally align with the existing elements that are already compatible with the street and everything around it. So we do recommend this project with one condition for a final plat to formalize that subdivision. Any development on commercial property needs to be on platted land. So it just needs to have a plat, a final plat before they can have a building permit.

Thank you. Any questions from commissioners?

There's quite a bit of pedestrian activity in front of this building. Will any of the sidewalk be reduced?

Good question for the applicant.

Yeah, so kind of as we were talking about, there's a series of these concrete masonry unit buttresses that extend out right now. And basically the proposal, there's five bays. The proposal is to take the garage door from where it's currently at, which is about four feet inset, and push it to the edge of the existing concrete masonry unit. So while that's concrete paving right now, it's essentially not a walking zone as it's interrupted every day. 12 feet, I believe, by these buttresses. Okay.

Does that make sense? It does. Yeah. So no, you know, sidewalk where I think you're talking more like driveway. Correct. But no sidewalk where pedestrians would potentially, that would, pedestrians would potentially be used, would be reduced. Correct. Okay.

Great. Other questions?

You may have just answered this, but just for the sake of clarity, you said that the existing garage doors are going to move out. Does that mean you're reusing those same garage doors? Are there new garage doors being...

They'll have to be new. There's some height limitations on the existing structure that basically we're going to end up having to use a roll-up garage door instead of a traditional overhead. So they'll look the same, but they will be a new garage door. They'll have the same color glass and all that stuff. They'll obviously be modernized for energy codes, but it will be required to be a roll-up door, which won't be visible from the outside. Sure.

Thanks. Good questions.

What are your long-term plans for this building? You've mentioned kind of like how that works and what impact this approval could get, but what are we talking about with this building?

So we are tenants in common with the Steamboat Springs Area Fire Protection District. And so we're really tied in with them. We have a good working relationship with them, but obviously... Steamboat Fire is trying to get a new home as well. And that might change how the district is going to use the building primarily. Right now they're using it for their wildland crew. But as far as location goes, it's one of the best locations we could have for not only our emergency response, so how quickly we can get out and help people, but also since we're all volunteers, our members are leaving their work jobs, their homes, whatever, and responding to the facility to then go help people. So being centrally located there works really well for that as well. for folks coming from east end, west end, downtown, surrounding areas. And so, like I said, it works great for us. A couple weeks ago when gravel was in town, we had to move all of our equipment out to the county shop and it added about 30 minutes to a call response to get people through town with the traffic and then back through town with our apparatus to get to spring Creek. Um, when typically that's maybe five minutes waiting for a traffic light and you're there. So, um, yeah, I mean, long-term downtown is, is where we want to be. Um, obviously the streets pretty busy these days. Um, but we've over the years have looked at other options where we could be that would, you know, serve our needs and, it's pretty hard to find something. So yeah, this, this will let us utilize the building a lot longer, you know, with some minor modifications or get a trailer that little fit a truck that'll fit.

So that is your question. It does. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Any other questions? No, we will also skip public comment. Did you guys have anything else to add or Toby? Close our public portion. Come to commissioners for discussion and motion.

Don't have a problem with this. Obviously, the use is vitally important to our community. Secondly, is they're already just adding, moving out to where the structure already exists. I think the question around sidewalks is great. It's funny, the Google map, when you look at the street view, actually has somebody walking right by the building. So it is used. Google just proved it. It's on the internet, so it's true. But a lot of the pedestrian traffic is behind the building as well. So I have no problem with this.

I think it's a great expanded use on an existing building. I think it's a creative way to meet their needs. I bristle a little at the reasoning for the reduction in glazing. I feel like a lot of uses could say similar things that we probably wouldn't allow them to reduce their glazing for those specific reasons. But I'll just be honest, it not enough to argue against it. Which I'm not really sure where that puts me. But if anybody else wants to talk about it, I'll join the conversation.

And the current structure does have a mural on it that adds to the building and doesn't just look like a piece of concrete. So that's where I was as well on the glazing.

Yeah, with glazing, I thought, you know, the purpose of glazing, I think is noted in the staff report is sort of to activate the pedestrian way. And in this scenario, we don't want that area to be activated. You know, they want it to be private. And so that's justifiable to me.

Great.

Your point brings up my big question. It's not that big. Ultimately, I think it's a very supportable project because when you think about the adverse impacts and kind of justification for the criteria for the variances, I think it's all very justified, especially from the standpoint of what is the net new impact that this change is making. This change is so small, I don't really think it's making a change. If this was a ground up construction suggestion, I would say, no, this is the most dangerous part of the core trail, of the entire core trail. And I know it crosses roads too. And I still think that these corners and trying to go around the back of it, this is actually a terrible place for a building. It's a great place for the use. And I 100% agree with what the applicant said and support it. But man, it's a terrible place for a building on Yampa. And I definitely wouldn't. But that's not what we're talking about tonight. And so I want to... at least suggest that I see the separation between those two concepts, especially as we're suggesting things for recommendation to council, that has a net impact, no, 100% supportable, even though I don't like the impact in general.

Well said. I think that's probably a lot of why I don't see any reason to hold this up either. wishing there was more glazing. If it was a new building, I would absolutely argue against this much of a glazing variance. But this small of a change, I just can't. That seems like we're working against ourselves. Great.

Anybody want to make a motion?

Sure.

I move to recommend for approval PL 2025-0215, a development plan, major variance, and conditional use application subject to the condition as stated in the staff report.

Second.

Great. Any other discussion on that motion? All right. Then I'll call for a vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. That passes unanimously as well. Thanks for your time. Uh... And I believe we do not have a director's report tonight. We do not. Thank you. Great. And then we have some meeting minutes to go through. First one is from June 11th. Anybody have any changes or is there a motion to approve?

I do have a change. I know. It's very exciting. I wasn't there, but I'm shown as in attendance. It was the time that I showed up on the screen, but I couldn't hear anybody and nobody could hear me.

You tried to be there.

I tried to be there.

Do I get points for that? I believe so.

You said nothing and voted nothing the rest of the time?

Tempted to be in attendance. Understood. Thank you. With that change, anybody want to make a motion to approve?

Do I still vote to approve it even though with that change? Okay, cool.

Move to approve the meeting minutes from June 11th with one change as identified.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Cool. Do you have any other changes for the next one? This is really exciting.

No.

The next one.

Big letdown. We can read it.

Our from June 25th public hearing. Any changes or motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you.

Second.

A motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

All right. I think that does it for us for today. Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn? So moved. We have a motion, do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?