Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, looks like we're online and ready. We'll go ahead and get started. This is our planning commission public hearing for October 23rd. Can I start with roll call, please? John Augusta, Gavin Otul, Cruz, Rich Levy, Brian Adams, Ladora,

David Box. Great. Uh, before we begin agenda items, is there anybody who's here for public comment for us for something not on tonight's agenda? Okay, seeing none, is there anybody online? You can raise your hand online and we'll go ahead and get started with our agenda items. Uh, our first agenda item this evening is BL2025 0063 Steamboat Base Camp Apartments Phase 2. Is the applicant here for presentation? I'm having trouble joining the Zoom um to share my screen, but okay, I can [laughter]

May we please have a screen share for the applicant?

It's I can start without it if that works or Um, okay.

[clears throat]

Give us a second. Are we getting close, do you think? So, here we go.

It's connecting. Okay. Yeah. All right. Recording in progress.

Okay. Just need to share my screen. All right. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Um, my name is Gabby Regler. I'm with uh May Regler Properties, and tonight we're here to present on the Steamboat Base Camp Apartments phase 2. Um, it's a development plan application with six major variances and conditional uses. um located at lots two and three of the steamboat base camp subdivision [snorts] on the west side of town. Um the applicant is of course May Regler Properties. Our architect is Casa, our civil is Landmark um and our traffic and parking consultant with Stoen Associates. Uh just to orient you a bit, we have US40 plan north uh with Elk River Road, um plan West, um and we are talking about lots two and three which are shown in yellow. Um lot three we're proposing an 80.

Is there a laser pointer? If you're pointing out it would be great. Your mouse. Yeah, I can use my mouse. It's a little bit of a delay. So maybe the laser pointer is better. Okay. Oh, your mouse.

Um so lot three here. Uh we're proposing an 80 unit multif family residential building um with associated parking and site improvements this portion of lot three here. Um and lot two we are proposing uh surface parking 26 spaces. Um, and this will serve both the future commercial um, use on lot 2 as well as it will provide 14 spaces that will contribute to the shared parking model. Um, that's the sitewide developmentwide parking um, model for the site. Lot one, as you know, uh, is already complete. Um, we have the 73 unit base camp uh lofts at base camp apartment building [snorts] with uh approximately 8,000 square ft of commercial on this portion of the building um divided by four commercial tenants with uh surface parking um along the Shield Drive frontage. And um across Big Ben Drive, which is the road that the private drive that um bisects the site, we have uh I believe a 46 space uh surface parking lot that was also completed at the same time as the apartments. Um we've also recently completed seven town homes um here uh in this portion of lot 3, which has now been subdivided into town home plat. [snorts] Um just some quick project highlights. Uh it's a five-story multiple family residential building. Um 80 residential units with the mix as follows. We have 37 studios, 37 onebedrooms, and six two-bedroom units. Uh we're proposing 41 workforce housing units that will be um divided between both the existing lofts at base camp and the new proposed building.

[snorts]

Um, we have an activated lobby with a mail room adjacent to a large residential um, lounge amenity space that will be on the ground floor and there's a small um, outdoor patio adjacent to that as well. Um, the exterior materials are corrugated metal wall panels and three different colors of fiber cement wall plank sighting. [snorts] Um, and it was designed to appear similar and complimentary to the existing lofts at base camp. Um, with a similar material pallet, but of course some difference differences, namely in the roof um, lines and kind of where that pallet was applied. Um, and then today, Kelly's going to dive in deeper, but we have conditional uses um, for multiple family residential in the CS zone.

[snorts]

um workforce housing, namely at the ground floor level, trying to maintain the flexibility to um have units on the ground floor and surface parking. These are all conditional uses in the CS zone district. Um we also have applied for alternative compliance um because we have a developmentwide subdivisionwide um shared parking approach um which is allowed via cross easements between the lots and there are six major variances um related to parking lot setbacks, ground floor height, snow storage access, roof forms and glazing and transparency standards. Um so we are around for any questions of course after Kelly's presentation. I don't know if you wanted to add anything. Oh, okay.

All right. Thank you very much. Kelly, do you have a presentation as well?

I do. Thank you. Uh, Kelly Douglas, senior planner. This is a development plan, conditional use, and major variance application for you this evening. Um, base camp phase 2 is its name. The sub the site, uh, it's part of the broader base camp development. It's zoned CS, commercial services, and it's within the entry corridor and the airport overlay zones. Um, you know where it is and the applicant summed that up well. So, I'll I'll just move on. Um, for background, there have been three previous approvals for this property um that have kind of established the mixeduse pattern that you see there. Now, we started in 2020 with DPVC 2006. That initial application was for 45 units. That was the adaptive reuse uh mixeduse proposal for the lofts at base camp. Uh that was the initial initial iteration. It came back to us DPVC 21106 that replaced the previous approval I just mentioned. Uh and with that one we it was revised to increase the number of units to 75 and there's some other site you know kind of rearranging. Uh and that approval was constructed. That's what you see there today. So that's complete. they have CO. Um, and then we had DPVC 2116. Uh, that was the original phase 2 that included 28 town homes in a few different buildings and commercial uses at the corner of Lincoln and Elk River Road. There is a large uh it was outdoor recreation. there was going to be like some kind of like seasonal uh ice skating rink, outdoor games, and there was also a small restaurant use proposed. That was all part of one. Um, of that approval, seven of the town homes have been built. Gabby mentioned that. Um, however, the the remainder of those phases have not. And that brings us to our application today. So, it's a it's a new phase two, if you will. Um, so we'll

take the application one thing at a time. We'll start with the development. We'll go to conditional use, cover parking, and then we'll talk about each variance. So, let's just give you a little overview. This is a big project, so I want to give you an organized overview to hopefully have an organized conversation. Um, so for the development, the applicant is proposing to construct 80 multiple family units, uh, surface parking, site improvements, and that's all on lot three. Uh on lot two, a surface parking lot is proposed to be constructed that will serve the new uh sorry we're still on lot three. Lot three, there's also a parking lot. When we go over to lot two, there's a parking lot. Both are both parking lots are to serve the development that's proposed with this application, the existing development that's there. And also we're looking forward a little bit and there's a future um commercial area um that although there is no use or building proposed at this time, we are planning if you will. Um so you can see when we get to the parking section kind of how we're how we're planning for the future. Uh but in the interim it will be a surface parking lot on a lot alone. So, it meets that definition and that's part of the proposal on lot two. Well, that brings us to the conditional uses. So, it's kind of a good segue. There's three proposed multiple family residential, workforce housing, and surface parking lot. Uh, so the multifamily, that's a conditional use in the CS zone district. So, that's how it falls into this process. That's just what it is. That's the zoning procedure that article 3 calls for. For the workforce units, uh those are typically a limited use in CS. However, when a specific use standard is not met in this case, allowing workforce

units in the pedestrian active building frontage, that use is reviewed as a conditional use. So that's how it's coming to us in this channel. Um and for a little more context on this use um across all phases, so all if this were approved, if this application were approved, there would be a total of 153 residential units and of those 41 are proposed to be designated as workforce units. With this application, the applicant is um proposing to distribute that designation among existing and proposed buildings. So that's why we're looking at the total uh and they want to maintain flexibility to assign specific units this designation on a rolling basis. So, as I mentioned before, that's motivating the conditional use request to maintain um maximum flexibility. This use standard is requested to be modified. Um staff supports that. Uh an annual reporting is a condition of approval that you'll notice. So, those are tied together. Back to the surface lot. Uh like MF, this is just a conditional use in CS. So that's how it comes to us. Um and the purpose of this use that I mentioned was to allow the lot to function in a dual capacity serving the multif family use immediately and also the future commercial use once that phase proceeds. Uh so the future development site like I said will be subject to a separate development review process when a specific use and building are proposed. uh we want to ensure that that corner location very important for our town uh is preserved and positioned for long-term commercial success. So that's how we're approaching it this time. That sums up the uses which of course you know you can answer questions

about. But now we'll move on to parking. Um with respect to amount in the CS zone district, I'm going to I'm going to try to be as clear as I can because I know that this can get a little bit confusing. Uh so parking standards in CS for commercial uses are a maximum and for residential uses are a minimum. So for article 3 requirements a total of 176 spaces minimum are required to serve 153 proposed and existing residential units. We're looking at it as a whole and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a sec. So we have our minimum 176 and then for the commercial uses that are existing and forthcoming um that would be a maximum of 55 spaces required for existing and anticipated forthcoming commercial uses. So the applicant is proposing 249 spaces across the whole development and that means that the minimum number of residential spaces required 176 is met and it also means that at least 55 spaces are provided for commercial uses. So that is met based on this analysis. Staff finds that the amount of parking is sufficient to serve the development and comply with the CDC. Now, with respect to location, like I said before, the proposal represents a developmentwide parking approach and parking for multiple uses are distri distributed across lots rather than entirely within the lot where they're located with which the standard typically um calls for. Um so practically the applicant has demonstrated that residents will have access to adequate parking at all times of the day and that peak parking demand remains below the total number of spaces available across the base camp development. So from a practical standpoint

we can see from the studies that we reviewed that this will work procedurally section 406. E.2, that's our alternative compliance section in the off- streetet parking section of our development standards. That relates to off-site parking facilities. And that allows for arrangements like this where parking is located offsite to be approved upon a finding that conditions A through C are met. So, each condition was evaluated in the staff report under the principal discussion items section. Um, but to summarize, overall staff finds that the parking arrangement provides adequate capacity, convenience, and accessibility for all uses within the development and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the CDC. So, we're supporting um the alternative compliance and you know, our our findings reflect that. Um, again, this is not a variance. It's an alternative compliance uh that the CDC allows us to consider through this process and city council to make a decision on this process being development plan. So now we'll get into each variance. Um there's a total of six. So we'll go through them. Uh the first one is the parking lot setbacks. The minimum is 30 feet proposed. It varies. Um exact measurements are in your plan set in your packet. But lot two between 16 and 22 feet. Lot three between There's a couple areas on lot three like kind of between generally 11 and 18 feet. Um staff supports this variance noting that the proposed configuration represents an alternative uh that maintains the intent of the standard while furthering the purpose statement of 437 A3 which uh directs the parking area shouldn't become the dominant use of common space. Variance number two is the ground floor height. The requirement is 14 ft. The proposal is 9 ft. uh staff supports this variance because the intent of the

standard and the strict strict application is not appropriate for the type of development proposed. We support the conditional use this standard. They're related. They're not the same of course. Um but generally we find that this is meant to this is meant for commercial spaces. These uses will never convert to a commercial space. Um we support this use at this location and we support varying this standard as well. Variance number three is to snow storage. Uh onsite snow storage is required for each phase. Um the proposal sort of like the parking it works as a whole but when you chop it up you you need a variance. So that's why you see this here. Uh the applicant's proposing to uh store some of the lot three snow on lot one and staff supports this variance on the grounds that an alternative um that an acceptable alternative is achieved. It's an equal to outcome for variance number four. That's now we're getting into our design standards. Um and this is to multiple family design standard 437D1. The standard requires that primary residential entries are oriented toward predominant public or private streets. Um the applicant has the entrances are kind of oriented toward Big Bend not on every uh side of the building. So staff supports this variance on the ground that an equal to outcome is achieved by furthering uh guidelines in that section specifically 437 D2A that talks about enhancing activity and vitality in public areas and facilitating wayfinding. Uh so we think equal to um outcomes achieved here. The fifth

variance is to roof form standards. Uh multiple family design standards require pitched roofs 512 to 1212. Uh the proposal has a combination of 212 and flat roof elements. Staff supports this variance as an equal to outcome as well. Reforms they balance snow retention building massing visual compatibility in the ECO overlay. The mix of flat and sloped elements uh satisfies the design guidelines in this section. So we are supporting that variance. And then number six is transparency. The requirement is 30% on the ground floor, 40% in pedestrian active building frontages, 25% to upper floors. Um the proposal is below that. Um [clears throat] I'll spare us all the exact calculations, but they are proposed to be buried. Staff uh supporting this variance. Again, there are guidelines in 437H5A is the guideline that this um this variance is furthering. [clears throat] Yes. Okay. So, that brings us to the end of our variances. There were six. Now, uh public comment, we have not received any in support of or opposition to this proposal. Um so, overall, staff is recommending approval. There are conditions. We find that the application complies with the development plan, conditional use, alternative compliance, off- streetet parking, and major variance criteria for approval. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. Any questions from commissioners? I'll go. Go ahead. Um the first one, Kelly, you talk and the applicant both have talked about this commercial corner. What does that mean as far as a review process? Is that something that there's a development plan in house already or that's something we're just hoping for?

There is not a development plan, which is why you see it how you do reflected. Um we don't know when exactly it will come. staff is of the opinion that's of course guided by the area community plan. Um that this intersection is really important to our community and we do not want to see an opportunity missed for activation at this important corner. So this was with staff and applicant working together was the approach that we all felt comfortable with to preserve that location for future commercial use while also understanding the uh site improvements that support the wider development like how can this come together. I think ideally the like in talking with the applicant I don't want to speak for them of course you guys are you can speak for yourselves as well but I think ideally if all of this was ready to come at one time that's what you would be seeing right now but commercial component has little different order of operations if you will. So staff feels comfortable with this approach because we've evalued a very um we've applied a very high parking standard to this space to make sure that in the future whatever use it ends up being it can be parked. So that's kind of how we're approaching it. Uh there is no for sure that it's coming. Uh, but the preservation of it is more important than the than the timing. Um, okay. Yeah, that's longwinded. Apologies. I hope that answered your question.

Well, that leads me to the next question and that's be one of the reasons this we all probably want to see this as commercials because it's part of our commercial activity node. My question is how far and we've talked about this at APCC. How far does that node extend? Why is this corner important? But the proposed building is not as important. Um, well, I don't we're not saying it's not, you know, like I don't think that one use is more important than the other necessarily. This is a mixeduse

development [clears throat] and the the area community plan does, you know, tell us that a mix of uses is appropriate in this vicinity. I think generally this development has always been more of a horizontal rather than vertical mix of uses and I think that this proposal is a continuation of that knowing that you know I think that this approach to preserve that corner for commercial is a is a good one to hit the middle between development demands and also the vision for that corner in the future. Thank you. Sure. It's up to them. Great.

If you have more to supply, I'd love to hear it. Um, just to add a little context. Sure.

From a [clears throat] development approach sitewide, one of the main drivers was the adaptive reuse of the old pilot building. So as you guys know like if it was a raw land site I think the organization of the commercial retail components you know we have a fairly significant I think pretty active successful coffee shop bike shop gym etc that the viability of that was driven by if you remember the old journalism part of the old pilot building so while that's not on a corner as a as a mixeduse project that was one of the you know drivers of again the organization of it. So, um, just to make sure you guys appreciate that's a lot of the focus is that kind of stretch. I'm not a pro at all the planning jargon like Kelly might be, but certainly that stretch along um that side of trying to drive as much commercial activity, parking, pedestrian safety, etc. on that side of the ledge side of the site, the north side of the site was uh was paramount. Um, and while Kelly is being prudent in not overpromising and underdel, um, we do have a contingent contract um, to sell the corner to a pretty exciting food and beverage operator that we all know that I'm not allowed to talk about. Um, but you can imagine the contingent factor is ensuring that the site can, you know, parking in particular, make sure that that's an approvable side before they would progress through the natural planning process. So, um whether that falls apart or not, of course, planning commission and staff have, you know, protection, if you will, to to ensure that's um the case. And hopefully you guys seen um we've been very disciplined about um what that corner should be. Um you know, as you guys saw a few years ago, we had hoped for this big outdoor cool thing that quite frankly just became unbiable with inflation and costs and all the like. Um uh we've had quite a few offers to sell

that. Um highlights are O'Reilly Auto Parts, uh Arby's um etc. You know, those kind of users that we have all said no to. Um and so obviously now that the whole site can be complete, um one of the big drivers for retail and commercial in general is people. And so now that we can drive, you know, 153 units or obviously that doesn't include the the three-bedroom suites you guys are familiar with in the first phase. Um but that's a lot of people and obviously in addition to all the other growth around it. So um overall we're talking about something like 12,000ish feet of you know activating commercial space that would be within the site that's parkable um very comfortably between the existing uh adaptive reuse section and whatever that new corner becomes. So again I also don't want to overpromise and underdel because we don't have control but you can imagine from a business standpoint the you know the rolling path of how that works. So anyways, I thought that would be important from an internal process context.

Great. Thank you. Happy to answer a question. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions? A couple questions. Kelly, on the review plan set, there were multiple comments, I think, from staff saying, "Are you sure this parking will work the way it's designed? Are you satisfied they've answered those questions?" Because I didn't say answers on the review plan set. Was that I don't know. The red the red comments were those staff comments or

um we did respond with um some turn parking turning movements um in an exhibit. Um I think Eric Griffin is on line um Landmark did conduct those analyses um for the various spots where engineering highlighted that they had some concerns um and they all checked out fine. Um, we're happy to pull it up if you'd like to see it. Um, I can I think I can clarify that. Um, my apologies. That's my mistake. I think when we're putting together the plan set, um, yes, we get markups from engineering through the course of review and I think a few of them might have snuck into this plan set. So, please, apologies, that is completely my error.

Was thinking that it's part of the record. So, I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, we wouldn't be here if the parking didn't work. We'd have a different recommendation. So, please um, thank you, Eric. You're welcome to speak to that if need, but I don't think you need to as it's uh it's my error. Apologies. Um yeah, little sneaky markups. And then two other questions. One for the applicant. Um in phase one, um a number of the units, for example, don't have ovens, and it appears that is still the plan. Can Can you confirm or what the plan is from an oven perspective? I It's hard to tell with a It's hard to tell on the set.

We thought this might come up. Um, [sighs] no, we have not fully um completed the unit interior designs, but it is a requirement that they all have ovens in this phase. Thank you. And one more question for you. Yes. So, can you dive in a little bit deeper why you want the flexibility for the workforce housing? What my concern is is the workforce housing becomes the last thing you fill. You fill everything else and then the workforce housing is the afterthought.

No. Um, just for the sake of conversation, I mean, as you guys know, I think you know, we we also are are working through this trial period with our other short-term rental side. So, um, I guess I'll start with rough [snorts] guess. Current, we have 101 leases throughout phase one because we consider a separate lease as I think we've talked about in prior hearings. Um, each individual bedroom in the three-bedroom co-living is a separate tenant. Technically, we're probably something like 60% workforce already. Natural compliance. Um, the reason for the flexibility is it is impossible. So, one, I want to give everyone comfort that I think we're naturally achieving the spirit of that anyway. But obviously, these are now in perpetuity deed restricted throughout the building. And so in our experience, what becomes challenging is it's impossible to predict when turnover of a particular tenant happens. Therefore, what we don't want to do is have all of a sudden obviously we will always maintain compliance with the city with the new short-term rental, you know, voucher program we're working through. Obviously, if you've heard behind the scenes, we're working through that right now. But ultimately, it gives it flexibility. So, so when the turnover is happening naturally, we're not pigeonholing that particular unit to be workforce if we're already in compliance. Okay,

if that makes sense. Um, that's where in prior experiences things can get kind of caught up unnecessarily with, you know, issues and we thought that would be the, you know, just a more dynamic way. And you're also able to meet demand in different ways because you may have, you know, a a couple versus a family versus a single person, you know, and so again, again, kind of a rolling basis. Thank you. I follow up on that one. So, are you going to carry in excess of the required because if one of your workforce units disappear and you want to put a market rate person in there, then all of a sudden you're below the limit for some period of time. That will not be that the compliance documents by definition will not allow for that. So if how would how would you handle that if if

well we of course would need to fill it back up. So if that if that one turnover let's just say we're at whatever 41 I'm not smart enough 41 divided by 153 as a percentage but let's just say the you know we're at one unit gap then obviously we would need to hold that that unit vacant until it was filled by workforce and obviously the documents will require that right and obviously staff has no problem with keeping track of this turnover and this uh whatever they called it roaming use. Um, no, we don't have an issue with it. There's an annual reporting requirement. Um, that's the case. That's the standard uh condition of approval for all workforce unit.

So, they're only required to meet it at the time of reporting and not consistently. I mean, because yeah,

it's an annual audit at least with our other program which we have formal binding documents with that already with, you know, Brad Calbert and Co. um it is it is you know audited formally annually but ultimately it's not a moment in time check. So and and for whatever it's worth and you know even housing authority and and uh Gorman companies whatever and they're doing annual compliance with LITC credits and the like um again it's similar pro theirs is a lot more intense because of federal regulation side of it for the litac credits but nonetheless it's a pretty commonplace you know process for workforce affordable housing. Thank you. Any other questions? Sure.

Sure. Uh staff um 301B2 with our this same product multif family residential in the use standards you specifically call out that CS is not excuse me and E that CS zone district the only conditional or limiting factor is the size of the unit but yet it's the workforce unit that's not allowed on the ground floor. I do not understand why one why a workforce unit is more restrictive on the ground floor than a residential unit. Um, respectfully, neither do I. I'm sorry. I said respectfully, I don't understand that either, but that is

that is the standard. So, here we are. And yeah, I I'm not trying to be flip. I I really don't. I understand stands out to me. Yeah. Rebecca, do you have any Yeah, it's just conditional in this. I I think it's just um sort of a weird product of how the code's written. In the CS zone district, multiple family residential is a conditional use. I think workforce is a limited use.

And so those um those use standards are sort of built into the limited use. You're you're you're pro likely already evaluating that for the multiple family use when you go through the conditional use process because that would that process in of itself would allow you to determine whether it's appropriate to put any residential in that zone district including on the ground floor or in the pedestrian active building frontage. So it's just kind of a product of how the uses are um permitted by the code in that zone district. It's not necessarily that it's intended to be more restrictive and which case I would actually argue the conditional use for multiple family residential is probably more restrictive than the limited use with the use condition for workforce. Does that make sense?

Enough. Okay. Any other questions? I have another question for staff. Um so variance request number three about the snow storage. I'm kind of curious why it's a variance. Um because in the code it says that there's like this can be approved by a director if there's an alternative location and it seems to meet those criteria. So I'm just I'm because there's a list of variances and that kind of affects the way your brain thinks of a a development even though we're supposed to see them all individually.

Um yeah. Yeah. I think I mean during our review we've determined that this was a variance and I think that it has to do with the way that section reads the offsite hauling. Sorry, no

I'm going too far down. Um 2a location there was there was a reason or maybe it is [clears throat] yeah I don't I don't have an answer for you right now. Um, yeah, I don't recall the exact conversation that led us to this. Um, I mean, I think it's that it's on a different lot is the main thing like this all of this um like yeah, that is the reason. Apologies, I'm sounding uh like I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. Um or think I do. Um yeah, all snow storage is supposed to happen on site. So snow storage located within this is talking about within 20 feet of the edge of pavement to be served, right? So that's like talking about on one site you have all your paved areas and if you had a paved area that didn't have snow storage within 20 ft of the edge of pavement and you wanted to move it somewhere else on your site that was in excess of that 20 ft, then this alternative snow storage plan could be a potential option in that scenario. But in this scenario, it's on a completely different lot. It could be sold to someone else. they could decide, "No, we don't want your snow." Uh, so in this case, it's reviewed as a variance, a little higher bar.

So, even the off-site off-site hauling ones that just talk about being permitted, just using that off-site hauling portion of code requires a variance. Well, that's hauling that's different than storage. Sure. I guess. Yeah. Yeah. It's like somewhere in between there.

I know. It's kind of a weird one. And I think like it Yeah. Like this is indicative of the developmentwide approach. Like that's parking and snow storage are like the thread that has to be pulled through the entire site. And these were the two areas. The parking parking does allow for some offsite findings. Section 406 has that. This section doesn't have an offsite allowance. It lets you move things around a little. Maybe it's further away than typically we would call for, but in this case just enough of a different scenario that it calls for a variance. So similar well not exactly similar but same question for uh variance request number four. What is the intention when so when a site has multiple frontages or faces multiple roads? is the intention that we would orient entrances towards all of them or I think so and that's another standard that's like a little difficult to interpret sometimes. It doesn't tell us pick which one you think is most important and then orient that way. It doesn't give us that option. It says predominant public and private streets, pedestrian circulation and gathering areas. So in this case for this site the applicant has four sides. you know, that that's kind of a high bar. That's not really practical for a number of reasons, uh, which is leading us to support it. But yeah, it's it's kind of how the standards are written. It doesn't give us the opportunity to kind of establish a hierarchy for sites where there's multiple frontages where maybe like one's the most front, one's still the front but a little less, you know, like. Anyway, so that's what brings us here. In this case, the applicant, you know, there's a nice conveyance from Lincoln

around to the big bend side. The big bend side is clearly the front. Um, is that curve? Yeah, that's the curve side. That one not as much the front, you know? I think it like feels that way when you're there. The building's like floor plan and orientation lends itself that way. So like we find that this standard although not exactly met, there's not a big grand entrance on each side of the building. Like we don't really find that that practical in this situation. So we're supporting it. But that's the reason you're seeing it as a variance. We don't get that ability to change. Glad I turned that on silent. It's okay. Cool. That answers my question. Thanks, Kelly. Great.

Any other [clears throat] questions? I have a follow up on the snow one. the first staff. What how do you log that if someone if they sold lot one that right now they loan lot lot two and lot one but there's a dependency on lot um two for snow storage. Is there a way that you track the fact of if some if if one of those lots got sold that that maintains um storage area for a lot that is no longer owned. Well, I mean, the development plan still reflects what the development plan reflects. That's the approved plan. I mean, if it's approved, of course, it hasn't been approved yet. Um, so there's that aspect of it. Will you guys

Yeah, I mean, if I can, do you mind?

Um, one I think for everyone to understand upon completion of this, we will be aggregating the lots just for whatever that's worth and happy to sign up for that as a condition if that's relevant. um they were separated because the prior development plan um one the corner on the we call the Cook Chevrolet corner like that southern corner was separately owned from the pilot building owners. So originally upon acquisition they were separate and then when we replatted it was basically to frame the old development plan when it had more town houses and we haven't replplatted yet because this isn't approved. Um but from an ownership standpoint but the secondary protection would be in a normal course of action the development plan requirements would be recorded in easements in perpetuity requiring any separate ownership which will obviously happen for example with the commercial owner or the townhouse owners. You know it is going to be a sitewide snow management program no different than parking and that's all reflected in the uh easements and declarations. So there's I think there's inherent protection.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Um yeah, there there's obviously a significant interreationship between all of these elements and all of the variances. You know, I want to snow store snow over there. Um and it's on a different lot. There's, you know, um whether it's front facing or not front facing. parking is over here and it could be over there. Um, I think a lot of that does that I I don't know if all of that goes away when you combine lots, but would this would we have these same discussions if this were a PUD?

Well, I mean, it would depend on what the PUD was for and what the PUD modified. You know, a PUD is a customs zone district. So what that could be, you know, like I don't know. It's it's a little too big to speculate about. I don't I don't think I can answer that question. If the lot lines were different, maybe it was all one lot or divided in some other fashion. It may change how some of these standards are applied, you know, like at least I think we can kind of like take the design standard variances out of this discussion. So really that leaves you with the like snow storage is the one variance I think that would be different if the lot lines were different. And with respect to parking, again, that's not a variance. That's an alternative compliance finding, but maybe we wouldn't need to make those findings potentially. Um, like shooting from the hip, that's really the only things that I think would like material like the application would be like super different in a way that we can foresee. I don't know that a PUD like I'm kind of um presuming a little bit that you're asking like oh there's a lot of variances should it be a PUD? Um so forgive me if that's not the direction of your question. I don't think for my part I feel like this project is appropriate at this location and the zone district the CS zone district I don't I don't think it's a bad fit you know like it it calls for these mix of uses and I think that the variances that you're seeing are not I don't think that these are Um, I just don't think they're like, um, even though the number is maybe a little

high, like I don't think that these are uncommon in MF. I think a number of these are variances that we see somewhat often. Um, which maybe indicates something else to us as a group. But overall, I don't feel like I think a PUD is when the use, the development, nothing fits. But the area community plan tells us that thing should be there. In this case, the area community plan agrees that these things should be here or staff finds that it agrees these uses and buildings should be here and their form is maybe deviating a little bit from the standards we have. But in this case, we're able to find that we support that. So to me a PUD is an unnecessary modification, wholesale modification when it seems like the spirit of the zone district is correct for the or the spirit of the development is correct for the spirit of the zone district.

Thank you. It was a more philosophical than technical question. Yeah, I guess it was sorry [laughter] philosophical answer. Any other questions? Yeah.

Um I'm not sure who wants to answer this. Uh building multif family building design standards 437E to building massing and does this [clears throat] apply and how and how does the application meet it? Developments that are significantly larger than the adjacent existing development should provide a visual scale transitions utilizing the alignment of hor horizontal massing fenestration and architectural features to reflect the heights of adjacent development. Can you tell me if it applies and how the applica how the application meets that guideline? Um, pardon me. Um, I'm sorry, which particular guideline were you referring to?

437E2B. Pretty sure I'm in the right spot. I was just looking at it. Multif family multif family residential building design standards. I think please if you have NASA guidelines. Um I can address that. So 437E2B is um a guideline. Yeah. And are they varying the standard? Uh no no there's no um

there's no variance to 437E1 standards. So we apply the guidelines. The guidelines assist in review of modification or variance to the standards. So, we're finding that they're in compliance with 437 E1 A and B, right? And therefore, we don't we don't get into application of the guidelines because unfortunately in this zone district and this type, we don't have any required stepbacks like we do in some other zone districts.

That's correct. And since that's all I found, I would only ask if staff could think of any other reason why we should be we should be reviewing the large relatively flat facades of the building, especially those facing the the smaller development, but I'm guessing that's not applicable.

Um, I don't think it's applicable. And I would also suggest this area of town, we see a lot of what I would say is likely underdeveloped properties, meaning that the zoning would allow for much more um development, mass, scale, height on the surrounding properties. So, you know, as as things redevelop and um you you see some of that what appears to be very significant sort of contrast. Mhm. Um but again because we find that they do meet those building mass and standards then we don't apply the guidelines

and it's only those particular standards even though they are asking for variances on ground floor to ceiling height. It only comes into play for those two particular standards. Yeah. So the ground floor ceiling height I believe is um actually a dimensional standard of the zone district. Correct.

Um, so the way that the design standards work, they're in division two of article 4. They're they're like in a completely different section of the code. And the structure of um article 4, division two, the community design standards is where we see that standard and guideline set up. Um, in the beginning of that division, it talks about how we use the guidelines to evaluate var variances to the standards. So yes, I would say that those guidelines come into play and are applicable when we are reviewing specific variations to those applicable standards. Okay, thank you.

Going to build on that real quick though. Other standards in 437 though they do need to meet, right? Like building scale variation and fenestration, building variation standards, right? Just because one guideline doesn't need to be met doesn't mean they don't need to meet these other ones, whether it's the parking placement or the ones I just referenced. Oh yeah, there's a whole they have all of 437 standards. Great. Thank you. Apply. Correct. Any other questions?

Yeah, I have a I have a question. This is for staff. Um I want to understand about this 14 foot height um at the entry level. You said that this is you know develop for a residential property. Are there other types of properties that you would foresee not enforcing the 14 ft? Um off the cuff? No. Generally, you know, if it was if it waso a hotel that was going in, would you enforce the 14 ft?

I mean, I it's a variance, so we take it on a case- by case basis. I think if it was a hotel, maybe for part of the building we would, and part of the building we would, you know, that's hard to answer. Um, but traditionally, like for a residential use, um, in this circumstance, you know, we support that. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No. Uh, all right. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? Seeing none in person. Is there any online? You can raise your hand. I can see everybody. Great. See none online either. U first coming back to the applicant. Do you have anything else you wanted to add? No, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Kelly from you. Um I just think that you know this this project it's uh it's pretty innovative approach. We don't always see um workforce units in this number coming with this large like this scale of development. So, I think that that's a good thing to recognize. And I feel like preservation of space for future commercial development is a really important thing about this proposal that although that's not what you're proposing tonight, I think like the development as a whole continues to build and this is reflective of that. Um, so thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. And any other final questions? Great. I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion or more a motion. Yeah, I'll um I really like this project. Um I think the Kelly said it it's it seems to fit together. Uh and there are lots of relationships inside this compound, I guess you'd call it. Um that is I think exciting. Um, I I have no real concern about the snow storage that John brought up, but I honestly I I think having another condition that [clears throat] establishes that uh they would pull all these properties together um might be a reasonable approach, but I I I can't see saying no without it. Um uh like I said, I I really appreciate the thought that's gone into the flexibility associated with this. Um at some point in time, I would really like to see us look at um parking for workforce housing to be one and a half or two parking spaces per unit as opposed to one because I just inherently think that causes issues down the road. Um um that's about it. That's what I have. So I feel good about it. Any other thoughts, discussion?

I'll go. Uh I'll really be interested when we see this last lot come to fruition. I mean, this promise of commercial is not is just that, a promise, nothing more. And we've seen plenty of other times when that just doesn't happen. And I think that's a huge component. This is the is this a commercial activity zone in activity node, you know, and it the description of how much commercial is there is vague just that it's supposed to be intense. Uh and I I really would have liked to see even more. I mean, we have the ground floor, the ceiling height variances or the stand standard or whatever it is is there to we talked about it before to have the ability to transfer that to become more commercial at some point. Um, but we're letting that go again even though commercial itself is not required. That is a I guess it's a requirement that can be varied, but right now I'm kind of okay with that. uh parking lot uh variances. I'm parking lot setback. I'm okay, especially once this assuming that this last lot gets developed and hides this remote parking uh better. Uh that's almost a requirement for me. I mean, we're now going to have that far western parking lot be directly visible from Highway 40 and from Elk River Road. um which is not how our guidelines suggest but assuming that this project comes to complete fruition it'll be better. Um again ground to flooring ceiling height not my favorite variance at all. Snow storage I don't have a problem with. I think staff and the applicant have covered that. Uh we didn't really talk about roof form and the design of the building seems okay. And again, the glazing standards also go with the ground floor height, which I'm always kind of hesitant to just I don't

want to say rubber stamp it, but those two things are there for a reason, not to say, well, do you want commercial or not? Um, I'm kind of okay with that. And the last one is this rolling workforce housing idea. I'll be interesting to see how we stay on top of that. Yes, I understand an annual review, but it just seems like that's a potential hole. Um, but if staff thinks it's okay, I guess I can say it's okay. Yeah. I I mean, just to follow up on that, I I honestly I think it's a good idea that providing that flexibility, enforcing it or monitoring it will be the issue always,

as is always the case. It's interesting though. I think about it differently. If I think about a lot or a unit for sale versus a unit for rent, an entire building that's for rent, flexibility sounds great. The moment it turns into for sale, that flexibility sounds awful, right? So, and I don't know, you know, uh there's nothing that necessarily defines that this has to be one or the other, which makes me a little nervous. Yeah, I appreciate the comments. I think a couple things is I I agree with Commissioner Levy is the the 14T variance on the first floor is is a concern and the reason that the reason the code is there is definite for a reason. Um but I look at what else is on this lot and they've activated it um with other um other development. Um I hope that this corner is developed properly. Um secondly is just overall building mass. Um this is just another big building to add to our city. Our code allows it. So it's nothing we can um I can we can say no to up here. Um and then I I would like to touch on what what you had said around making a condition that this is all tied together. I I wonder if that's really needed because I'm not going to use the right word, but lot one would still have the requirements encumbrance is not the right word, but the requirements on it without that condition from my understanding. Is that do we think that that's needed? Um especially since lot, you know, that that corner lot, we don't know what it's going to be.

Like I said, I'm I'm comfortable arguing. Okay. Yeah. Either way, but it just seems like Maybe it makes puts a bow on top of it or something. Okay. Thank you.

I think a little differently about the ground floor height and glazing requirements on the ground floor in the CS zone district because of what you brought up earlier that when when residential or multif family residential is proposed in the CS zone district, it's specifically not um prohibited on the ground floor or not. Yeah, you don't have to vary the conditional use, which I guess, yeah, you see what I'm saying? Um, and so I think that we should just expect that if if we're allowing multif family residential in the CS zone district and it's not prohibited on the ground floor, that's going to come with some variances. So, I guess the question is, are you okay with multiple family residential? I don't know that we can necessarily support saying we don't want it on the ground floor because the code doesn't really give us reason to say that. It does say that in some zone districts and not this one. So that's my take on those. I think those are just expected variances if we're okay with that use in this zone.

In some but in some big buildings like this, the bottom floor then could be converted for different use in the future rather than residential. And so they could use commercial, but if you're at a 9 foot ceiling, it'll be very difficult to convert in the future. That's true. Yeah. past and I think ties hand in hand with the added level of scrutiny. Scrutiny. Scrutiny. Last word.

Scrutiny. Scrutiny that that's uh that that kind of requires just to kind of build into your hypothetical your your line of thought is okay. Yes, maybe on the ground floor, which is why it's not a use by right. Yes, maybe. If it either meets these limited use requirements or if it's a conditional use if it weren't workforce then it's conditional because it needs to take all these things into consideration like what you said which I don't think that this project did take into consideration which is a concern for me and the other p but the other piece is if they would have gone a few feet higher they would have hit the overall height max which is 63 feet and they're at 62 feet. I'm sure that was a consideration in design. We had this conversation recently on another project and we don't need to apply same things to the same to different projects but the same idea is there is that yes there are overall high requirements and yes there are ground floor requirements and those do kind of pinch the building in in maybe a regrettable way because high level highest level the amount of of small square footage units that they're proposing is makes me very very excited like very that's wonderful for our town. I think it's what we need dramatically. And this pinches that in those requirements.

What do you mean by pinches it in?

Well, when you when you raise the ground floor and limit a maximum height, then you're potentially losing an entire story in order to meet the requirements or asking for a variance to height or asking for a variance to roof slope, you know, whatever it may be. Uh but there are a lot of things at play to be sure. um which is like I say regrettable um because I don't want to lose a single unit from what they're offering. I think that's fantastic. Um I don't know how we get past the fact that this is you know you've already talked about it. You've already talked about how there's you've talked about the horizontal versus vertical um separation of commercial versus residential. We talked about uh you know what the future lot one may or may not ever become. H but we are looking at a building tonight that could have the ability uh to see reuse over time which is the entire point of the

of the 14T ceiling height. Um, and what's really interesting is I actually already think the applicant did a fantastic job on the pilot building of adaptive reuse as they talked about tonight, which is great and which I love and which is what we need to be creating more potential for, but aren't if we accept this variance number two. Uh, that gives me major pause on being able to support it or not. While while I'm chatting though, I will say that there's a few that I can easily support regarding the um the conditional use. Again, even though I was kind of harping on the added level of scrutiny on it, uh I think it's very acceptable as a um a conditional use that we're looking at tonight. I also think the snow storage uh is a successful um solution. I think that the uh the access and the um the parking lot placement, I think the landscaping plan and screening and things like that and dealing with the fact that they aren't continuing the town homes but changing uses and providing that parking. I think they've solved all that really well. Um I do also though take issue with uh especially the south elevation which is the one across from Cook Chevrolet. If you guys have it all memorized in your head, I I have some concern about the the combination of not meeting the glazing, not meeting the roof form, and I've got 437H pulled up, which are the building variation standards requiring things like insets or porches, um variations in materials, roof forms, and then has supporting guidelines that talk about uh different um kind of undulations within the building to break up a too large a facade that it leaves building like human scale behind. Um, I think that they did a great job of trying to solve that in their design along the highway.

I think they did a great job within the Lshape within their own parking lot and space that south elevation. I don't see how these standards were met. And I think that the glazing and roof form variances are just a symptom of the fact that that facade has not met the requirements of our code. Which section was that that you were 437H? It's the multif family requirements. H gets into the uh variations. Um I'll go back up to it so I can read it. building variation standards.

Isn't that just how different if you have more than one building or more than that is in there three buildings they have to be different in those ways. That's down in two is town home variation standards and I believe it's four five. It's no it's 1B gets into that 1B and 1 C, not 1A.

It's funny how that is worded. It says the facades of all multif family buildings. It doesn't say all the facads of each multif family building because a checklist of things that they have to have to to quote unquote break up the large facades. Doesn't say that it has to be on every single facade, does it? the facades of all multif family buildings doesn't say all all facads of each building. It doesn't say some of the facads. No, that's true.

I don't know if that's all a whole or not. I'm not defending it, but I'm trying to read the language and how staff was able to say that it met that requirement. I hear you. that that's where I was going with mine and I didn't get far enough down the list to evaluate my concerns properly with the code.

So for me the that that elevation is is the problem for a couple of variances including the glazing. Uh the roof actually is met above that. Um it is a single plane roof that goes 140 ft 120 ft. um uh with with no undulation in there and I'm just not quite sure I think that that meets it on such a uh active and visual corner uh there. So that's that's a sticking point for me. Not nearly as much as the ground floor height variance. Um both of which I think are possible to design around and still end up with a fantastic product. So, I still think it could be a successful product, but I I think it would need to be able to change to meet both of these uh requirements for me uh to be able to support it.

That would have been a good question for staff to see ask if all facads need to meet those three criteria or not. Um what if I just said that the guidelines that support it say new development should be designed in the round 3A? Sure. Any other discussion though?

Yeah. So I, you know, I'll start off. Yeah. I really like this project also. Um brings in a lot of um units that we need for this community. Um in terms of the variances, I you know um I'm not going to list through all of them. There's there's just a couple. I I support lot most of the changes or variances there. the the one I I first of all I took pause on was variance 4 which is a prominent public private but I guess I can you know kind of convince myself that there there are multiple prominent areas and streets and so that one I can kind of you know let let go because there are multiples um multiple streets in this case um variance 2 is where I have the you know the biggest pause and that is the 14oot piece and and part of it is consistency of our rulings. um just a block down the down the road, the home motel we approved um you know after we you know got got them to come within a foot of that but we but we we stuck we stuck hard on saying you know what this is a CS zone we're you know and and it's also a entry level corridor I'm not sure how much other over as an overlay how how much it adds to that but the fact that Um, it is an area that we want to be pushing commercial and and and it's also on another prominent corner. It's it's it's one block off the most prominent corner of of that area. And we're now saying that it's okay not to have the 14 ft um in a CS zone. So that that's where I am that's one I'm I'm really struggling with. Um and it

has to do with it's CS zone. It's 14 ft. You could make the first floor units 14 ft. Yes, they designed it such that they're only a foot from the maximum. I understand that. Um, so it's not a matter of just raising up the building, but it's also, you know, again, it goes yes and consistency of our rulings and how do we just turn away and not ignore that um requirement. Any other discussion?

I have to go. what you refer your reference to 3A got me looking at that and actually 3B covers exactly what we were talking about earlier. All building facades should be designed with a similar similar level of design and some of the then the the internal facing ones have lots of balconies and that and we don't see and you're right I don't see that on the south facing facade um and that's 3B which I assume well actually again this is a guideline and not a standard so somebody would have to tell me how applicable that is well the guidelines that are related to the standards above which in this case are those building variation standards, right?

Which don't apply to multiple buildings in 1B and 1 C. Um, however, it does apply to 1A or could if you wanted it to. Any other discussion?

Yeah, I'll I'll follow up on John's comment about consistency of rulings. Um, I mean, that's why we have variances. I mean, everything is different. And this project is very different in my in my view. Uh this has multiple buildings. I mean when you look at it as a whole, not just this part of it, it's it is very different than the hotel wherever it was uh on on Lincoln Avenue. Uh so I I have less of a concern about that. The 14 foot height is uh you know it's it's for commercial. It's not really for like retail or anything like that. Um I'm I'm well I'm just less concerned about it in this application just because of the the different types of buildings and the hope that there is commercial enterprise there. at some point in the near future. And I'll I'll admit that's that's a whole at this point. Sharers, is there any procedural item to ask the applicant if they would reconsider 14 ft or is that not in our procedures at this point?

You mean as though you wanted to put like a um condition of approval into enable it for them to come back with Well, one how change I don't know thing I mean they're only a foot away from the maximum. So if I mean they're at 9 feet at the at the base now you add 5T you're way over maximum height unless you make it you know chop off the top layer. I mean which you know I I I would say that the applicant would say that's not acceptable. That's the whole design of the building. It would change the entire building. And that's what I think Brian was talking about, squeezing them. Squeezing

I think how we address it if it's a if it's a priority for the commission and we keep seeing it happen over and over. I think Brian more mentioned just the pinch situation where we're creating a situation where there has to be a variance one way or another if we're trying to get things where we want the main floor height and we want to make these where they come under some height limit. I think we want to address that longer term. I think overall this is a really good project and it's giving good benefits to that location and and to the community. I think this piece is something that's a broader consideration that we want to look at addressing.

I would agree with that.

So the benefit we're getting may outweigh that. I think I just maybe fundamentally see that one pretty differently because there's no code requirement. There's no code requirement that we have to have commercial on the ground floor there. Is there even a condition? Is there even a requirement that we it has to be in the pedestrian active frontage? Maybe I can't ask that. I don't think there is for multiple family units in this. I think the question is, are we okay with the horizontal mix of uses that exist on this lot? I understand that we aren't we we aren't promised the additional commercial, but the value of this building is not and this is exactly what I said with the the hotel development as well. The value of this building when once they put in however many units are on the ground floor of this building is not its ability to convert to commercial. This building's value is in its housing units and then that is why it's the horizontal mix of of uses. So I have absolutely no qualms with this building height being different. I have more hesitation about the facade facing cook motors, whatever it is. Um, but the [clears throat] ground floor one, I just feel like we're kind of honing in on this particular thing and not seeing the big picture that once you allow this residential in this zone district and you've said that that's an okay conditional use, like there are some caveats to that and I think we've all already mentioned the benefits to it. So, I think maybe we're missing the forest for the trees when we we we focus on that that one. I'm not saying that it's the only thing that may have issues, but

can I can I facitiously play along with you? Yeah, please. There's there's the trees, then there's the forest, and then there's the countryside. Sure. [laughter] Okay.

And so, to me, I very much agree with you uh up to a certain point. And and so I think you make a really good point as far as how in today's application and today's housing needs and today's today today. Um how is this building fitting into its next door neighbor and maybe future commercial on that um activated corner and things like that. I hope that this building lasts for 50 and 60 years and I hope that this building sees adaptive reuse over time and it can't if we allow it to shoot itself in the foot before it even starts. And so it's that that's what I'm calling the countryside at least in my opinion is is that that's the whole point of the 14oot is not for today's use. It's for uses over time to adapt. And sure, maybe residential is great on the ground floor right now because we have other commercial, but that could very well change in the decades to come and we should we should open up that opportunity. That's that's the way I look at it.

I promise I'll stop after this, but there's a section in the area master plan that talks about uh our jobs to housing ratio and what it was when it was written in what the '90s. And it it's gone the wrong way. And this is one of the areas where it calls for mixed use and heavier more residential than what it exists right now. So I think that's another piece to this that in my [clears throat] opinion having this building not be convertible is completely fine because it matches where we're supposed to be heading right now and some a wrong that we need to write right now. I agree. That's a good comment. I think it's a great comment. [laughter]

I I happen to see it differently on that specific use, but I think that you've got a great uh point. Absolutely. Any other discussion or does anybody want to make a motion? You I'm going to make a motion. Great. Uh a motion to approve PL 202500 63 with I think it's 10 conditions. 10 sound right? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion before we take a vote? Appreciate the conversation and I think um got we'll see in a minute what place we got to. Yeah,

absolutely. Uh assuming you you do get the votes, I can't stress enough how much I think that besides my couple of hang-ups, I think there's a lot of success

in this project. I I think that there could be more that would meet the intent of the code a tiny bit further is what I what I'm hung up on, but I don't want to uh lose a different forest for different trees as it were. Um so my yeah I'll just follow up my comment um maybe earlier about the the 14 ft. I mean what we want in that area is is some is some commercial um vibrancy and that's that's the overall goal in that particular area and that's why the 14oot you know requirement is is there and I do you know take pause that we did approve uh one just a few months ago and so I have to I have to you know consider consistency of how we're we're um voting and approving improving certain things. That said, you know, I have those, you know, those concerns and I want to make sure that, you know, decisions that we make live 10, 20, 30 years down the road. I do consider this an area of blight. And because of that, I think this is a good development to sort of a kickstart that. And so I am going to, you know, even though I have those concerns, um I think getting some development there is is um a higher degree of importance.

Any other discussion or I'll call for a vote. Rich,

go one more. I know we've said this before. I think both with industrial and commercial, every time we kick that can down the road, we put more pressure on succeeding developments to meet those goals. of we've talked about it. We're going to need more commercial. We're going to need more industrial and so far we've more or less create created variances not to achieve those goals. And I've said it before, every time we do allow those variances, we kick that can down the road and put more pressure on future developments to meet those those goals. And then the the bigger one, of course, is I do not think I'm going to support the the motion. Uh, the massing is one that obviously I picked the wrong tool initially. Thank you for Brian for bringing up the right tools to illustrate my concerns.

Any other discussion?

Yeah, I'll I'll respond to that quickly. Just what I was saying about that section in the area master plan that talks about jobs to housing ratio. We've we've it seems like we're varying things so that we're not providing enough commercial and industrial because yeah, it feels that way, but the data doesn't say that. The data says we still need more housing units to support the jobs that exist. So, I don't necessarily feel like there's that much pressure on those future until we get housing under control. I don't feel like there's that pressure because the data shows something very different than that. But that's my that's my take on that.

Any other discussion? I'll call for a vote. I'm going to turn a blind eye to the 14 foot um requirement um for good. You know, we need we need to start the development area. So I'll say I I I no no I I that passes 5 to zero. Thanks for your time. Best of luck at council. You chair. Was that five to two? Yes. Not zero. Yeah. Was close though. Listening.

I appreciate it. Five to two. Uh let's jump into our second agenda item. This is uh PL 202240384 ski time square subdivision preliminary plat and major variance. The applicant's already ready, but is the applicant here for a presentation?

I am. Yes. Uh my name is Ryan Spaat and I'm with Landmark Consultants. We're a civil engineering and surveying firm here in Steamboat and um I am here on behalf of the 1700 Ski Time Square project. Um there's a host of us here um including David Hill and Katherryn Coro, but they're actually going to present on the next agenda item which is the exciting parts. Um, so let's see.

And to clarify, we're just you just discussing the plat at this point in time. Correct.

That is correct. All right, there you go. So, like I said, uh this is for 1700 Ski Time Square. You can see that the building back there in, you know, sort of faded back. Um that's the exciting part of this project. Um unfortunately, you have to sit through the the not so exciting part with me. Um but like any good opening act, I will keep my set list very short. Um, just to orient you, um, this site is currently a paid parking lot that sits between the clock tower building to the east, I'll call it, northeast, and then the Ski Time Square parking garage to the southwest. Um, sometimes people refer to it as a grand parking garage, too. And then it's got two frontages along Burgess Creek Road and Ski Time Square. Um, it shares an access with the clock tower building off Burgess Creek Road. Um, that cuts across the north corner of the property. Um, and then there's also where that blue line is, everything east of that is a pedestrian easement that provides access to the existing clock tower building. There's some stairs there now and uh some pavers. Um so as you know the the current CDC requires that any development occur on a platted lot. Um this lot was created by a deed in 1981. So it was not platted. So we're going through the subdivision process. Uh so we're proposing to create one single lot um that matches the existing deed parcel. Um as I said there's a couple things to just point out. There's the um existing pedestrian access there and then there's an access easement up here in the north corner that provides access to the clock tower parking lot. Um

otherwise it's pretty straightforward single lot. Um in reviewing the code, we found that it meets all the criteria for approval except section 602C which is lot shape. Um side lot lines shall be within 15 degrees perpendicular to the front lot line. Um, in our analysis, we found that the western side lot line that meets Burgess Creek is at an angle of 26 degrees. So, it's 11 degrees over the the allowable limit. Um, this is a standard. This probably was developed for um new subdivisions, green field subdivisions. Um, in this case, it's an existing parcel that's surrounded by existing parcels uh and two public roads. Um, there's no impact to adjacent properties. It's similar to other lots in the vicinity and most essentially it allows for future development as required by the CDC and anticipated in the mountain area plan and community plan and lots of our other plans. Um so with that I will turn it over to any questions you guys have.

Great. Thank you very much Ryan. Kelly, do you have a presentation as well?

I do. Thank you. Kelly Douglas again. Um okay. This is a preliminary flat and a major variance application. this this property it's unplatted. So that is the reason it's before you today as a preliminary plat. It's yeah I think you've seen the map so I'll spare you the um site description. It's 1.02 acres. It's zone G2 partially developed. Um yeah it's really just about site preparation. The subdivision includes some improvements um street trees, lighting, drainage, storm water treatment. And then as Ryan mentioned, there's one major variance that's to the lot shape standard. Um this standard, I feel you guys have seen this a few times recently. Uh it allows a range for the side lot line to intersect with the front lot line uh between 75 and 105° within 15 degrees of perpendicular. So in this case, there's one corner uh Birch Creek Northwest where the front and side come together that doesn't meet that standard and we are supporting this variance. It's due to the existing uh geometry of the parcel that predates anything. Um it's occurred before this before this subdivision. Um so it responds to the site and the access conditions and achieves a result that's equal to. So, we're so we support that variance. Um, we have not received any public comment specifically related to the subdivision. Uh, we [clears throat] have received public comment related to the next item, but in reading those public comments, I I feel it's safe to say that it was not related to um this parcel being platted. So, no public comment related to this subdivision. Uh, but happy to answer any questions. Staff supports with conditions. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. Any questions? Uh, Kelly, I have sort of have one. It's semi-related. I mean it is it's very related to this project but is there a way in the future to add code language that would say that if all the existing property lines or all the proposed property lines are all existing and share boundaries with neighboring platted properties that you don't need to meet this requirement. Save people from going through this all the time. Um yeah certainly

all the time. It's like half a dozen but still can we save people from this in the future? Um, yeah, it's certainly a possibility. I'm hearing some support from planning commission for a code amendment. So, we can note that for sure. Yeah, I I'm I'll I'll I'll follow up with a follow-up question on that. Can this seems like it does come up. I I I strain my brain trying to understand what it really means and I um I sense this. Could this be done administratively as opposed to coming to commission? I mean, with the current standards, no. Uh, but you know, if the code was changed, absolutely, that's an option. Well,

not to get too policy and answer, but I'm going to anyway. I think the applicant already answered that really well for you, too. So, I'll just add that into the record as well, is that the the requirement exists for a good reason on maybe new subdivisions being created where new new lot lines are being proposed. Uh, so so it is good in general, just maybe not in these conditions. Yeah, interesting. Any other questions though? Okay. Is there any public comment for this agenda item? Seeing none. Is there any online? We've seen none there either. Okay, then unless you had anything to add, Ryan. Great. Or Kelly,

nothing to add. Thank you. No questions. I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion or emotion. I believe we've had the discussion of what we'd like to see with applications like this and there being no reason no good reason to deny it. I'll make a motion to approve PL 20240384 with the four recommended conditions of approval. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Was okay with you? Hearing no discussion, I'll call for a vote. I I I I I.

That passes 7 to zero. And we'll jump into our agenda item number three,

which is the same property 1700 Ski Time Square. This is the development plan agenda item PL 20240385. See applicant here for a presentation. Thank you. Let's get it set up. is the laser pointer part that works here.

Uh I don't think that will advance but you pointer that red uh dash on the top.

Just want to make sure. Okay, now we can start. Um planning members of the planning commission, members of the planning department, members of the public, uh my name is David Hill. Thank you very much for allowing um me to give you an audience tonight and describe to you the project at 1700 Ski Time Square. Um this um application is for 23 residential units, commercial space and associated amenities. It is um as I think you just saw a fairly complicated site uh in that um it uh squeezed tightly between a parking structure to the um west of the existing clock tower condominiums to the east and the it should be maybe it's just slow. Ryan doesn't think it's sharing the right screen. It's kind of odd. The only screen I have. [laughter] How about that? I'll try it again. See if it comes up this time. Hopefully, it'll move forward. We'll see. Um, so we're sandwiched between a parking structure, the clock tower bird building, the uh Burgess Creek Road, which is in the bottom left of the picture, and then the Ski Time Square Drive. So, it is a fairly awkward site. And in the top of the site, you can see we have a pedestrian access easement here, which goes to the clock tower building and really consumes approximately 60% of the frontage of their building. um as well. That is a no build zone for all of us.

Let's see if Hey, it worked. There we go. Um a different perspective shows you the site in blue here. Uh and then what we've drawn to help orient you is the right of way for Ski Time Square Drive. It's important to note that the right of way is actually set back pretty far on this site. Uh, and you can see from the the photo in the upper right corner, what happens is Ski Time Square Drive falls away as the Clock Tower building rises, creating a pretty substantial um, difference in elevation between the Ski Time Square Drive sidewalk and the clock tower building. Part of the challenge of this project was to be able to create a a viable transition between those two existing um uses, if you will, if you want to call a public road a use. So, okay. Now, let's just take um we'll we'll zoom in from a higher elevation down to the site itself and then have a quick look at the buildings. What we've planned for, as I said, 23 condominium units on two buildings, nine buildings um that nine units that front Skime Square Drive, 14 units that front Burgess Creek Road. Given the site's awkwardness and approximately um 11 to 12 feet up from the sidewalk on Ski Time Square Drive and a 35 ft variance between Ski Time Square Drive and Burgess Creek Road, I sure as you all know Burgess Creek Road rises pretty aggressively across our site. Um what took approximately two years in various design iterations to bring it forward here was the creation of two buildings that front both of those streets and then provide view corridors between uh over our pedestrian easement

through um a a courtyard garden area here for the clock tower building and um gives a little bit of variety and more definition to what the site can provide. Going in a little closer, um you can see the the roof lines of the two buildings. We um in the G2 zone were allowed a uh to go to a zero setback. We looked very closely at how we could fit the number of units in here. We looked at the building heights. We do touch very closely in some of the corners, i.e. here, here, there, and there. It's a tight squeeze here here as well. And on the clock tower side, we um actually step back about approximately 15 feet from our property line to give some room between us and the neighbors. The building height um and I just got kicked out of the internet. The building height is um 83 feet on the Ski Time Square side again because Ski Time Square drops and 65 ft on the Burgess Creek roadside. Maximum building height in the G2 zone of 105 ft. Um, we are below that 105 ft limit, but we are attempting to respect our neighbors both to the east and then to the north, which is primarily single family residential across the street from Burgess Creek Road. Um, I just got kicked out, but I'm back in now. So, and then finally, as you as you go vertical um from the site, this is a look at the two buildings. Um the one on Ski Time Square Drive and the one on Burgess Creek Road, six stories at its

lowest point down here, five stories um up at the relationship with the clock tower building. And this one is um a total of five stories across the whole site. So, okay. Um this gives you a perspective on the building. Um the Ski Time Square building. This is taken as if you were coming down Ski Time Square Drive. Uh the building materials are thermally modified wood. Um, so it's a it is a a wood product as well as a cementitious fiber. The wood is in the lighter shades. The fiber board is in the darker. Um, we meet or exceed the 25% glazing on all sides. And um, we have worked particularly hard to be sure that snowshedding and the pedestrian experience um, work together. So that on the ground plane you can see where we have um been sure that wherever there is pedestrian active zone and this is the commercial right here. Wherever there's pedestrian active areas we're sure to have a decent feel for um the relationship between the buil building and the pedestrians. So, in your package, you have all of the um perspectives, uh different elevations, um around 100% of the building to have a to give you a better feel for it. Uh finally, we had much discussion with the planning uh department on the relationship between Ski Time Square Drive and the um the buildings and how we interface with the pedestrian active frontage area. Uh it's important to note that we're on a curve. There's a right of way there. There are three Yampa Valley electric transformers that are just out of your picture to the left.

And then there's the entrance to the Ski Time Square parking garage. Um if you exclude the um entrance to our parking garage, we have about a 13 ft of frontage on Ski Time Square Drive. And so in that frontage um we have placed the building entrance. We've placed benches. Uh just out of your picture are bike racks. Um that and then you actually can't see them uh up in the burgess up on the um plaza area as well. Th this is the stairs that go up to a central commercial courtyard which has an interface with the clock tower building, fire pit, seating area, and then um we've added maybe what one might call a little bit of whimsy in that rather than just having a typical bench. Um we've used a more artistic interpretation of a chair lift with a supporting um steel structure that people can use to sit on, gather. We've also included all the other um amenities that are necessary to activate this as a street frontage. Um this perspective um will give you a good view of again of the elevation change that goes across here. um the stairs that go up, handicap ramp or ad should say, ramp that makes it all the way down in the pedestrian easement area. So that easement area really does fill this whole frontage, although this is part of the lot that you just approved or for platting. This is all part of that development area. And the right of way comes right through this zone here. Um we've landscaped it. We've we've tapered back the landscaping to eliminate the majority of what was a retaining wall previously and kind of a

I might describe a crumbly set of stairs. Um rebuild those stairs, maintain those stairs, and then we've added uh an art wall along here which goes alongside the ADA ramp. So, okay. Um one last image of the building. This would be probably not a facade too many folks will see. Maybe looking from across at the Sheridan um back towards the building or looking up, you know, from Ski Time Square Drive at a higher elevation and just gives you a perspective of the uh materials, the um emphasis on the variety at the ground plane and then how we're interfacing between us and and the related buildings. So um other than that we um agree with everything that is a condition of approval that's been put into the staff report. Um we've asked for um three variances. One on the um step back um uh between 12 and 45 ft. We've asked because we've actually moved the whole building and and broken them up into two separate buildings. Uh we took a look at um the variances for the parapits. Um we've asked for a variance to eliminate parapits at the essentially at the ground plane. Um but we do maintain parapits for example up here that are 42 in um in height to be able to hide any mechanical equipment that we may have. And then we've asked for a um variance on the use well which is in the pedestrian active zone to have some of it that's not commercial in particular on Burgess Creek Road. Um with that I'll finish and thank you for your time.

Thank you for your presentation. Kelly, do you have a staff report as well?

I do. Thank you. Uh this is a development plan major variance and conditional use application before you. uh same subject site as our previous item. So with this application, um there is a mixeduse development proposed and includes 23 multif family multiple family residential units and about 1400 square ft of commercial space as well as a new sidewalk along Burgess Creek road frontage and significant enhancements to the Ski Time Square Drive streetscape. There is a public plaza that includes landscaping benches, public art, um stairs, an ADA ramp, uh that will further improve pedestrian access and connectivity and really activate Ski Time Square. Um regarding use, multiple family residential and general retail flesh service principal uses are proposed. Multiple family is a limited use in the G2 zone district. However, when specific use standards are not met, um, such as allowing residential in the pedestrian active building frontage, the use is reviewed as a conditional use. So, that's how we're how we're here in the conditional use process. Um, in this case, staff supports this conditional use. Um, highintensity residential is encouraged in the G2 zone district and commercial is incorporated. It's just a little higher up on the site. Um the site is very steep. Um and the ski time square frontage is narrow. Um Burgess Creek Road feels secondary. Um the G2 zone district supports design flexibility and creativity. Uh it emphasizes pedestrian oriented interconnected development um that create active public spaces. So staff's finding that the sum of the parts of this proposal achieve that. So we support the conditional use. Regarding

parking, uh 25 spaces are required, 38 are proposed, so the standard is met. Uh those will all be interior um accessed from both sides of the site. Um regarding site development, there's two major variances uh included with this request. The first one is to building massing standards. Uh the requirement says that buildings that exceed three stories or 45 ft of unbroken height must step back at least 8 feet in depth between 12 and 45 ft above the finished grade. Um the proposal is that some portions of the building are not stepped back per that standard. Staff supports the request because the proposal achieves an equal to result by furthering uh the guidelines in section 440E2. There's three of them A, C, and E. that it furthers. So we agree and support that variance. The second variance is to roof form standards. Uh these are base area design standards if I didn't mention that a moment ago. Um so the requirement says that flat roofs shall be enclosed by parapit walls no less than 42 in. Uh the proposal is that some flat roofs lower down on the building are proposed without a 42-in parapit wall. Um, similar to above, we find this to be an acceptable alternative. Their uh, guideline 440F5A uh, we find that one to be met, so we support it. Um, that's the summary of the proposal. We have received two written public comments in opposition to the proposal. Um, those comments received specifically oppose the conditional use and variance requests. They do not feel I'm summarizing uh generally they do not feel that the criteria for approval for a variance variances and conditional use have been

met. So that's the the basis of their opposition. Um overall for staff's part, we find the proposal to further robust direction provided in the CDC uh the master master mountain area master plan uh the area community plan and therefore we're recommending approval with conditions. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Any questions from commissioners to staff for the applicant?

Uh yeah, I do. And I think this is for Kelly, but um may require others. um the concerns that were expressed in letters of opposition. If the variance uh if the setbacks were in accordance with the criteria

and it didn't require a variance, would that impact would there still be a significant impact on the clock tower? I mean, I think whether there's an impact on the clock tower is a little subjective to start with. Um, so I think that's hard to say because staff doesn't find that it has an impact on the clock tower. So for me to say, oh yeah, that would be better kind of undermines staff's position. So I can't really say that. Um,

would this would the person the author of the public comment maybe, but I they're not I don't think they're here. if they're here, they can absolutely answer, but um I just I couldn't speak to that because staff has a different finding. That's fair. Any other questions?

Sure. I don't know how perfect it is, but what happens? There's a significant loss of parking, and I'm not sure who that parking is supposed to serve or who it's currently serving. And is it because it's not on the clock tower property now? How how does that affect I guess the question would be future development of the clock tower or even the existing uses of the clock tower?

I mean I don't I don't have an answer. I don't really know um perhaps if the applicant has any uh you know context they can provide. Commissioner Levy, there are 40 surface parking spaces there today which are essentially paid parking spaces or leased out to other individuals who um use them on a seasonal or annual basis. The clock tower building itself has its parking in the rear of the building behind the Burgess Creek adjacent to Burgess Creek Road. So, I can't comment whether they meet city code or not, but it's not related. We've met with some of the people that are using this. They know that that parking will go away. It's uh the 40 spaces are being replaced with 38 underground and on a different use pattern and would actually decrease the amount of traffic there.

Okay. is for pedestrian access is the access to building two is that a public is that public access or is that just a private walkway? What's the goal access from the frontage of the clock tower building the ski time square side? I don't care who answers it. I think it's more of a question to the applicant. Um there is uh the primary public access to to building 2 on Burgess Creek Road faces Burgess Creek Road itself. There's a secondary access for those that are in the Burgess Creek building to get to go through the central courtyard to get over, let's say, to the ski area as an example. The central courtyard is private to that development. Um there is a walkway that goes around the perimeter between the uh two buildings and the um clock tower building which is public.

I'm sorry. Say that again. There's a walkway that goes around the two buildings. It goes beside between beside the two buildings and the clock tower building itself. There's a pathway through there. Okay. I'll look for it. Any other questions?

Uh, this question. Okay. Uh, I' I'd like to see the pictures, but I don't the the east facing facade, the one that faces up Ski Time Square, that is one of the building facads that are requesting a variance on stepbacks. the large glass facade. Um, just a moment.

I have a followup for that, too. So, if you don't mind, while you're answering his, if you could pull up their sheet G 152, which is page 45 of their set. They did a great job of of showing graphically where they have uh these specific conditions and I'll utilize that same slide if that's okay after you.

I have those listed as well. All right. Here you go. You're asking about this side of the building. All right. Yeah, this is the commercial space. This is Burgess Creek.

Burgess Creek to the right. The one that you were hovering over is facing Burgess Creek. Yes, you were asking about this side of the building. Rich, one facing up Ski Time Square. That picture is I can't see the detail of that. Somebody would have to Where is Burgess Creek and where's Ski Time Square on that road? On that picture. This is Ski Time Square. My mouse is facade. You can't actually even see in that picture. It's that square edge. You can't see that actual facade.

See, there you go. Yes, that one. And that's the one that's requesting a step back variance. There is a couple of areas. Um, let me think about where is the best to reflect that. Guess the areas that you highlighted in orange are the areas that are requiring a variance. So on that specific corner with all the glazing on that one, I don't believe that they are requesting or at least they're not indicating that they are on that certain age. Just like

Yeah. Okay. Sorry. This is the best drawing for you to look at. It does, but it's not requesting.

Okay.

Rephrase Rich's question because I think I'm going to do a good job of it. that facade that you're zoomed in on that's uh largely just glass doesn't seem to be requesting a unbroken plane variance but it looks like it should be. Can you help describe why it's not requiring a variance? Um no I I don't have that off the top of my head. I need to look at like a few other drawings and I don't know if we're prepared to like have me do that analysis right now on the fly. Um if the applicant could speak to that like the applicant to speak to it as well commentarying your question though but let's do a better job of clarifying that

G09 I also think like there's a few things like the standard talks about 3 ft there is a step back with the roof that you see here um to put it back oh apologies Um, this this does step back here if I'm not mistaken. Um, sure. From the commercial to the residential above. Yeah, you're you look ready.

Yeah, sorry. I'm Andy Barry. I'm the architect on the project. Uh yeah, our why we weren't showing that elevation on that previous render where we showed the yellow as part where we're talking about variance is we felt that the intent of the code was met because of that first step back in building at the lowest level at the commercial space. And if if you go up to the image above this one, if you zoom in on the upper left building, you can see the sliver um at the top on this elevation. There's a sliver of yellow. That's the only little part that's facing the clock tower building um in question that is over that 45 ft unbroken. So, it's it's roughly a couple feet.

Thank you. And are you both measuring both Kelly and yourself, are you guys measuring that from the top of the canopy roof or are you measuring it from the sidewalk below? Therefore, down at the restaurant level? Uh, these ones were take, sorry, these ones were taken off of the courtyard level. The restaurant level. Is that the courtyard level? Um, no. The courtyard. got the the big wall of glass that's got a covered kind of um Yeah. So, the commercial space is on the left side of there. This elevation right now that we're looking at faces the courtyard between our two buildings. Can you use the pointer saying where you measured from? Thank you. Yes.

So, this elevation was taken off of this mark right here before you get to 45. Yeah. And then you can't really see the elevation you're concerned about. That's on the lower um the lower image. Can you pan down? If I may to try and add clarity, stay here and continue to describe that showing the step the setback of the commercial level to the residential level on that elevation. You can see the like 8 to 10 feet that it's pushed back. Correct. Right. which is why that one with all the glazing doesn't require a 45 foot unbroken plane.

We're interpreting it as the sorry we're interpreting this roof as part of that step back and that's where it starts that measurement again does that make that's how we interpreted it. Does that help answer your question?

Uh I understand what he's saying but one two three four pretty close. Okay. Yeah. And I guess just to address this a little bit more, the unbroken plane, um, the majority of the facades that face the pedestrian experience, those are the ones that we really focused on trying to adapt to this rule. And I think that was I can't speak for why the code was written the way it it was, but we thought that the the code wasn't kind of written in the way of the pedestrian experience as people that are around the site. So those are the elevations where we primarily focus on that effort. Um and the other constraints of the site, you know, we do have some small little portions where we're looking for a variance. Yes.

While we're on this topic, can I go to my facade? It's a different facade of the same building is where my question was. Kelly, if you don't mind, you've done great so far. same page, but I would like to look at the south elevation of that lower building, which I think is pretty visible in the bottom left of the three of the four exxons. Right. So, it's the right building then on that one where there's a pretty substantial chunk. Yep.

That is yellow. My question that I'd like to pose to both of you if I could um Kelly as staff uh indicates that it is meeting acceptable alternative criteria through sorry I used to be more prepared to ask this question than I am now a couple of different guidelines. These are 440E2A and 440E2C that say building design should mitigate the visual impacts of a large building mass through offsets, projections, and recesses in the facade. As Kelly pulls that back up, I'm curious how that is being met in that elevation.

Sorry, I can't do two things at one time.

Understood. Did it Did you get kicked out of the program again? It's crashing our program as well. There's three guidelines that we feel it, you know, there's multiple buildings, multiple aspects of the building. So, there's three different guidelines. Um, I think that they should. It doesn't create a wedding cake form. I think it does further that guideline for sure in that specific area.

How does it create how does it meet C and A? That's what I was saying is that there's three guidelines and not all three apply to every single area. Like different areas may further different guidelines if you will. Okay. I appreciate your analysis. Can the applicant answer my question as well? How you think that the variance is an acceptable alternative on that elevation? 12.

Yeah, it we look specific more specifically at 44E1. Um, and what are the standards? Um, E1D. Um, you know, we're limiting heights. Um, we're looking at modulation by separating buildings. We're looking at where we actually have pedestrian um access. That facade is between a park current parking structure and our facade. Um when you then go down to the guidelines, we agree 100 with um what the planning department has said in terms of meeting um visual impacts. this that facade of the building is set well back from any street um and has little visual impact given the ski time square parking structure which is in front of it and the potential for that ski time square parking structure to be developed on in the future. So

thank you for your answers. I guess I would just add pardon me uh to jump back in um kind of doing this on the fly a little. Um I would also add though that there are offsets this um here let me share again. Great.

And like I said like there's three different guidelines that we feel it's furthering and that's that's intentional. Not every area of the building does everything. This area you see how it kind of pops out in this area. There is variety. It steps back here. over here. The whole mass of this floor steps back. And I think that that it also has these balconies over here that kind of chip away at that mass. And I think those things together avoid that wedding cake. So I think that's how that guideline is furthered. So that's just to give you an example that like this area and this area further different guidelines. Can you help me make sure that I understand your yellow on that? Where the yellow starts is where you're above 45 ft.

Yes. That's from grade. Yep. At that elevation. So then on the image, the building to the right, there's a whole story that's above that. Whole story that's that's within that yellowed area. It's reflected on this. Yeah. grade's falling away. We're not showing the grade perfect on that elevation there. I guess I'm saying I'm seeing an entire row of windows within the yellow area. Almost two rows of windows within the yellowed area that are above the 45 ft unbroken plane. Is that fair? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. That's all I had on that. Okay.

Let somebody else jump to a different topic. Any other questions?

Great. I'll go back to my south facade. Um, I understand that that facade did not meet the 45 ft of unbroken, but 440H building scale, variation, and fenestration. D said building three three or more stories in height should incorporate a recognizable base, middle, and top. And I was wondering how if we if that is achieved in that facade of that building glass fronted building that would be the eastfacing facade of building one I believe. Be nice we had those pictures up. Maybe if the applicant can screen share so Kelly doesn't have to switch [clears throat] screens. I like G009 because it's pretty illustrative.

Sure. Um I don't know. You were wanting the one that was the pretty picture rendering, right? Pardon me. You wanted the one that was the pretty picture. So yeah, we were looking. Yeah, another one. I was I really had trouble understanding it to be honest. Right. It is a great rendering. It was But that would be the upper right hand view. Does Does that have a base, a middle, and a they call it a top? I forget now. I even called what I even said. Base, middle, and top. Recognizable. I see I see a base with your commercial unit and then the rest seems to be relatively unbroken even if it's not 45 ft.

Anyone can answer.

Okay, then let me do this. Um have to reconnect here for some reason. I apologize. Okay, I think this let me go to It's taking a second. Not going to the full screen. Um, we look at this facade, there's a very distinct base,

middle, and then we look at the top all the way across there. But I'm looking at that facade to the far right of that picture, the one that I'm particularly concerned with. It's facing straight up Ski Time Square, which is the to me one of the most prominent facades of this building because the other one people are driving in the curve, but everyone on Ski Time Square, I'm pretty sure, will be looking down Ski Time Square Drive to see that facade. Yeah, the flat facade. I'm pretty sure that's East Facing. You have a question?

I did. I asked if the if that facade has a base, a middle, and a top, not the one not the one that's predominant in that picture. Well, I understand what you're asking and my response is that we look at the whole of the building in its context as opposed to just one individual. So,

okay. Because then then if in my opinion if that is not met then you'd go into the guidelines which say all building facad should be designed with a similar level of design detail which that other facade does not have and should avoid flat blank walls and I'm not positive if a glass window is considered blank wall or it would have to be a solid brick one. It looks relatively blank in design features to me. Do you do you feel that your building meets that guideline 2B?

Um, can you quote for me again which the guideline was? We at 440 I believe 440H 2B scale and variation guidelines if the top middle if the other if the guideline if the standard wasn't met I think I look at 2A to start with new development should be designed in the round both would I believe apply not one or the other I appreciate your interpretation answer Sure. Sound good is not the way I mean to write say that, but we can move on. You have any follow-up questions to that? Okay. Any other questions?

I have a question um about the same stuff if you don't mind staying up here. There's on page G50. It doesn't seem like the There's like the elevations that have um the orange area called out with measurements on them of these areas that are maybe we need to read that code section. Walls that exceed 45 ft of unbroken height measured from finished grade. and the elevations show those pretty well with measurements, but those don't seem to match the orthos the um the ones [clears throat] we were looking at at G152 cuz in particular the wall that is pointing Ski Time Square um on the perspective images that we had been looking at before it's just a little sliver facing Ski Time Square but on the elevations it's actually an entire story. So, I'm just a little confused by the discrepancies between those and and that's not the only one. It there are some others that don't quite seem to line up. I'm curious if you're seeing the same thing if it's if

Oh, I don't have that sheet pulled up. G150. Appreciate that. Don't Yeah, 150. probably a more technical question to be answered than Sure. than from me. So, I'll just get it for him. If you could tell me the page number in your package that you're looking at. Yeah. So, it's I don't know how to tell which file this is, but it's G150 through 152. Okay. It's just two pages above where we were looking. It's page 43 of your Oh, sorry. Of the PDF. That's okay.

And it's also the plan set probably you had to download the whole agenda packet. I think I think I think what you're asking is like shown differently, right? It is shown differently. Yeah. So because there's a grade variation from the courtyard which is roughly 13 14 ft higher than Ski Time Square Drive, we measured from that elevation the grade right below that elevation. So that's why it like steps as you go around the building. No, sorry. I don't think I made my question very clear. So if it would be help Oh, we can't put these up there, can we?

We can get it up. Okay. On page G150, it shows which is 43 of 71 of the PDF.

Yeah, the bottom right elevation number one shows that to the commercial I think is what's shown there at the very bottom.

Correct. And then that facade above that is the one facing Ski Times or the clock tower building. Sorry, I think I said Ski Time Square earlier, which was probably confusing. Um, that's the facade facing the clock tower building. And here it shows Can you zoom in on that? Whoever has that up. I don't know if that's Rebecca or Kelly, cuz you can't really see the color on it. It that one. You got your hand over it right now. The entire top story is shown as the area above. God, I keep forgetting walls that exceed 45 ft of unbroken height measured from finished grade. But then the what you showed us earlier is just like a little sliver, but that's showing the entire top story is actually above that. The entire top story is what would need to be varied. I can't re I can't read the dimension, but

yeah, it's hard to see up there. I can help you. It says 45 ft. Does it? Okay. So, um I guess the interpretation of the code we had was any elevation that was over 45 ft from grade. Mhm. We needed to do a step back within 45 ft. There needs to be a step in the building within 45 ft. So, we took our measurement from uh the top roof of the commercial where the step in the building is 45 ft up from that to determine if we needed another step in the building. I guess that's how we interpreted that elevation.

Okay. The graphics are just showing two different things, I guess, is what I'm pointing out. Okay. This is showing that that whole top story needed to be varied and the other graphic is not. Can I set a different way to help? Yeah, that would be helpful. Thank you. Would you agree that your 2D elevations are more graphically correct than your axons that are trying to just show it in the round? Um, this one here. Yes, I can't say that about the other ones. Not measured very well as that would probably be difficult to do on a exonometric. Yeah. Yeah. Is that is that a fair way to question?

That's a better way to ask that. And now I guess I'm kind of in Rich's I'm confused about some of the other elevations that seem to have areas that should be shown as requiring a variance as well and maybe aren't. It like feels like maybe this analysis isn't quite complete. So it's really hard to tell what we're varying. I think you can rely on those elevations that you were looking at. Okay. G150 and G151.

So then can I can maybe you can explain the answer to Rich's question. That facade that he was concerned about that shoots up Ski Time Square. It's page G150 elevation 2. How is that standard met there? I inferred an answer to that that they already gave. So, I'm going to try and help that I don't make them answer it twice because I I was very jargony with my question. Um, there is a step back if you look at the original one that was just pulled up.

There is not a step back in building facade on that north elevation. However, there is as you move to the east elevation because on that facade, the restaurant the commercial level actually does bump out forward and therefore the where the unbroken plane starts is actually higher on that one. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the standard. It's measured from finish grade. So that elevation has the commercial space the those upper floors push back from that commercial space. So they don't they have a broken a broken plane I guess is maybe the clearest way. That's a great way. Yeah, absolutely.

So, it doesn't matter that there's more than 45 feet above that that's unbroken. What matters is the first 45T from grade according to that standard. I believe that's correct. Okay,

great. Any other questions? I have a measurement question for the probably for the applicants best. Um on the hard to say north or south on this piece of property, but on the northern part most part where the parking garage is and you abut very closely to that property, how far are you proposing to build from the actual property line and do you know how far from the parking garage also? Is that I can actually answer that. Kelly, it's 5.26 feet. 5T to which one of his questions? I'm sorry. To the property line or to the garage or that is that the same

the corner of the garage to the closest property line? That's 5.26 ft. That's the measurement uh the call on the Well, actually, it's a little more than that it looks like. But that's No, that's correct. 5.26 feet is what the call on the site plan says. Structure to structure. Uh, no. To the property line. I don't know how far it is from the structure. Sorry, I'm confused. To which property line proposed building to property line is what Kelly would have needed to measure the the other existing condition structure. It' be awesome if somebody knew the answer, but it's not.

It's not. I understand. It's a different property. Um, my concern is there's a parking garage there that is in disrepair that will need to be replaced in the future. Um, this the structure is really large. So, I'm still listening to what you're providing. Was there is that a I I don't have a they answered my question. The dimensional thing. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. No, great. Any other questions?

Yeah. Kelly, can you The public gathering space and the amenities along Ski Time Square seem relatively small. I assume that there's been a calculation to make sure that they've contributed 1% of their amenity 1% of the total whatever it is construction costs to community amenities. Yes. And there's a condition of approval that because we do that calculation based on valuation at building permit and it talks about if if there is a discrepancy in the amount of the if the amount of the amenities doesn't equal I believe it's 1%. Um then a fee would be paid to make up the difference for the public amenities that is.

Okay. Great. Any other questions? Question. Nope. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? No. Seeing none. Is there any online? I thought there was one. Believe there might be. I think there's someone with their hand raised. Yeah, I believe that they were the author of one of the public comments we received. They may want to speak. That's great. uh if you can go ahead and give us your name and address and and give us your comments and try and keep them to three minutes.

I uh Ferman Hardenburg and I'm a owner resident in the clock tower unit 4. Um there seems to be a fair amount of in my humble opinion smoke and mirrors. Um, if you go through the uh the proposal or application that's attached to the agenda online is very different than what's being proposed here tonight. Um, building massing is a huge concern for both not just the parking deck but obviously for the clock tower residents and commercial space. Um there it uh Mr. Hill and I said wrote uh he said they're they're trying to squeeze tightly onto the footprint. They're maximizing whatever foot uh square footage they can within an odd shape, but they're doing it to their convenience and asking for these variances for their building convenience and architectural convenience, not for code con uh not for the community code uh betterment. uh the flat roof. Sure, there's a flat roof at basically ground level but not above. Um so that uh that code is not satisfied. The building massing is not satisfied as we just went through. Um slides G or pages G150 through G152 clearly demonstrate that the setbacks are not being met uh in in their own diagrams in the presentation. It was taken from aerial view which gave you a

sliver uh perception of a a very slight setback was being violated. But in regards to the uh east, north, and west, uh everything is above 45 feet. That should have a setback. And to I think it was Miss Cruz, uh the the top two, there's two full rows of windows on G150 in that position one. So the building massing is one the flat roof the views which again is part of the massing um in line or in tandem [clears throat] with the sunlight uh slides or in the proposal which are G020 021 and G022 the solar studies. If you look at that Mr. Hill was pretty accurate in saying 60% is open for the clock tower. 40% is blocked by the monolith mass. That sunlight in the winter after about 9:30 is non-existent for 40% of the clock tower. In the in the spring, it gets a little bit better. In the summer, it's okay. But the sunlight creates a a a trough or a valley for snow, ice, etc., which is a problem throughout the uh village. Um,

and I apologize, it's hard for you to see online, but uh you're you're well over your three minutes now. If you could wrap up your comments, please.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. Sorry. I apologize. Um, the setbacks are are are not there. While the the developer has asked for variances for their convenience of of maximizing their development dollars, they have not demonstrated a hardship or a necessity to to ask for the variance. It's out of their convenience to build to maximize their square footage in a slight in a very squeezed in tightly footprint. and an odd footprint it is. But if you look at the documents completely and the and the opposition letters, I think you'll realize that by gracing any any of the variances is it flies in the face of the CDC and the mountain project uh the grand project whatever it's called.

All right. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other comments uh public comments online? You can raise your hand as well. Seeing none, any more in the room? Seeing none as well, uh we'll close public comment. Excuse me. And first give a opportunity for the applicant to give us any final uh response or comments.

Thanks very much for that opportunity. I don't mean to belabor the confusion between sheets G 150 to 152 and the axonometric views and how one measures the 45 ft and when it's set back between 8 and 12 ft and up to different elevations. I think uh planning direct director Bessie answered it pretty well. I would point you to the other parts of the building massing paragraph in the development code that what we have done is we've broken this into two different buildings. We've moved our buildings away from our adjacent neighbors where there are residential and we've kept it two stories down from what would otherwise be up to 105 ft building to make sure that we're fitting within um the neighborhood so to speak at least our immediate surroundings and have a decent transition between some of the larger buildings around uh the Steamboat Grand Thean to Plum and others. um to the west, south, east versus a single family residential that's to the north. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any final followup from you, Kelly? Um yeah, I I staff finds that this project substantially furthers the direction in the mountain area master plan. Uh this is identified as a important redevelopment parcel. I think the proposal does that with the plaza proposed. I think um with the exception of the design standards uh that variances are requested to the standards are met. Um so thank you. Thank you Kelly. And any final questions from commissioners hearing none [clears throat] I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

I can I can start.

Okay. So I given that we know that there's going to be redevelopment in that entire area. Um there's going to be some a lot of lot of mass of buildings that are that are built through there. And to start off with variances on on masses and scale and setbacks right off the bat I believe sets a really bad precedence. Um when I read the initial proposal here, I was excited um because it was you know talked about um bringing you know commercial space into you what was predominantly this neighbor you know in this community you know the operate ski place um which means you have to have commercial you know for that and I look at this and and 1,400 square ft of commercial is enough for a large coffee shop maybe I mean it's a Um, it is 1% of the total square footage. If you include the garage, it's if you don't include the garage, it's 2% of the total square footage towards commercial in an area that explicitly states for G2. Multif family is not located, you know, should not be located in with pedestrian active footage. And so they they they threw us a bone of for 1400 ft. it doesn't even doesn't even come close to for for me. So, um the setbacks for me is really is is critical and and the fact that we barely tried to provide any commercial here. Um I can't I can't support that.

I'll join your conversation for just to further it along. I I was thinking about that as well and what I was dwelling on is, you know, G2 is up against the ski hill just as much as it's this property. And do I think that the two I I don't I don't need to ask myself an easy question. I don't think that those two are equal in their requirement for providing commercial activation for our base area. And that's where I really got hung up because because I agree with you. It would be nice to have all of them do that. This one in particular, especially considering the upper building. I'm looking at what's past it along Burgess Creek and saying, "Who's the commercial for at that point?" It's difficult to get to past the clock tower and past the first building. It's going up against residential, even single family residential, which has always been strange, but it is what it is on the other side. Who's that commercial for? And so, if it doesn't exist, who is being shorted? And that that's really where I started to feel a little bit different about it. For better, for worse. Not that I don't see your point at all because because I was wrestling with that as well.

I feel similarly to Brian um when it comes to the the activation. Activating Burgess Creek doesn't feel appropriate for all the reasons that you just stated. And um I think that it would be very difficult. I'm not saying you can't do it, but I think that with the entrance on Ski Time Square and the building entrance, the garage entrance, all of that, like it's very difficult to activate the actual street level at that point because of how much frontage they actually have. Would it have been nice to maybe see a little bit more on the level where they did provide commercial? Possibly. But is it then activating the street any more than the park area that they're providing? I'm not I'm not certain that it would be. Um, so I'm I think I'm supportive of that variance just because it's an interesting site. The building massing I'm a little I'm not really sure where I stand to be perfectly honest. Um, one of the other guidelines that we didn't really spend any time on is that um, where there are large variations in topography and other unique site constraints exist, alternatives to building height and massing standards may be considered. So, and this is a pretty good example of a site that has a pretty massive difference between the grades of, you know, one side and the other side. And one of the reasons that those um [clears throat] the elevation showed so much space on that the side facing the garages is because it drops off right there and they have to measure from grade. So that's not not unique to Steamboat, but this site is unique in the drop offs that it does have. Whether this variation to building massing is what this intended, I'm not I'm not sure. It feels like a lot, but it does seem to meet the guidelines

and it the guidelines don't really say how much you can vary. It is this is a major variance. There's not really anything in the code to speak to that which I'm having a hard time with. It feels like a lot, but also it does feel like it meets the criteria. Can I play along? Yeah, please.

A lot of questions regarding that. Uh my answer to that is that I they have a lot of and that's why their their exonometric drawings were really helpful um to kind of show even if they weren't perfectly graphically high along the side, they kind of showed the intent of like where that was along the the different sloping um aspects of the property, which was great. What I think it shows is that for a lot of the facades, um, especially on the upper building, but even to a certain extent, a few of them on the lower building, a lot of them are just kind of we're so close, but the topography were kind of just over it and this kind of corner. And I think that that's a perfect example of what you're talking about, right? Where the the topography is creating that difficulty, but here couldn't quite work. were requesting a variance for it and I can support it in those locations. Where I couldn't and where I was hung up and where my question came from was some of the taller ones on that south building, the Ski Time Square building. Uh especially the one that's facing Mount Warner Circle. Uh, granted it's got a a a parking garage in front of a portion of it, but it's it's one and a half stories higher than that 45- ft plane, all single without any undulation to it whatsoever, facing Mount Warner. It is the first thing that people will see of that property as they turn that roundabout and start coming in over there. And I didn't see how there was a um a unique constraint of the topography there that warranted there being so little uh interest given to that um building facade. As Kelly pointed out, the upper building on its south facade actually has a bumpout that's trying to break it up at least a little bit. You could argue whether or not it did enough, but it it is trying to break up that facade. Whereas this one is one material bare with vertical rows of windows and is totally different in my mind than those other corners and some of those other parts of it. Just to add to your

question, it was a question to yourself, but I'll answer it anyway. Um, forward. I'm just looking at you, but

sure. Uh, I tend to agree that Burgess Creek is not the best place for more more ground floor pedestrian friendly commercial, but I'm I'm really disappointed about the without redesigning the project where the commercial is, not even just the size of it, but it's kind of at a dead end. That that is not a natural walking path anymore with that being closed. That's kind of a dead end to that upper portion of the sidewalk. There is a sidewalk going down along the street, Ski Time Square, and there's well, as small as it is, I would have liked to see more street facing commercial. There there's a small little amenity and and p and private entrance there that could possibly have been commercial. I think there should be more commercial. The way they designed the building, they did a very good job of minimizing how much of that building faces Key Time Square or the public thing. And that was their choice. They did a really good job of that, but they didn't maximize all of that public frontage. And I I have a problem with that. It's still G2. The emphasis on commercial is there. The emphasis on ground floor commercial is there. I don't see that emphasis in this project.

Any other discussion?

So, appreciate all the conversation, Kelly. I think comments you made were and everyone really good. I think obviously this is the redevelopment of this area. We look at uh pedestrian access. This is a pedestrian area. What brings pedestrians a place to go? A place to go could be where they're putting their head. Place to good go could be where they're going to feed their belly um or otherwise. I think um this is more pedestrian. They're going to walk across the street. I I do think the the plaza, I'll call it, that you actually walk up to um helps some of the activation happening. There's a fire going off. Fire truck leaving. Um activation um of the clock clock tower that's that's happening um and is an entryway to whatever this commercial may or may not be. Um my question earlier, I I I am concerned around the proximity to the parking garage. Um to your point, Rich, not to redesign the project. That's not our job up here, but sure wish the parking would have been done differently and integrated a lot next door. Um I will be supporting this project tonight. I think it's a good use of this land. Um, and it does have good pedestrian uh where we are lacking uh opportunities for pedestrians. I run this area all the time and it's not fun to run and I'm looking forward to being able to do that.

I I I think the the project I think the project's a good project. I think the site's a difficult site like a lot of our sites. Um it is pretty steep over there. Yeah.

Uh and right now what it is is a kind of a grungy parking lot. Um I think the activation will take place if anything from the parking from Ski Time Square parking walking across to the Gandhi, you know, as you go through there. Uh it'll be I I think it'll be a lot better than it is right now. I am concerned about massing in other projects as well. I believe we approved a project that's on the other side of the clock tower and that also pins up against the hill and goes pretty high. And I think we're going to see more and more of that. Um I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing at this point. Uh, I think we'll go through some uh growing pains as we develop through that area and we're going to see I assume we'll see a lot more. Hopefully, it's on flatter ground.

So, interesting. Oh, go you go.

I was to comment on on the massing. Yeah, I mean they could have gone 20 ft higher actually. I mean the code says they could have gone 20 ft higher and my my concern is that you know is the setbacks cuz all those buildings are going to be coming up against each other. So, um, in in breaking up that that mass, I think is really important. And yes, it's a good project, but they're they're trying to, you know, pull every little piece out of it. And and the the key thing of this area is it, you know, they clearly states it's multifamily, not located within pedestrian active, you know, frontages. that that was there because they want to to create and and um engage commercial in that whole area. I mean that's that's that is historically what that area has been and the community wants that history and that piece of it to to come back and they've lost all the other areas you many other pieces and so to basically turn ski into a residential zone versus a vibrant um commercial zone is not what the community wants and the code says says that

I was just going to add and and push back on against both of you a little bit is that um I think that you can have two separate uses. So I want to make sure that the concerns I have are not looking like they're actually fighting against both of your points which is that it is a difficult site. They are trying to do something with it. they are trying to activate and and provide um beds I think as you said somewhere to put your head um which needs to happen around the base area too it can be a really good project for that and separately while it's doing that is where I have concerns about raising the bar on on those design guidelines that we do have for the base is yes good do but also meet these pretty minimal requirements that we have regarding glazing and roof shapes and and undulation so we don't just have a straight rectangle showing up all over the place because of course that saves development cost and we got to make sure that that we're setting a certain bar and and I don't believe that that bar has been met even though the rest of the use and and the activation of this difficult lot is great but it could be great and and and and so it's a very separate case that I'm making than yours and I hope that's clear. Oh, I thought you were gonna respond. That's great.

Additional discussion. I think one of the things I keep finding fascinating about this building massing thing is that some of those facades like the one that you were harping on, it's, you know, one not setback. What are we what uh are we calling them? Setbacks.

Step back. I know. Okay. Stepbacks. There's the one on the ground floor of at grade at that at that spot and then theoretically they could have made that facade 20 ft higher without changing a thing and so and that doesn't require a variance but then the backside that presumably will probably get built up against I don't know whether that's better or worse for having a big blank wall is you know [snorts] that much it's about 20 ft over what it should be without a step back and that's that's problematic. But that same 20 ft on a side that does have a step back at ground level is not problematic on a different facade. And so I'm I think I'm just like doing mental loops on the intention of that piece of code cuz it doesn't seem like it really is that effective at breaking up building massing the way that it's written. Does that make am I making sense?

I mean, are you also saying where does 45 ft start? Well, I know where it starts. It says where it starts, but yeah, I won't repeat myself. Okay. [laughter]

Yeah. And then the um the purpose of that zone district, I feel like we keep reading that it's the first part of that purpose that it's a mixeduse district intended for high highintensity commercial. I'm kind of paraphrasing commercial uses, high density residential. It is intended for high density residential and lodging uses. These zone districts allow for design flexibility and creativity to emphasize pedestrianoriented interconnected development that creates active public spaces with density and intensity increasing closer to the b the base area. And I would argue that at the base area, the the areas that have outdoor space versus tons of indoor commercial space are the ones that are activated. Cuz once you finish skiing, where do you want to be? you want to operate outside where there's outdoor space to hang out in. So I am fully supportive of that the variance of using the park to activate that area. I think that that is exactly what people are looking for after skiing, not to go inside of a giant coffee shop. If anything, they want to go get their coffee and go sit in the park outside. So that one that one I have no qualms with at all. But the massing thing I'm still just all over the place on.

Thank you. Any other discussion? I agree. Motion of course. I'm sorry. I agree with the I guess I would call them concerns about massing and lack of stepbacks without repeating those. and that the commercial space requirements and activization also are dependent on the city's reliance of sales tax, not just people having fun on the sidewalk.

Great. I'll for the record say that the variance number two the roof forms um I think is the very correct application of that variance. um getting rid of the parapit roofs, uh having flat roofs down there that are um not inhibiting uh glazing or um anything like that, but protecting entrances uh is much better served with the roof that they proposed rather than one with a 42in high parapit uh that is just wholly inappropriate in that location. So that is that um I very much agree with both staff and applicants justifications on that one. Make a motion. Motion to approve PL 202240385 subject to the 10 conditions in the staff report.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion on that motion? Uh so I'll I'll just say for clarity uh I will be voting against it not because of variance 2. I support variance 2. I also support the conditional use uh for the reasons I said earlier regarding um specific nuances of the site. I will not be supporting variance one is I think um very specifically trying to scroll and talk. No, I went too high. That's why very specifically the uh arguments for an acceptable alternative um are actually arguments to not support um specifically that south elevation of the Ski Time Square building. arguably um the northeast elevation uh as well though I think it meets maybe not the intent of it but literally the verbatim written uh step back code for it but but they very much don't on the south elevation which I think is a very visible corner for the building and that's why it will not be any other discussion on this motion think we've all said it I'll call for a vote Nay.

I I No. No. I I And that passes four to three. Thanks for your time tonight and best of luck at council.

We'll move to Do we have a director's report tonight? Um the only thing I wanted to mention is um that city council approved the historic preservation plan and updated design guidelines Tuesday night. So that's cause for celebration. Um they also approved the new Steamboat Springs community plan. So um that's also cause for celebration. That's the first adopted new plan since um 2004, 21 years ago. So we have some follow-up steps on that. Um, it has to go through the county approval process. We don't anticipate that that's going to be an issue, but we have those meetings to to follow through on. Um, as well as the final sort of pretty version of the plan, which you haven't all seen yet. Once we have that done, we'll make sure to distribute that all out to you so you know where to find that and can reference it. You'll see us referencing that plan moving forward in our reviews. Um and we are also will be completing sort of like a user guide document um that will assist staff, planning commission, city council, applicants and how to you how exactly to use the plan um in our decision-m. So we'll make sure that you're all involved in that um development of that document as well as have it on hand when it's once it's finalized so that you can utilize it. That's all I have.

Great. Thank you, Rebecca. Um, one thing to bring up to you, uh, would be, I think a request, I'm going to speak globally for you all, but please argue with me. I'm going to speak globally that we're all frustrated with trying to use Agenda to go and it crashing whenever bigger development plans show up to the point where there are four laptops here in addition to our iPads. And I did all of my research on my own computer before coming in tonight for the exact same reason. Is there anything that we can do? Can I can I I don't know, but I will talk with the official request for the minutes and maybe we can make something happen.

Yeah, I will talk with it and the clerks and see what what the deal is. Um, and I apologize because I don't use agenda to go, so I don't know exactly the experience that you have um with the iPads, the city issue iPads. Are you able to access can you just go to the website and download the PDF itself and do a view it differently? Is there an advantage to agenda of agenda to go is making notes directly on the packet. Okay. Questions you can circle it. Okay. Otherwise they're switching back and forth. The only way it works is I can have at least one up in front of me and the notes on another page.

Okay. And and even though I've resorted to that which does work and is frustrating, the other thing that's really helpful is that you can go agenda by agenda and plan set versus staff report as opposing um especially when specific civil consultants are applying uh which was the case in both major development plans tonight but but even with um intricate renderings uh it's easily overwhelmed and we we got to hopefully find a different way to it just disappears. That's amazing. And I think it was was Miss Douglas's crashing as well. Is that what was happening tonight or was that more of an internet issue?

No, I don't think Kelly was having I don't think it was crashing. You didn't have any issue with accessing the packet. I didn't know if your program was crashing or Yeah, that was intentional. I just I needed to do some other things also and like look around. It was kind of trying to be focused on the thing. Didn't want you watching her. Yeah, it gets a little going on.

It's hard when we as staff are sharing our screen the while you're asking. I mean, we're happy to do it and we will always accommodate it, but just keep in mind like as we're jumping around or you know when you have your screen shared um it gets a little nerve-wracking on as far as like what else you're doing on your computer. So that's why we'll pull it down. And then also when there's discussion, we try we tend to try to not screen share so that the cameras can see you all and can see people standing at the podium speaking rather than always seeing that image on the screen. So that's kind of why you'll see us pull things down uh quite often,

which is very helpful. And I'll also applaud you for how often you guys help take on the mantle of the digital age that we're in and applicants who may not be ready to be up to the task. You guys share a lot of screens and it is very helpful. Yep. Happy to do it. Thank you for that. Um I will take that feedback on that to it and clerks though because it is really I I mean I I hear you. I I can only imagine how frustrating it is when you can't access something in the in the meeting. So thank you. Uh we'll jump into uh nothing else. Uh does anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? I

Great. We're journed at 7:56. You won, Brian.