Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, looks like we're up and running. So, we'll go ahead and get started tonight. Uh, welcome everyone. This is our November 13th Planning Commission public hearing. Can I start with roll call, please? AJ Summers, Klay Cruz, Mitch Levy, Brian Adams, Lutador,

and we don't have anybody else online. Um, before we begin agenda items, is anybody here tonight who would like to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Okay, great. If there's anybody online, uh, you can raise your Zoom hand as well. Great. Seeing none, uh, we'll jump into our agenda, excuse me, agenda item number one. This is PL2025276 Opry Skiway Duplex. Is the applicant here for a presentation? Come on up and uh give us your name and address. And before before we get started, uh I've been noticed for this project, so I need to step aside for this one. Perfect. Thank you, AJ.

All right. Good evening, everyone. Thank you all for being here today. Engineer at Steamboat Engineering and Design. I will be acting as the owner's representative as well as the designer and the structural engineer for this project. This proposed project is located at 3275 Opra Ski Way lot one of the Stockdale subdivision and is in the MF2 zone district. We may need to What's up, Kelly? Sorry. It's all right. I just need one moment. Oh, it's all good. Oh, no. No worries at all. Yeah. Yeah. [laughter]

Do they need us to test anything or what are they

[clears throat]

But at least we get to watch what he's doing. You know, he's making Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Restart. [clears throat] Or is it just that much? I don't know. Oh, there's the turn off, turn back on again approach. I know. Turn it off. Turn off. You could hear that, Rich.

Yeah. [laughter] You too can be an IT coordinator. No, I couldn't. [laughter]

At least they get screwed up by the same Windows stuff I get screwed up by. So, I feel pretty good about that. And I will be

Oh, really? Or like when they open these windows, there's always weird looking to it, too, because they're always closed. Yeah. Yeah. What should we talk about instead? Should we talk about the weather? I mean, it's been a nice fall. It's been a nice fall. When do we think the first snow is going to happen? Hopefully soon. Is it going to happen soon? I hope so. Yeah. Yeah. Has to. Right. Do you know any jokes? [laughter] Well, not very many.

I wish I did. Does that mean it can't be recorded? Is that what's broadcasting uh microphone or Zoom Zoom or if it's just the microphone in general? Yeah. Oh, none of it. Not even ours. Yeah. Oh, that that seems to be not a good thing. Do you have a tape recorder? Anyone online? Because it's more than just minutes.

He's one of those owls. Yeah, then we're good to have minutes. Try ahead or or are we good for sure? Okay, thank you. That's great. Sorry for the interruption. No worries at all. I get it. Too bad. I appreciate your patience with us. Um, yeah, go for it. We'll uh uh maybe because they couldn't hear us, we'll just acknowledge to anybody that might be trying to listen online that we are in agenda item number one. Uh this is PL2025276 operate skiway duplex and our applicant uh applicants representative is presenting to us. Do do we need to do introductions? I don't think so. Okay. Would you like me to start over from the beginning? That way that's completely up to you. Okay. if you want to

that way people online could hear everything from the beginning. Um, good evening everyone. Thank you all for being here. My name is Ryan Malone. I am a senior engineer at Steamboat Engineering and Design. I will be acting as the owner's representative as well as the designer and the structural engineer. The proposed project is located at 3275 Opra Skiway, lot one of the Stockdale subdivision and is in the MF2 zone district. The proposed development is a two-unit residential duplex which requires a conditional use approval for the MF2 zoning. This lot is an infill property improves many difficult challenges. It is oddly shaped with operate ski way wrapping along two sides of the lot. It has steep topography with an elevation loss of over 42 ft from the top to the bottom. This lot is in the middle of three MF2 zone lots with the upper lot having an existing multi-unit building which is a byite use and the lower lot having an existing single family residence which is a conditional use. Although a multi-unit development is a use by right in this own district. The design team and the owner decided that a duplex would be much less intrusive to the surrounding properties as a multi-unit development has more potential negative impacts. A multi-unit property would create higher density along the narrow opra ski way, which would increase traffic and have a greater impact to the surrounding properties. Additionally, more parking spaces would be required, creating a larger driveway and increasing the development's lot coverage. With a larger driveway required, more snow storage would be required, which would potentially start to encroach on the neighboring properties, causing drainage concerns. potentially more light pollution and noise would be generated from a multi-unit property compared to the proposed duplex. With all this in mind, a duplex is being proposed to minimize the potential negative impacts to all

surrounding property owners. The prop the proposed developer of this lot is a local contractor that has lived in the valley for 20 years. They employ over a dozen people working and living in route county. If approved, all subcontractors and trades will be local companies bene benefiting the local economy. The anticipated construction timeline is approximately 15 to 18 months from started construction to completion. The construction will strictly adhere to the construction sound or ordinances and only allow work between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Every effort will be made to minimize the disruption of the surrounding properties. Safe access to the lot was one of the main driving factors and influences of the design of the proposed development. The subdivision was replatted in 2015 and during the initial replplat, the driveway access was shown from the lower portion of the lot. In order to provide access from the lower portion of the lot, a 22t tall retaining wall was required to be constructed directly below the multifamily unit. Access from the lower portion of the lot has many negative impacts to all properties. Driveway access would be along the blind hairpin corner of Operase Skiway, creating a life safety concern, not only for the duplex occupants, but also for the surrounding properties. The installation of a 22-ft tall retaining wall has the potential to affect the soils and foundation of the existing multi-unit property above. The driveway would need to be constructed near the north property line. With the proximity of the adjacent residences, the extremely tall retaining wall and steep topography on the this portion of the lot, adequate snow storage would not be able to be achieved. Access from the lower portion of the lot would be more disruptive to the single family residence below and adjacent duplexes compared to the proposed access from the top portion of the lot. Based on this, the design team felt that access from the top of the lot was not only the safest option, but also the least disruptive and impactful to the surrounding properties. The proposed

driveway meets all city engineering grade and width standards for emergency vehicles and is not requesting any variances, nor is it creating massive retaining walls. The proposed duplex was designed to stair down the steep slope following the existing topography as much as possible to minimize mass and overall scale. The building was oriented and placed as close to the south setback line to minimize the driveway length as much much as possible. Minimizing the driveway length allows the building to be built into the hillside reducing the overall height and scale of the development. The proposed development was thoughtfully designed to meet and exceed every CDC and city engineering design standard is and is not requesting any variances. This project is being recommended for approval by the planning department. SEAD met with a planning department and went through numerous iterations to ensure full compliance with the community development code standards. Further, SEAD, the developer and four points engineering have diligently worked on solutions to address the public comments which we will discuss later. The single family design standards are more restricted in the MF2 zoning compared to the multifamily design standards. The proposed duplex duplex meets and exceeds all of the single family design standards except for one. than the average plate height. The average plate height of 29.8 ft is only 1.8 ft taller than this single family maximum, but it is 5.2 ft lower than the multifamily maximum in this zone district. The overall height of 37.7 ft is 2.25 ft lower than the single family maximum of 40 ft. It is also 19.25 ft lower than the multifamily maximum of 57 ft. Throughout design iterations, the upper level wall plate heights were minimized and lowprofile roofs were utilized in an effort to reduce the overall height and mitigate any potential negative effects of shading towards surrounding properties and operate skiway. Storm water management has been a

concern from surrounding property owners for this project. I will let my colleagues from fourpoint surveying discuss in further detail the proposed storm water drainage systems. But to touch on this subject briefly, the storm water drainage was thoughtfully and intentionally overdesigned to ensure no negative impacts are felt by their surrounding properties. All roofs are designed to have gutters and downspouts. So storm water is directed to the on-site drainage features. Some of these features include the use of area drains, drainage swailes, as well as underground drain tile to direct the flow of runoff to a detention pond on the northeast portion of the lot. The drainage study conducted found that these proposed storm water drainage systems are not required, however, are still being constructed to reduce negative impacts to the surrounding properties. By implementing the proposed drainage features, the drainage study determined the downstream neighbors in lower portion of operate skiway would will experience less storm water runoff compared to existing conditions. The design team has worked diligently with a local geotechnical engineer to ensure the proposed foundation systems are adequately designed and overall slope stability is achieved. The building a stair step down the hill to minimize the exposed retaining walls as much as possible. The exposed retaining walls proposed are a maximum of 6 ft tall tiered boulder retaining walls. By utilizing tiered walls, the overall scale of the project is reduced and no large hazardous sight retaining walls are proposed. The duplex was designed to minimize the proposed lot coverage to keep as much open space as possible. A condition of of approval for the subdivision replant in 2015 was to provide provide 15% of open space on this lot. The current proposed development is providing 65% of the lot as open space. Not only is this development meeting this condition, it is providing over 400% more than required. The additional open space allows for more landscaping and buffer space

between the adjacent neighbors. Additionally, the amount of open space aims to reduce the negative impacts to wildlife, although wildlife effects are not a requirement of this project. A conceptual landscape plan has been proposed even though it is not required in an effort to show how the proposed development is mitigating any negative impacts to the surrounding properties. Many native trees are proposed along the property lines to soften the duplex's appearance from surrounding properties as well as operate ski way. Not only will the proposed landscaping help soften the duplex's appearance, it will provide sound reduction and provide negative landscaping on the lot that is primarily bare. All exterior lighting has been designed to be shielded and downcast in accordance with the CDC standards to minimize any negative light pollution to the surrounding properties. In conclusion, this lot is a very challenging infill lot. However, the design team has thoughtfully designed a development that meets and exceeds every CDC and city engineering standard and is not requesting any variances. Before I turn it over to my colleagues from four four points, I want to thank you all for your time and consideration of this development. I'll be available to answer any uh questions that you may have upon completion. Thank you guys.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Cameron Breton. I'm a civil EIT for 4point survey and engineering and I have a presentation to share. So I'll be requesting to share my screen. So, um, I prepared this presentation. Visual aid, uh, renderings are prepared by SEAD. So, just quickly for anyone who isn't familiar with the project location, we're mountain side, south of Walton Creek. Zooming in, you can see that this parcel of land is sort of the last vacant parcel in the vicinity. Um, a little bit more background on the site. It's 0.4 acres. It's zoned MF2. It is currently vacant, but considered a prime site and was most recently platted in 2016 at the reception number shown on the screen. Um, just a little um summarizing and kind of giving a visual aid for some of the topics that Ryan was covering here. This is a code compliance table showing the dimensional standards of the building in relation to the design and um as he said it's not requiring any variances and that's just to show that there um an overview of the site plan. Ryan touched on some of the boulder walls to soften the appearance because of the vertical fall on this site and the existing topography. it tears down and a succession of 6ft tiered boulder walls are used to soften the appearance

of the height. Onto the drainage. So this existing site was analyzed in two separate basins. Um the larger of the two being the southern. We're calling it EB2. It takes the majority of the drainage and deposits onto appar. So our goal with the plan was to improve the situation. The second basin is EB1 and that outfalls to the north. So our goal was to direct drainage to the north and away from Apparis Skiway. In our drainage study that we performed for this development plan, we analyzed the site into three separate subbasins. Subbasin 3 is along the south side of the property and subbasin one is along the east side of the property. And both of those go to the north corner of the property. I can try to use a laser pointer now. So at the triangle it says three in it kind of at the south there. There's an inlet and that wraps around via the under drain tile and ultimately discharges at the detention pond. This detention pond is not a requirement of the site but it was implemented to release increased flows from imperousness at a historical rate and away from appar. The big highlight here is um in this chart in the bottom lefthand corner of the screen which shows that existing basin 2 which was contributing most of the drainage to appar um 5-year storm discharge of.13 cfs and a 100redyear storm discharge of 911 cfs and now the only drainage basin that's going to that same outfall point on appariski way is essentially 30% less for a 100redyear storm. And the same for a 5-year storm. 65% of the site drains to the north and away from Appariski Way in the downhill

residences. Here are just uh some photos of some of the conveyance methods in case anyone isn't familiar with a a swale or an under drain tile um inlet and a detention basin. We've done the design for the drain tile to show that it can gravity flow with sufficient cover to the pond in this location. Um this is our site construction site management plan to mitigate the impacts to the surrounding properties during construction of the project. All slopes steeper than 2:1 or 50% grade will receive erosion control blankets um as shown for the detail on the top right corner of the plan. And then along the northwest property line, that green line represents a wire and reinforced silt fence, which is basically an upgraded silt fence. And it is much less likely to fail during a surge storm event, and it's a one of the examples of an additional precautionary measure we're using to help mitigate the impacts of construction during this project. So in conclusion, this is a very challenging site. 42 ft of elevation change. Um we feel that a duplex is less impactful than the use by right multif family construction and there's no variances required for this project. Drainage was um evaluated with extreme emphasis on directing it away from apprises. Thank you all for your time and I'll be here as well to answer any questions regarding the civil design.

Great. Thank you Cameron. Uh and does uh staff have a presentation as well?

Yes, I do. I have a brief presentation. Thank you very much. My name is Bob Keen. principal planner of the city of Steam Springs planning department and I am covering for Toby Staer um who is uh the project manager um and um provided the staff report. So um I appreciate the applicant's detailed uh presentation. I will try not to repeat too much of what's been said. Um but as as noted uh this is a proposal for a development plan conditional use with the conditional use being for a duplex on a multif family zone district lot. The um as as noted the uh project meets all of our development standard, our dimensional standards, lot coverage, building height, [clears throat] F um those those standards as well as the duplex design standards. Um we also find that it's consistent with the uh new community plan as well as the previous one. Um, as noted, there's been some public comment on this application that you've received um, within the packet and also there's been a rainbow public comment sent uh, with some u pictures. Um, so just want to note that for the record. Um, I think given the the extent of the applicant's presentation, I'll I'll con uh conclude my presentation and be available for any questions. So, no problem.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. Any questions from commissioners? I'll start with one. Um, so I'm looking at the zoning map. Uh, and I appreciate you jump. Sorry, I didn't note that we are recommending approval with conditions as noted in the staff report. So, thank you. I saw that in there, but thank you. Yeah. Um, it seems like there's a bit of a peninsula of uh multif family zoning along this road and that the multif family zoning um is kind of in the minority of oper zoning. I appreciate that you're filling in for Toby and I'm making you jump into that. Yeah. No, no, for sure. And I'm um yes,

maybe just help me if I'm reading it wrong or not, but I'm seeing multif family one that's got a duplex on it to the east. I'm seeing multif family 3 that's to the north that has a single family on it. So it seems like there's a lot of multif family zoning that doesn't have multif family in this area.

That's correct. There is a variety of housing types and uses with residential uses within this area. Yeah. and and I would agree that um you've characterized the adjacent uses correctly. Um the majority of Opra Skiway is as single family uh with some duplex. Uh same with the uh approach from Walton Walton Creek um along Operate Skiway. Um so it is yes a variety.

Thank you. And then um this is another thing to I I apologize to not be able to give you ahead of time. Um the RN3 and RE2 zones that are the majority of uh oper across the street and kind of down the street. Um do those allow duplexes or are those all single family only zoning? They would allow duplexes so long as they have the minimum lot size for duplex. Understood. I won't make you know the answer to those ones. [laughter] Look it up.

Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Uh yeah, I just wanted to make sure covered some of the discussion topics from the U comment that was received and it talked about insufficient snow storage uh insufficient parking and [clears throat] I was wondering if you could comment that in your evaluation did you find adequate snow storage and adequate parking? Yes, both of those meet our minimum standards. Other questions? Rich? Yeah,

I have more of a I guess philosophical question. The reference to both the new and the newly adopted area plan and the old area plan. Luckily, there's no conflict with either one. But if there was a conflict, which area plan would an applicant be required to meet? The the one that is was effective at their date of their complete application.

Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought is the answer. Any other questions? Um, one public comment that was submitted that we read was talking about the uh future. Now, it was really language from the existing community area plan uh regarding um I'm going to have to how did I write down how they summarize that? It was talking about compatible scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood. my understanding, but please help me if I'm wrong, does that give leverage to a quasi judicial body to be able to put any enforcement on a libon of square footage on a residential unit? only so much as the use is conditional use and to mitigate [clears throat] impacts identified.

But theoretically there is an avenue to do that. You think theoretically through conditional use so long as it's clear what impacts are being mitigated by um any request to to that. I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarity. Yeah. Other questions? Okay. Uh if there's no other questions from us, is there any public comment on this agenda item? Yeah, if there's public comment, you can come down, give us your name and address, and uh try and keep your comments to 3 minutes or less.

Um my name is Ethan Summers, and I live at 3333 Opra Skiway. My family's home is the single family lot directly in front of this proposed duplex and it doesn't fit into our established neighborhood at all. No duplexes or single family homes around it are that large and this is going to change our neighborhood and impact our lives and not in a positive way. Um the lot behind us used to be like a wildlife corridor. Um, and I know that that's not really that relevant to this project, but now it's just now it's just going to be some giant duplex that people are going to be in for 2 weeks a year. Steamboat is a need for more housing, but not max square footage for minimum units and a high price tag. I think the city government needs to protect the people who already live here and not the bank accounts of developers.

Thank you very much for your comments. Appreciate it. Is there any additional public comment? And if there's anybody online who would like to give us a public comment uh as well, if you could raise your hand and I can call on you screen. So I just um

Thank you. Thank you. I'm Tracy Alexander. I live at 3335 Appra Ski Way, which is one house down the hill from the proposed duplex. The conditional use criteria for approval includes two that are not met for this application in my opinion. The first is the use will mitigate negative impacts to surrounding properties. The second is the use is compatible with the community community area plan. I have three points to show this. My first is their snow melt and water drainage plan and thanks to Cameron for for providing more detail on that. In my opinion, their plan does not mitigate nearby homes from flooding or the road from becoming an ice rink in the winter. Currently, the snow melt runs um from that lot down to App Ski Way into a small ditch south of my house. The ditch overflows, runs down the hill, under my stairs, under my deck, and around my foundation. I use sandbags and channels to route the water away. With the huge footprint, the land that can absorb that that water will be greatly reduced. In their drainage study, there is mitigation for subbasin 1 and three. Subbasin 2 has no mitigation, that's my understanding, which drains directly down to episky way. Subbasin 3 relies on a PVC drain and pipe to run from one side of the lot to the other to a retention basin. This flow would require the drain, which is shaded by the apartment building to the south, not to freeze. In the winter, it will. In the spring, snow melts and flows down. That shaded frozen drain is in the ground and insulated. It will be the last thing to thaw. All the water from subbasin 2 and three will run down to the road and either freeze or flow down and around my home. My second point is the shading effect. A

house of this size will block the sun from the houses on the on the downside downhill side of it. It will also shade apprises downhill to a 180°ree hairpin turn right in front of my house. The size of this building will block the morning sun on the road. This would cause icy conditions with which could lead to an outofc control vehicle ending up in my living room. My third point is that I feel it's a clear violation of the community area plan. The plan states that infill development must meet the size and character of the existing neighborhood. This structure is a castle in the middle of peasant homes. You could fit seven of my houses footprints into this duplex's footprint. It is the same size as the apartment building to the south of it, which provides 25 homes. It clearly does not fit in with the existing neighborhood. The developer is trying to get the best of both worlds. They want the size of a multif family structure, a huge duplex with which allows them to sell two large properties without the additional costs of the multifamily requirements of parking and fire safety access, which would impact their dollar per square foot. They are seeking to increase their ROI at a cost to the character of the neighborhood and existing local families. if they want to build a duplex, reszone the lot to single family and apply the rules for single family to it. This approach would likely meet the requirements of the community area plan. In my opinion, please deny this conditional use application and thank you guys for your time.

Thank you very much. Good timing as well. Any additional public comments on this agenda item? I don't see any in person and I don't believe I see any online. Again, you can raise your hand uh using the react button if you do. Okay, seeing none, uh is there any final followup that the applicant would like to give us?

Thank you guys. Um I do want to address that a duplex is a use by right in the RN3 and the RE2 zoning and those zone dimensional standards are less strict than the MF2 zoning. There's no uh square footage limitation in these zone districts, whereas there are square footage limitations in the MF2 zoning right now, which we are uh under and we do meet. So, this duplex would be approved in all of the other surrounding zone districts as well. Thank you guys. You any final followup from staff?

Yes. Uh just one thing to clarify for the record. Um, regarding the snow storage, I need to mention that there there are no minimum requirements for snow storage for duplex in single family. So, okay, by virtue they're meeting it, but there there isn't a there is no standard. There is no requirement to have that uh 2:1 ratio. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Yes, [clears throat] if I could pile on and ask one final uh followup from us. Uh there also is not any requirement for storm water runoff management in duplex and single family projects as well. Correct.

That is my understanding though I not entirely qualified to answer that question. Uh engineering um could but there is um perhaps because this is a development plan it would be required but typically no. Great. Thank you. Any other final questions from commissioners? I'll follow up with public comment for staff. [clears throat] Thank you. Yeah, I did look

for shading. We do have some regulations regarding shading, but in the past, I thought the only time we really take actual shading into consideration is if there's a height variance otherwise shading comes with the comes with the territory as it were.

Right. Uh yes I generally that is correct though I uh we don't have any shadings the shading standards that we do have are for uh commercial multif family development I think specifically for the base area and shading of like public plazas and gathering public gathering areas um and I don't think they apply to streets um though I think yes with a a height variation you're looking at impacts So I think everything's on the table that you can associate impacts to a variance. Thank you.

Great. Any other questions? [clears throat] Okay. Uh nope. Um, I just in response to public comment recently received, I'd just like to mention that there is berry associated with this drain tile and it is not expected to run year round in the colder months when freezing freezing is an issue. Um, we're not concerned as much concerned with runoff that time of the year. And one other thing that was not analyzed in terms of the existing site is there is a 10-ft snow storage easement in the front of that property that has historically been used for private and public snow storage. Personally, um been out surveying on that site when there's very very large amount of snowfall stored in that area. Um, so the runoff calculations are based on rainfall intensity and that snow storage that was previously on the site won't be there in that area because there will be a driveway access. So I think less snow storage will be present on site accumulate into less runoff and the basin analysis does show that ultimately the conditions will only be improved for appris. Thank you, Cameron. Cameron, while you're up here, are you aware um along Oprey as it winds down, does it have much of a developed drainage system on this road? I know some of our roads in town do and some definitely do not. I wasn't aware of this one.

That's a good question. Um it does it has very minor um drainage development. There is a shallow ditch there, which is why we certainly want to take more overland flow away from that area and direct it to a vegetated area, the north side of the lot. Great. Thank you.

Any other final questions? [clears throat] I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion. I'm I I have no I actually I have no problem with this fact the fact that this is a duplex rather than a multif family uh which I would think would be more intrusive and I think the applicant stated that um I am [clears throat] a little concerned about the runoff issues uh although uh based on the technical uh expertise of the applicant uh they're saying that um there'll be less runoff than there was in the natural condition. Um and there may they've made efforts to move flow away from operate way. Um obviously it is a difficult site. I think they made the right decision and moving the driveway uh and not having it accessed from you know on a 30ft slope. Um, and that's about all I have. So, I'm in favor of this project and it has no variances.

Thank you. Any other discussion or motion? Uh, I agree with what Lou is stating and some of the concerns that were raised are real concerns except for us the judgment is whether it meets the code or not.

Right. We have engineers that we are that I am not certainly that evaluate those things and and make sure that they are that health and safety issues are addressed. So I have to trust them until I have proof otherwise that something is wrong with this application. And as far as like the size of the building, I mean our zoning is really about appearances. When we have size and lot coverage, it's what does it look like? And to the to the public, it doesn't matter whether it is a single family or a multif family. It's the size of it. And does the size meet the zoning? And it does. And as also has pointed out in the in the staff report that it actually meets most of the single family or duplex uh dimensional requirements as well. And just to tack on to that, the the the question, the real question is whether they've mitigated the potential impacts of the conditional use, right? That's pretty much the only thing we can comment on. And they've provided a detention pond that was not required. They've provided landscaping that is not required. And they've they've designed the building in such a way that I think that even though it is massive coming down that hill, they kept the height pretty reasonable on that upper level and kept the highest part of the building well away from that lower site. I I really don't think that there are going to be shadow issues. I don't think it's going to be shading appre Skiway. I mean, I don't know. I don't see a shadow plan, but I know that the highest part of the building is nowhere near the lower part of Appre Skiway. So, have they mitigated the potential issues? And not only have they mitigated the potential issues, have it like I could see so much worse with a multif family building there as far for all of those

things. So, they've mitigated what they can and it could be a lot worse in my opinion. So I think the answer is yes. They have they have mitigated the potential issues.

Great. I I agree with the three of you. I think those those are really good points you brought up and especially when it's compared to uh that the change the conditional change, right? I'm just saying it my way, but what you guys have already said is the conditional change is they're doing one less unit. They they could have maximized the lot coverage. They're at 22.3%. They could have had 40% of lot coverage. They're pretty much maximized on floor area ratio. So there would have had to been a lot of uh a lot of sprawl instead of vertical development to to do that. Granted, but when we look at what was just allowed uh by right was a multif family with an unlimited theoretical number of units that could have gone taller um and could have therefore needed more parking and more um hardscape um by right. I don't think that this conditional use is creating a new adverse impact. Um that is not to say that I don't understand the neighbors concerns. Um my last question that I asked uh the applicant uh the civil engineer applicant was kind of on purpose. I I think the bigger problem is that the drainage on the road is inadequate and I don't think that that is the that is something the city needs to find the the resources to resolve on not only operate ski but we could find a bunch of roads in town. Um that that is something that that ought to be resolved and I definitely see the concern that the neighbors are are worried about. Um, but I don't think it is the fault of this project, uh, specifically. And again, I know I'm just saying what I think you guys already put really well, just in my own words. Um, but I noticed that I also noticed that we're in the STR red zone. Um, so as far as like multif family versus how this duplex kind of what its expectation is, I think that's worth noting.

Um, and again, kind of to my line of my earliest questions, I mean, I I thought about this and evaluated the conditional use based on the MF zoning. Um, it seems to me, if I had to put words in the mouth of whoever created this zoning when it was created, is that it probably was to encapsulate the multifamily project that was to the south and not create spot zoning out of it. But really that one is more the outlier and this one probably belonged as more of a RN3 like the rest of the neighborhood is around it which this is then meeting except for what would be an average plate height variance that's a minor adjustment based on 40 foot steep topography. Um I think it is fitting within the intent of all the surrounding uh zoning and what I think this one probably should have been. So I can look at it both ways and see that that uh that this is really fitting where it ought to be. Um yes, it's a huge structure, but there's really not anything that I see that is forcing us to say that that is a unique problem. And I

on on top of the what you were saying about well no the one of the public comments was about reszoning and that's the the what should have happened here and reszoning back to RN3 I think is what the majority around that um that property are and I I think that it would have kind of shot them in the foot. they would have had smaller setbacks and been able to do pretty much this exact same building if they reszoned to RN3, which I completely understand their concerns, but I don't think that there was any way that this building was going to be disallowed. So that's Yeah.

No, I think that's that's an accurate assessment. I really do. All right. Anybody want to make a motion or any other discussion? Oh, motion to approve PL 2025276 um with conditions and I can't remember how many conditions there were. Five and my screen is black. Five and five conditions. Second. We have a motion and a second. Uh any other discussion on that motion? Um, I don't think any of us went through item by item on the criteria for conditional use, but I do think we spoke to uh all of them in their own way. Uh, so probably not too much more to add. Um, and uh, yeah. So, in that case, I'll call for a vote. I I I

I And that passes unanimously. 4 Z. Thank you for your time. And thank you for your time, your public comment. I will go into our second agenda item here this evening. Um this is PL2025 0234 1830 ski time square drive development plan. Before we get started is I need to recuse myself from these two because my firm's on the design team.

I'm not sure if he came up. AJ's going to recuse himself uh as he's on the design team or his firm and him. Uh that being said, do is the applicant here for a presentation?

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Steve Shalleski with Blue Sage Ventures. Um been before you before. A couple years ago, we we brought this project for a conceptual development plan. I am currently uh formed a joint venture with Orion Real Estate and Development, a Jackson, Wyoming based firm who's active in Jackson and Park City. And so together we're acting as co-developers and joint venture partners. Um the site is I is a part of the Clock Tower Holdings that I purchased 11 years ago, believe it or not. sold really everything off except for this one parcel which I kept to self-develop which uh been kind of waiting for the right time. I think that time is is uh upon us. Um it's it's a challenging site. Um but we see some great opportunities and unique and uniqueness about it especially with the view potential uh and the ability to kind of have kind of create a uh pedestrian scale presentation down on the street level. Um I I believe we've arrived at the right design. Site organization was a critical component of that. We've got a good team with uh 4240 leading the charge on design. And with that, I'll turn it over to DJ Gratzer to make a presentation and I'll be available for questions as as well as Ryan with Landmark.

Great.

Um thank you again DJ Grasser with 4240 Architecture. Uh just want to start by thanking you all at planning commission as well as staff uh Bob and Kelly have been very helpful in getting to where we are here today. Um so our site 1830 um Ski Time Square is is really a split site between two roadways. Burgess Creek which is an upper kind of sloping road and Ski Time Square Drive. Um it's a uniquely shaped parcel um with quite a bit of grade change. We have uh over 45 ft of rise across the site. Um as you can see, uniquely shaped parcel with a limited amount of frontage um along Ski Time Square. Um, as we started to, um, look into developing this site, um, really we we saw this as the confluence of kind of two different, uh, not really zones, but characters. And one of them along Burgess Creek being much more passive and residential and then that of Ski Time Square and looking at the history of it being much more active as well as the intent from the mountain area master plan. And so as we looked to one of our original goals was really to play up that activation along Ski Time Square Drive. Um and in doing so, we wanted to push all of the vehicular access from a drive standpoint off of Burgess Creek Road so that we could really um maximize that along um along that frontage. Um, ex excuse our overly kind of crude diagram, but uh the goal was to locate much of the massing higher up towards Burgess Creek where the residential access took place and really maintain views, but also really um maintain sunlight and views along the southern portion of the parcel, keeping

more of a pedestrian active um scale and massing along Ski Time Square as well as uh being quite generous to the neighboring east and west parcels so that we weren't building really 105 foot high with an 8ft setback along those three call it southern um property lines. And in doing so, we also wanted to integrate with the site and and make the stepping with the topography feel somewhat natural and um and and one of a kind for this this special place and this site. And in doing so, um really reflecting on what is unique about SK, um Steamboat Springs, what is unique about the history and building forms here, both large buildings and small, and how do we make this a project that is unique to this place and this place alone, and tried to do that in in really a lot of the um ornamentation and um the way that the roof um scales have burn broken down throughout the project. Um, and then going going back to this this step back along Ski Time Square, how do we really preserve that for the residents as this great amenity that has great views, great sunlight, is great to our our neighboring parcels, and also has kind of a pedestrian scale access um pedestrian scale activation of Ski Time Square. Um, and then thinking about ranch traditions being reinterpreted and the glow and lantern and unique forms that uh make people want to to live here in in Steamboat over other um characters of other uh Colorado and regional mountain towns. Really playing up on this being a a one-of-a-kind um [clears throat] place and solution. And and here is kind of our final form and massing. Um a couple bird's eye views

here. one taken from the souththeast and uh on the right and then on the left this the smaller um rendering is taken from the southwest. Um and then here is a section kind of taken through central to the site and really just wanted to point out that this is two parcels or excuse me uh one parcel but two buildings on the same site. They um they are reliant upon each other for parking and um methods of egress, but they are two separate buildings that have separate opening protectives um from a building code standpoint and also from a kind of zoning standpoint. But really um we designed this to be perceived and really function as one project that is reliant upon each other. and and also wanted to point out that the the high highest dimensions on the site are really um central and internal as it relates to our building massing. And then where grade continues to rise up towards Burgess Creek, we're in that call it 60 to 70 foot facade. Uh we are also set back um some 20 to 25 feet where a snow storage easement takes place and we'll we've got some drawings to show that uh in a couple slides here. Um we'll go on some kind of fly through some perspectives here around the site. This is taken from Ski Time Square looking directly north. Um as we pan around, want to point out the pedestrian public access stair. Uh this was a requirement to have a public access from Burgess to ski time. We also located on the western portion of the site and further uh stepped our building massing back from our um western neighbor there um for this access stair and for that vehicular drive. Uh as we pan around,

you can see where that drive access takes place. like to point out that the the parking level here uh starts above grade on this lower portion of Burgess and then as the drive um raises up um in topography it it becomes almost uh level or or almost below grade as we work around here to the north. This is where that um snow storage easement is. So it is a vegetated um swale and buffered zone between Burgess and between our building. And then uh the topography really drops off quite steeply as we get over here on the eastern portion of the site and our parking level is almost a story or story and a half um above grading at at that most extreme point. Um I would point out where I took the section earlier, we I think it was 87 feet. Our highest um building height is 97 feet. Again, we're in 105 foot um height maximum. And the 100 and the uh 97 ft is really on this uh south to southeastern property line where we are n um neighboring the eastern parcel. Um quite set back from from both rightaways. Um here's a rendering of the project um that we'll maybe come back on as we uh turn it over to back to staff. Um and then this is a view from that amenity terrace where we talked about really preserving daylight and views. Um really what's special about Steamboat and why people want to be here is connection to the outdoors and we really didn't want to overdevelop the site. We wanted it to be something that was very connected to the reasons that people come to Steamboat. Um, next I'll go through the conditional uses. The first one has to

do with residential or accessory to residential along Ski Time Square Drive. really this is our pedestrian portal for residents to access the mountain both [clears throat] um carrying their skis for uh access to skiing also access to just um heading to kind of the gondola square area and is the only break between um what we have planned as a commercial restaurant space and um some building services over there on on the left side is this um lobby [clears throat] and uh ski storage area. It's also where the elevator connection is up to that amenity level for the residents. Uh the second part of this conditional use is uh for residential um within dimensional criteria along Burgess Creek Drive and really where where this starts out um where the parking is above grade, this is really not a condition. However, where Burgess Creek continues to rise in elevation, it becomes um set within that uh within that first story. Um again, want to point out that there is a buffer for landscaping and snow storage that is a break between that that new uh pedestrian sidewalk that the project is putting in and that the actual building. Next going through the variances. The first being related to retaining wall heights. Looking over here on the western uh part of the parcel. This is where we have that pedestrian access stair coming through. And would like to point out that if if we didn't have this element of the pedest public access stair, we would have the adequate space to step these retaining walls and and avoid this variance. However, um it it's a difficult site with the uh the slope

topography and with the element of the the buffering um and dimensional needs of this access. Um we have applied for for a variance due to the retaining wall heights here and not uh an inability to to step them. Then over on the eastern portion of the site, this really um weighs into the we designed this wanting it to be perceived as one project um cohesively working together. However, um behind this portion where the kind of the red dashed line is is actually site retainage rather than building. So if that was building area, we would not need a variance. Oh, excuse my uh click. Um since it is site retainage um it is beyond that dimensional criteria and we are applying for a variance um really looking for this project to feel cohesive between the lower building and the upper building. The second variance has to do with the step backs in that dimensional criteria. Um really the reasoning for these are where where stairc want to be for structural and um and and lateral needs as well as um part of our egress system and getting occupants directly out to the rightway. And what we have tried to do here is hook a a small dimension of building mass to these um so that we are not wetting caking the building and so and would also like to point out that these are set back from both eastern and western neighbors where we are complying with those setbacks fully. So they are not uh further shadowing um a condition of eastern or western neighbors. Again, the building on this north side is already set back from um the the Burgess Creek rightway due to the snow storage

easement. And then um looking at two areas on the south side of the building, our original interpretation was that the lower ski building fulfilled um the intent of the CDC as it related to a um step back. However, since these are two separate buildings, we completely understand um staff's interpretation of this and um would like to include these two areas in the variance under the same criteria of our structural needs and our egress needs and um point out that they are two internal um areas where they're not on corners of the building. They are not overshadowing neighbors and and do not have any um adverse effects. Uh the third variance has to do with uh the primary slope along the lower ski square building. Really the intent of this building is to be um resident amenity um a portion of green roof and uh just a portion of of mechanical screening. And uh the intent was for to keep the roofs low for um for both daylight and views and again not uh overshadowing of our neighbors or impacting views from from our site. And uh fourth and and final variance here uh thank you for bearing with me has to do with uh not meeting the 42-in high parapit roof heights. We have four conditions um where these secondary roofs are proposed as flat roofs. There will be one on the north side I'll get to in a second, but really three of these are just covering balcony spaces. And really um the way we have designed this project is for all outdoor balcony areas to be covered. um as well as these

secondary roof or flat roof elements to really work for snow management and uh really safety from the uh the 6 to 12 or the higher roof pitches because it is a tall building. Um I'll try to respect my time and thank you. Should I just leave this slide here? Should I turn it over? Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you for your presentation. We'll let you know if you we have any questions. Uh Kelly, do you have a presentation as well?

We do. Thank you. Uh Kelly Douglas, senior planner. This is a development plan, major major use, major variance and conditional use application before you tonight. Um I'll try not to be redundant. The subject site, we've talked about that. It's 7 acres. Um yeah, located Bridges Creek Road SQ. It's a steep site. It slopes down from Burgess Creek Time Square. Uh it's currently undeveloped. So now I'll summarize the proposal. Um it's a mixeduse development. It is proposed to include 20 multiple family residential units and about 2200 square ft of restaurant space along with other uh public realm improvements including a new sidewalk along Burgess Creek, an enhanced skiime square frontage with outdoor dining, uh upgraded lighting, landscaping, off- streetet parking as a component of the proposal. Um that was part of the conceptual development plan from a few years back. uh that actually expires on the 15th, so it's still vested as of today. Um and then there's also a prominent stair connection linking Ski Time Square Drive to Burgess Creek Road. So that's an important um improvement. Regarding uses, multiple family residential and restaurant uh are the principal uses proposed. Multiple family residential is a limited use in the G2 zone district. However, because residential is proposed within the pedestrian active building frontage, uh the use standard is not met. So, we're reviewing it as a conditional use. That's how it comes to you. Uh staff supports this conditional use because the it is strongly supported in the Bay Area by both the community plan and the mountain area master plan. And um commercial activation is achieved through the restaurant frontage, uh outdoor dining, and uh streetscape improvements. the site the site's steep grade and kind of short ski time square

frontage makes this um you know somewhat constrained site location and the G2 zone district explicitly supports design flexibility creativity and pedest pedestrian oriented development. Uh so these improvements activate that space. So that's that's a summary of our conditional use support. Um regarding parking, the uses, their square footage, uh the number of units, 23 spaces are required to support those uses. Uh 34 spaces are proposed in two buildings on the lowest floor. Uh so the standards met. And then regarding site development, there's four major variances requested uh to the retaining wall, massing, and roof form standards. So I'll go through them each now. the applicant did a great job summarizing. I'll kind of more focus on staff's analysis. Um, so the first variance, this is to retaining wall standards. Uh, in section 418 C3, the standard that's being varied requires or that's proposed to be varied, of course. Um, it requires retaining walls over 6 feet to be stepped into segments of no more than six feet each with a three foot horizontal offset. So up a little and over a little, up a little and over a little. Um, with this application, the applicant's proposing retaining walls on the west side that are approximately 8 1/2 ft and a little more than 12 ft. 12 ft about 4 in. And then on the east side, a wall that's 13t 11 in. Uh, that would not be stepped. staff supports the variance for the west walls because they accommodate the significant grade change and the uh the the new stair the new public stair connection between Ski Time Square and Burgess Creek Road. Uh varying the standard improves the application of other code purposes by supporting safe efficient and accessible multimodal

circulation. Uh for the east wall which supports the amenity terrace between the buildings uh staff finds the variance represents an acceptable alternative the wall visually functions like like a building wall. Uh so the we find the the wall impacts are minimized in that location and then varying those standard uh it furthers the purpose of dense flexible base area development and like I said min minimizing those um retaining wall impacts. Variance number two is to building massing standard uh 44 OE1C. Uh this standard requires building walls that exceed three stories or 45 ft of unbroken height to include stepbacks of at least 8 ft between 12 and 45 ft above the finished grade. Um several areas of the building primarily at stairc requirements and those are shown in your packet. uh in the plan set. Um yes, there's one clarification in the report that the applicant did a nice job um illustrating. It references two locations in the narrative, but there's a couple more locations. Um staff's findings that were they're based on the drawings uh in in attachment C and the applicant's val um justification, it remains valid. It's based on the same um functional reasons and the variations kind of occur at the same at the not the same places because there are obviously different spaces on the building but the the justification is the same. Um staff supporting the variance because the appro the proposal achieves an acceptable alternative. It furthers both massing guidelines in um section 440E which we sometimes consider for major variances uh as well as G2 zone district and base area design standard purpose

statements. Uh the portions of the building without stepbacks are staircing them. Uh and they provide egress structural integrity. So these elements are integral to the building mass. Uh we find that they're subordinate to the the composition. uh and they don't alter the perceived height or scale of the building from public vantage points. So overall, the design's achieving the intent of the standard by visually breaking down the mass through materials, balcony placement and stepbacks elsewhere uh while still maintaining appropriate transitions in scale. So now on to variance number three and that is to roof form standards um two of them 441B and E. The standard requires that primary roofs roofs be pitched between 612 and 1212 and that flat roofs not exceed 50% of the total roofed area. The lower skiquare building um it has a flat roof as the primary roof. So that's the subject of the variance. staff is supporting this variance because the proposal achieves an acceptable alternative by furthering both the roof form guideline 440 F5A as well as the G2 and base area design standard purpose statements. Um overall the design it provides appropriate pedestrian scale along Ski Time Square. It creates a clear transition in height between the two buildings and it it activates the public realm uh consistent with the intent of the base area design standards. The last variance is to reform standards also. Um this standard it requires all flat roofs to be enclosed by a parapit wall. Um no less than 42 in. There's a few flat roofs that are not enclosed by a parapit wall. Uh they're generally low secondary roofs, if you will. Um staff supports the variance because the reduced parapits assist with snow

mitigation and overall building performance and the proposed roofs design still meets the intent of the base area roof form guidelines. Um the variance also achieves an acceptable alternative by furthering guideline 445A. uh and that allows flat roofs on secondary building elements and snow catchment areas where appropriate. So that that's what we're finding here. Um to kind of summarize the last two variances, the roof form variances, um although it's not a specific approval criteria, I think it's worth noting that these are large complex buildings. They're responding to significant grade changes across the site. Um providing appropriate roof variety, height transitions, snow management strategies on a site like this is uh it's a challenging task, a design task, and a few areas evidenced in the variances fall outside of that strict roof form standard as a result. Um but overall, uh staff's finding the buildings incorporate pitched roofs and variation that meet the overall intent of the roof form standards. So, it's a little bit zoomed out, a little more philosophical for you, but for your consideration nonetheless. Regarding public comment, um, none has been received in support of or opposition to the proposal. Um, and overall for staff's part, we're recommending um, approval with conditions. We find that there is robust direction in the CDC. uh the the community plan that was recently adopted include that document was used for analysis of this project, but the the previous community area plan that it replaced also included similar direction. Um and of course the mountain area master plan, there's a lot of robust direction that uh supports this project in that document as well. Um so like I said, we're recommending approval. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. Any questions from commissioners? Uh yeah, a question for the applicant. Um is it my understanding that all of the trash management and disposal and deliveries will be on Ski Time Square? No. Okay. It's been changed. It's been changed. That was that was u presented as part of the CDP, right,

few years [clears throat] ago. We so the lower building will handle the lower building only which is basically two small residential units and the restaurant. All the trash from the from the upper building will go will will go out through Burgess Creek. Thank you. Any other questions? I'll go for staff or the applicant. I don't know. Uh you did show a slide showing the Burgess Creek uh residential units on the pedestrian active frontage. I had trouble locating the if they were actual residential units or if it was just the owner services that were on the frontage along Ski Time Square if any. Could you point those out?

You talking about the lower building now? I guess that would be the lower building. Yes. There's no unit. There's no unit on the ground floor. There's a a lobby for the residents to go through and the amenities couple spaces there. Yeah. Okay. I couldn't tell from staff report exactly what was on Square and that's fine. Okay. Anything else? No, I don't think so. Any other questions?

Nope. I don't have any either. Um, we have no public here. Is there any public online that would like to make public comment on this agenda item? I think I see one hand raised. Uh if there are others, please raise your hand as well and I'll call on you. Um Bill, if you'd like to unmute yourself and state your name and address and give us your um public comment.

Uh Bill Jameson, Burges Creek Road. I'd like to address a couple things that uh staff uh totally blew over and that's the south side of this building. There's four sides to a building, not three. It totally misses the massing on the south side. The stepbacks uh variance requested is for structural needs. That's only because the applicant wants to increase sailable uh footage. Those staircases can be internal. There should be that 8ft setback on the south side. There's no re justification provided valid justification for not providing a setback. That setback applies to all four sides of the building. And the southside is just as visible to others as the other three. Let's talk about shadowing. Nobody talked about shadowing of Burgess Creek Road. It's a joke putting this uh structure up there. You put a sixplex up a couple lots above allowed two curb cuts. People are backing out into that road. They're parking on the sidewalks. The applicant there uh put ballards uh essentially at the edge of the pavement. The city finally made them cut them down before the snow plows hit them. Let's talk about the sidewalk along Burgess Creek Road. It should go lot line to lot line. It should be required to be snowmelted because that sidewalk is intended to be used during all four seasons. It's not going to be kept clear unless it is snowmelted because the plow from Burgess Griota is going to dump their snow right on it. So the southside has been an afterthought at best. Um let's talk about G2. G2 was never

intended for Burgess Creek Road. Burgess Creek Road is not the base area. that happens to back into it. But the idea that you're putting all this traffic and massing on Burgess Creek Road isn't consistent with the overall base area plan because Burgess Creek isn't part of the base area. So, I think you need to seriously uh look at that. um mass. Nobody talked about the mass that this is affecting the residents on the south side of uh Burgess Creek Road. It's going to be totally blocking all those people. Doesn't affect me personally because I'm on on Upper Burgess Creek Road, but I got to drive past this thing and it's going to be a skating rink. So, let's talk about uh how they're going to mitigate the shadowing and the idea that uh shadowing isn't a valid criteria. I don't buy it because you're creating the hazard by approving this mass. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I urge you to deny the plan as presented.

Is there any other public comment on this agenda item? I don't see any hands raised online, but if there are any final followup for us, the only uh thing I'd like to add is that the the parcel of land our our site sort of the narrowest part of the site is what fronts ski time square and then it goes up and it flares a bit. That piece of land that sort of comes slightly in front of our building from the west east the east I'm sorry. Um something will be built there and any final followup from staff from Kelly?

Nothing to add. Thank you.

Final questions from commissioners. Then I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and emotion. Not all at once, please. I I um the site needs to be developed in my mind. I think it wants to be developed. Should have been developed a long time ago. Um I don't know I don't understand actually the shadowing issue uh that that has been brought up twice now and what really is our criteria for evaluating or not evaluating it and I'm guessing that we don't have criteria for evaluating that. Um, I do like the fact that they're providing access, the stair access uh from Ski Time Square because I think that is very much needed and that should be a a benefit. Any other discussion? The only thing I didn't like about the stairs, as long as you just brought that up, was that they start through the driveway access point. I I do like them in general. I understand the reasoning for the retaining walls that incorporate them. Um, how they'll get down through and how they're kind of creating the shortest linear path to get through the property, which is great, but the fact that they have to cross that driveway opening like garage opening. It's not garage I respect, but like, you know, it's still a door type. Um,

I struggled on whether or not that was mitigated properly or whether that was going to create a safety concern. I I ended up making my piece with it, but it was stood out in my mind anyway. So, I'll bring it to you all as well. That's all I meant to add to saying. Any other discussion?

Yeah. Uh, I would agree with one of the public comments that we just received and that Burgess Creek Road was not really me is not the base area and not having commercial uh ground uh pedestrian frontage usage is I'm okay with that and we had a earlier application that did the same thing. Um, so I agree that that that's okay. And the it seems like the pedestrian active frontage on the steam ski time square is minimal. I mean, we kind of have to have some access for the people to [snorts]

uh leave the building. I wanted a better word. I couldn't come up with at the moment. So, I'm kind of okay with that. Uh, the flat roof on the front building. I think what we've I at least learned at the last one is we're talking about the p the effect on the pedestrian and the fact that that build that lower building is pushed forward I think really reduces the pedestrian effect of the taller taller no the tall building it's not taller than it's supposed to be but it is tall but the building is within the the height limits of the G2 which is what we say we want we want as much density and mass as we can get in the G2 and all around the base area. Uh the missing stepbacks, they seem pretty minimal when you look at the facade. I mean there is a there's a fair amount of articulation. Um and as I said that the lower building does a lot to create a huge step back. I mean if we want to realistically or legally it's two different buildings to to the pedestrian at least it's going to be one big building. And there is that step back which pushes the mass away from the the sidewalk and the street itself. uh the parapits on the and the the roof issues. There's a lot going on on that roof. I don't think anyone will say, "Oh, there there's too many flat roofs and there's no parapits covering the flat roofs because a they're above it where anybody's going to see them." And there's already a lot of detail going on, I think, with the roof that mitigates the need for more parapits or especially the roof line on the the lower building, which I think can help open up view sheds for adjacent uses. Those are things that kind of stood out in my review.

That's great. I would agree with you especially on your point about how the pedestrian uh looks at it all all as one and we're trying to create an intent at least in our code right now about primary roof forms versus secondary I know that technically staff and the applicant needed to consider that as a flat roof the amenity space but it it behaves as a functional patio at the bottom of the tall building uh much more than it behaves as a roof form that is theoretically taken away from other primary roof form shapes. I I completely see that as an acceptable alternative easily. Um but that that's kind of my justification on that just to kind of voice it. Any other discussion?

I'm not going to repeat all of you guys. I agree with everything that's been said so far.

Yeah, same. And I had so few questions honestly because I think that both staff and applicant went through uh item by item uh really well kind of describing uh the the process where they came from, why the variances exist, how they found acceptable criteria or alternative uh depending on if it was staff or the applicant talking. Um the uh uh I don't I'm out of words. um visual representation uh that the applicant showed us in order to kind of walk us through how they developed it. Uh where the variances came from, how they're minimized or or um mitigated um just minimize any questions, you know, I think we needed to ask if I'm speaking for more than just myself, but um I think that made it a really easy process um for us tonight. I can say I'm really glad that the all the trash disposal is not going to be on Ski Time Square.

Should be better. [laughter] Uh yeah, just for the record, I do agree with you. Um Rich, I think you voiced it the best on the conditional use. Um especially up at Burgess Creek. Uh we talked about that the other day and each project is its own, but it's the same concept. I think that that um forcing them to provide a commercial use uh up on that space I think would not benefit anybody. Uh so I think it's very much an acceptable um uh proposal. Uh and then similarly down on the main I doesn't matter what I think is silly, but I mean we have to they're not going to scale walls in order to get to the multif family portion of this building. We have to have some kind of a lobby entrance for multif family. the fact that that's a conditional use, the way our code is written right now is fine and therefore acceptable uh to create an entrance um for that. Uh Rich, I'm I'm with you though. I did um I initially struggled with the vertical height component of a couple of those walls. Um but the reason I stand with you is because I ended up at your reasoning at the end of the day. I think it's very minimized. I like the way you use the word articulated. um on how the building kind of made up for or kind of um minimized the impact that those walls would have to the surrounding um public and uh so I think those are acceptable alternatives as well. Anybody else have anything to add or anybody want to make a motion? Motion to approve 2025 0234 five conditions. Right, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. Chance. Appreciate that. That was it. Uh, any final discussion? Then I'll call for a vote.

I I that passes 40. Thanks for your time. Thank you. We will uh jump into now agenda item number three this evening. This is PL 2025315. This is 4th Street Town Homes Development Plan. Uh is the applicant here for presentation? Good evening, commissioners. I'm Tom Davis, uh, project architect and, um, principal at ESA Architecture, and I'm here representing Big Pow LLC. I think I want to share before we start that clock. I am. Yep. Give me a second here.

You'll be able to share your screen. Is it not giving you permissions?

Leave it should probably be coming up here in a second. Um, potentially help. All right. Well, good evening. I've already introduced myself, but I don't know if I need to for public record as part of the presentation.

You already have. That's great.

Okay. Uh, so I'm back here with a new development plan for Fourth Street. We met uh back in uh last year at some point or maybe earlier this year. And uh we're hoping that you'll like our new and improved design here. So, um it still is a town home project and the only major difference as far as what we're presenting as far as uh building stock is concerned is formerly we had seven units on the site um town home units and now we have six town home units. Uh as we had gone over with our previous application, uh this is a very unique site because it finds itself entirely surrounded by um a PUD and it is adjacent to the uh commercial Oldtown zone district yet it is uh CY2 commercial Yampa um zoned. I think everybody knows where this is, but it's on uh Fourth Street. So, uh it's interesting to note that we did get through city council and our current development plan um was approved back in May. So, um theoretically we could move forward with our approved design. However, we feel this design is better and uh we now have planning support as we addressed many of the concerns uh that were brought in our first proposal. Um as you can see with the plan here on the left is uh the approved development plan on the right is our new development plan. So essentially what we have done is taken uh one unit out of the center and

rotated uh the units to capture some better views, activate pedestrian um access on Fourth Street and also and importantly um provide some safer access through the alleyway as that is quite a busy alleyway. One of the questions might be well why do we go through all this trouble uh to get a development plan only to change it and uh it's been a combination of factors market value of course uh from our clients but uh the reality when we initially started designing this town home project we were responding to the development plan that was under review and had been approved and had started construction. Uh subsequent to that um and throughout the summer the construction has commenced and our clients um were not thinking that they could sell with the views that were oriented towards this uh structure as it was built a little different than they were anticipating. That's just kind of a backstory. Uh, so the planning staff is recommending us for approval, and I'm not going to steal the thunder from Kelly uh pre presentation, but um really the main difference uh there was kind of the perfect storm formerly with the conditional use uh for pedest um [clears throat] for residential in the pedestrian active street frontage. age. Uh we're still asking for that conditional approval because this is a town home project, but we're engaging Fourth Street and in um enhancing the pedestrian active

circulation zone [snorts] and uh staff has been favorable to our new design. As I had mentioned earlier, uh really one of the other main concerns aside from the site considerations of the adjacent structure was how busy that alleyway was. I've grown up in this town. Um, and I remember back when this site was a a trailer home park, and ever since uh I've been in this town, Fourth Street, this alleyway has been a busy bypass essentially uh to the Winter Sports Club. And anybody that wants to avoid that traffic light that's at Fifth Street. Um, so people are zooming all the time on this alleyway. and we were thinking that it was not safe to pull out of a garage directly onto the alleyway. So, we've created this more of a courtyard concept. Um, also of note is our pedestrian uh access along Fourth Street and we are providing some benches along the way. You can see them pretty clear in the renderings. Um but we're directly engaging fourth street for our point of access. Uh the conditional use and potentially the conversation comes back to this tonight and would love to answer any questions you have on this. Uh but down street um downtown Steamboat [cough] Main [clears throat] Street uh has endorsed us uh recognizing that when you get east of Fifth Avenue uh there should be some um flexibility in zoning to allow

different uses. One of which uh should be uh or could be residential use in the pedestrian active street frontage. [clears throat] uh we still have variances associated with this project. Uh one of the variances and a lot of these variances stem from the simple fact that we are in the CY2 zone district. So um along Yampa Street a lot of this criteria makes a lot of sense. Along fourth street it becomes more challenging to accommodate. Uh the first variance is the full width of the front building facade shall be built to the minimum front setback. Um there's no possible way that we can do this uh in the simple sense that there is a pedestrian uh access easement as well as a utility easement uh that goes a full um 26 ft into the property. So [clears throat] we are scooting the building as close as we can to that access and utility easement. um which also coincidentally gets uh close to the front CY2 secondstory setback that's allowed as far as building massing is concerned. Uh variance number two is that the primary building entrances shall face Yampa Street. Uh that's really difficult to accommodate when we're not on Yampa Street. Um but formerly with our uh development plan that has been approved, our entrances were inboard and were not facing uh Fourth Street. Arguably half of our new design is not facing Fourth

Street, but uh half of the town homes are uh facing I don't know if [snorts] Okay, that just blinked off. So [clears throat] we think we are honoring the intent of the code by pivoting our buildings. Variance number three uh buildings shall fill the full width of the lot. Uh this is makes a lot of sense in a very urban context when you want uh you don't want negative spaces between buildings um and you have a continuous street frontage. However, uh in this application, it doesn't make as much sense. Uh as well as the need to not only accommodate for runoff from [snorts] our driveway, our storm water management and electrical access, but probably and most importantly is along the interior property line. um based on international building code um you can't have any windows until you're five feet away from the property line. So from that perspective we are as far as we can possibly be from a building code perspective to the setback. Uh that's different at the alleyway and our building is buted up to the zero lot line at the alleyway um because that fires safe distance is not required in an alleyway because nobody could ever build there per the building code. Variance number four, uh, ground floor height shall be between 12 and 15 feet and display windows at the street level shall appear similar in height to those seen traditionally. Um, this criteria is

predicated on a commercial use. So, in a lot of ways, it's tethered to our uh, conditional um, [clears throat] request for residences at the ground level. Uh theoretically you could make the buildings taller to meet the height ground floor condition. Um but then it becomes challenging to have three stories uh for the structure [clears throat] as well as an unnecessary um change of grade from the ground level to the second story. Um but I think most importantly associated with this variance and our justification is that really uh you have to look at the surrounding context because uh this is written under the assumption that we're on Yampa Street and the continuation of the storefront makes sense and that ground level as a datim as it uh is a continuous streetscape. We are on an island uh CY2 in a PUD. So, our contextual cues really come from the adjacent residential structures around us. Um, sorry, there's little windows in the way. Variance five is transparent glazing including glazed doors shall be provided as follows. Uh there's a lot of glazing requirements, but I think the intent of this is that there's more glazing at the street level and less as you go above in a traditional commercial sense. Um, our project uh arguably uh meets that code along Fourth Street and glazing [clears throat] is tricky to meet the requirements when you're navigating function uh as it um

crashes into form. Um bathrooms, laundry rooms, uh things of that nature. We've done everything that we can to bring our glazing percentage as high as possible. So, uh that's kind of this new project in a nutshell. I think everything that we've done is really trying to come back to this notion of uh vitality and how do we create vitality in downtown and there was a lot of discussion around that in our last meeting. um some disconnect uh between what vitality is. Is it a coffee shop at the ground floor or is it bringing um pedestrians through the area? And from our perspective, vitality is at its very core is the people that animate spaces. Uh we are bringing more people into downtown. Uh we are increasing uh and making a connection point between the Yampa River corridor core path multimodal um path as well as to Lincoln Avenue connecting that with a enhanced streetscape and um sidewalk as well as nice landscaping features. Um, so we feel our conditional approval for residential at the ground floor is uh justifiable and brings vitality to downtown has been supported by planning staff as well as Main Street Steamboat. So, uh, I'm around this evening for questions and I'm just going to leave it with that unless I guess we have a little more time. Don't want to leave it on the table, Ryan. [laughter] Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. We'll let you know if we have any

questions. Kelly, do you have a staff presentation as well?

I do. Thank you. Um, Kelly Douglas, senior planner. Uh, the subject site, it's 29 acres. It's undeveloped. It's located on the southeast corner of Fourth Street and the alley south of Lincoln Avenue zone CY2 and it's bordered by CO zones properties to the north and the riverview beauty to the east west and south. Uh the site it has a limited frontage along Fourth Street and its long dimension runs along the alley parallel to the alley where access is provided. Um although the lot is rectangular which is not unique, that's kind of ideal really. That's what the standards want. Its orientation and context are are unique. That's what makes it unique. Um it sits at a transition point between the traditional downtown block pattern where lots run from Lincoln Avenue to the alley on both sides. Um and the different orientation of the river PUD, Riverview PUD to the south. So those kind of come together right at this property. So that's because of that the site functions as a transitional property between that commercial core and the adjacent residential development. As background um previous development plan was for a 7 unit town home project that was approved earlier in 2025. It had a conditional use to allow multiple family residential within the pedestrian active building frontage and there were seven variances to CY2 design standards. Um, I think we covered them well. The applicant covered them. So, I'll I'll leave that out. Um, it's more for context than anything to do with really this proposal because of course they all stand on their own. Um, but at that time, staff recommended denial. Planning commission had a split vote recommending denial and ultimately city council approved the project. Uh but as Tom mentioned, they are back with a refined design and this application proposes a

six-unit multiple family residential development in two town home buildings. The project maintains alley access for vehicles uh but it improves the pedestrian orientation by um providing three primary entrances off of fourth street. So that's a big a big change. Um site improvements include a widened sidewalk, landscaping, um entrances oriented to Fourth Street again that strengthen the connection uh between kind of these zones, the commercial, sorry. Yeah, like co commercial, not on this site, this site and then the Riverview neighborhood. Um as a conditional a conditional use is required to allow multiple family residential use within the pedestrian active building frontage on Fourth Street. Um the community plan and the downtown plan uh support adding housing downtown, improving the pedestrian realm, and reinforcing the transitional role of Fourth Street between the commercial core and the nearby residential area. So staff finds the proposed use is consistent with the applicable plans, that it's compatible with the CY2 zone district, and um it's not anticipated to create any negative impacts. So, we're supporting that conditional use. Um, there are five variances included with this application. They're all to the CY2 design standards. So, I'll go through each one of them now. And again, um, I'll focus on staff's um, analysis on this one. The applicant did a good job of summarizing their justifications. Um, so variance number one is to building placement standards. Uh, I'll spare you the reference. I'll tell you what the standard is. Um, it's focused on streetscape character and the look and feel of downtown development rather than an article 2 dimensional standard. So, where it's located tells us something about what it's for. Uh, this standard, it requires that the full width of the front facade

be built to the minimum front setback. The applicant is proposing a 28 to 31 ft setback uh to allow a widened sidewalk, landscaping, seating. Um staff supports this variance because the increased setback still creates a defined street frontage and improves pedestrian experience comfort along the fourth street frontage. Um the alternative achieves sorry it enhances the public realm and it meets the downtown plans direction for high quality pedestrian spaces. It also visually uh it maintains visual continuity with the neighboring Riverview building. They're about the same. They're kind of set back the same, I guess, if you will. They line up or they would line up if approved. Uh so it appropriately responds to the the context in staff's view. Uh so all that's to say that we are supporting the variance and we find it to be an equal to acceptable alternative meets the intent of the standard. Variance number two is to building orientation standard uh 443 C1B. This standard requires primary building entrances to face Yampa Street. But as we know, Yampampa Street doesn't extend to this site. So in this context, orienting entrances the fourth street is the only feasible way to achieve uh activation on the public street. This orientation, it maintains pedestrian visibility, reinforces the street oriented development pattern. Uh so we find that this represents an acceptable alternative meets the intent of the standard and it satisfies the criteria for both a practical difficulty it just can't meet this standard but also an equal to outcome. Um variance number three this is a massing standard and it requires buildings to fill the full width of the lot. So that would be the fourth street frontage. The standard would have the building be the whole width of it. Um

the building fills approximately 80 86% of the width. So it fills most of it, but there's a little bit left over. Staff supports this variance because the reduced width still establishes a continuous street frontage and a clear urban edge along Forest Street. Uh the resulting form, it achieves the same streetscape envisioned by the standard and maintains an active relationship with the public realm. Uh the design also furthers the CY2's zone district um by accommodating new development that complements traditional rhythm and transitional scale between Lincoln and Riverview neighborhood again. Um so overall it's an acceptable alternative that upholds the purpose of the CY2 zone district and the intent of the standard. The I was going to say last but it's not last. It's the fourth uh it's the fourth variance and it's also to building massing standards. This standard requires a 12 to 15 ft ground floor height with display li window windows similar to tra traditional storefront proportions. Um the applicant's proposing a 9 ft floor height. While the standard seems written for commercial storefronts, I think that's where most of our minds go. uh it does apply to all uses allowed in the CY2 zone district which includes multiple family residential which is allowed as a conditional use. So in this case applying the commercial scale height requirements to a residential use wouldn't improve the pedestrian experience or streetscape quality uh the necessarily the proposed 9 foot height uh it it provides an appropriate residential scale. It still maintains a reasonable amount of transparency uh articulation and visible interest along Fourth Street. Um, and this variance staff's finding to be consistent with CY2's purpose of supporting moderate intensity residential uses in a

pedestrianoriented environment. So, similar to before, it's an acceptable alternative. It fulfills the intent of the standard and it upholds the stated purposes of the CY2 zone district. And now we are at the last variance. It is variance number five and it's to our glazing and transparency standards. There's three of them. Um 30% ground floor transparency on public facing facade, 60% on Yampa Street facads, which as we know there is no YMA street here. So we're making sure we're treating all those standards the same. Um and 25% of upper floors. Um the proposal it does not meet those percentages and as I mentioned, you know, strict application of the YMA specific standard cannot be met here. So that that is that um we support the variance though because the design meets the intent of the glazing standards through the guidelines which encourage clear glazing on the ground floor of numbered streets and allow proportionally less glazing on upper floors. The window pattern provides an appropriate residential expression uh while still promoting visibility and activity and pedestrian friendly activity along the fourth street um frontage. This variance staff is also finding consistent with CY's purpose of accommodating this moderate intensity residential development uh supporting an active walkable downtown area. Um and yeah, that this one also fulfills the intent of the standards and upholds the purpose of the CY2 zone district and the design standards. Regarding public comment, uh none has been received in support of or opposition to the proposal. Um overall the design strengthens the pedestrian orientation along Fourth Street, provides appropriate residential transition between commercial and residential. Um and we find that the applicable

development plan conditional use and major variance criteria for approval are met also consistent with the downtown plan direction. and we've utilized the new community plan in this um in the analysis of this project. Um but kind of similar to the last one, there's nothing in here that I think I don't think the old plan uh contradicts any of the findings here. Um so yeah, we are recommending approval with conditions. I hope I mentioned that and of course we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. Any questions from commissioners? Uh yeah, that I guess the reality here and this is for Kelly is that this project that we had approved a while ago is now under construction and is this a substantive change that you know from that plan? It is obviously and that [clears throat] is that why they're here.

Um the applicant is here on their own valition. um this change in the design is completely the applicant's choice. Um the the modifications that they've made between this proposal that you're looking at and the one uh before it hasn't been constructed. It was just approved. Um so there's no there's no building permit or anything related to the old previous approval. Um I I I don't want to speak for the applicant. They can obviously speak for themselves, but I think they've taken some of the direction that they heard at this hearing and city council and that might have informed some of the changes. Um, but in either case, staff reviews this. I've provided context because I feel like it's natural to ask that question and we try to anticipate the questions that we can from commissioners and the public, city council. But that's not to insinuate that they or suggest in any way that the analysis of that project impacts the analysis of this project. This project stands on its own. It's gone through its own analysis. It's completely independent. Um but yeah, it's it's been completely their choice. Okay. Come back with a new proposal.

Well, I I actually I I thought you I thought I was under the impression that this was actually under construction. It is not. Is that true? It is not. No. We endeavored on construction documents for the previous design. Okay. But we haven't broken ground. Okay. Thank you. Apologies. Philosophically and theoretically uh and this is this is because of what came up the other day in our other discussion. If had they broken ground and then they decided to change the design, would this represent a substant substantive change and they would be required to come to the commission? Absolutely. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Go ahead. Um for staff on the downtown area plan, the downtown plan, it does talk about increased commercialization from 5th through 10th. Do we envision no new cons no new commercial from third and fourth and 11th and 12th streets in our commercial zones? Uh no, I don't believe so.

Okay. Um, let's I'm going to jump to a different topic because I can. Uh, glazing. Stafo supports it even though there's I believe it was three facads that had only 10%. Uh, glazing. I don't understand how that meets the goal of 30%. Uh, I I can understand this the I guess it would be the west facing facade that's against the larger building that has probably close to a zero lot line build, but both Fourth Street and the alley are pretty visible locations and I wonder why higher glazing would not be warranted. Um it you know we're responding to the the proposal before us um what they've proposed and we find that it it furthers a couple of the guidelines. Uh so that's that's our support and we find that it also uh you know the purpose of the CY2 zone district supports it by like I was saying accommodating this moderate intensity residential use. So that's staff support. But of course, you know, the finding is yours to make whether to disagree with that.

That's all for now. Yeah. I I I may have asked a question this question from the first time around. Why is this a CY zone?

This was reszone to CY2 with the last proposal uh in May. It was part of the package. This property was subdivided. it was reszoned and there was a development plan. All three of them came together and now I'm kind of summarizing the findings of that hearing for you, the zone map amendment. What we found at that time, we as in staff and this group and city council, we all agreed um that there's actually like no perfect fit for this property. In an ideal world, if we go back in time, probably should have been part of Riverview, but we can't go back in time and it doesn't work with CO. It's not a CO property in spirit. it doesn't front on Lincoln. Um, we kind of in that in that hearing, we all arrived at the conclusion that there would probably be a variance to whatever standards we attach to this property, whatever it's zoned, probably wouldn't work perfectly cuz it is weird. It does not is not part of CO. Yampa doesn't come through. So, like it's a little bit in a no man's land. and our analysis, the future land use map of the old community area plan, all of those things kind of amounted to CY2 being the closest best fit. So, I think there's always been some acknowledgment that all of the standards of this zone district would not work for this site simply because it's not on Yampa. And then there's a few that I think are related to the use like the ground floor ceiling height for example that's related directly to the multiple family project that it is. So it's not a perfect fit but I don't think there is a perfect fit.

Okay. Thank you. A question for the applicant um about going back to glazing. Um can you describe how you measured the glazing area and the wall area? Yeah, typically what we do is in our software we overlay you know one area take the measurement of it and then have basically the glazing. So you look over uh both the doors anywhere there's glass overlay squares. Um that essentially gives us the calculations

specifically. What were you measuring to and from on wall area? Uh exterior exterior faces of walls. Um actually if we could pull up I think we could present because we have our glazing calculations. I believe there the numbers but didn't see any graphics of what you were actually measuring. And bear with me. I I promise there's a point to this, but I'm just curious. I I don't want to be way off base before I uh before I continue my questions.

Sure. No. Uh if and if we didn't represent it graphically, we typically do that. Um and we'd be happy to share the glazing percentages with you. Um, as far as and I I believe uh in these documents they were I thought we had a sheet that was the glazing percentage. I know in a lot of other projects we do we have it broken out very graphically with overlays. Um Rich thinks that he remembers it.

Yeah, I I saw that chart. So the reason I'm asking is because I mean this is scaling so you know imperfect but your percentages if you percentages are really low compared to what I was scaling I think there's so okay I'll I'll read the part of the CDC that I'm talking about in the definitions of uh everything uh the transparency area shall include the the glass and the frame. So, I wasn't sure if you were including the frame or just the glass panes. And then wall area is where I was thinking maybe a lot of this was coming from. The wall area is measured from the finished elevation of each floor to the ceiling above, not just the exterior facade. So, it's a lot smaller wall area than if you just draw a line around the building. And I think like from my um scaling because it looked like there were a lot more windows than the percentages you're showing. So I just was curious and I think that the variance isn't as extreme as it looks in that chart. That's the reason I mention it. I think you're actually better off than but you know it's hard to really

we'll have to go back and review. Yeah, absolutely. um there is a chance that those calculations are lower um as I wasn't the one that drafted these plans um but my name is associated with them so I should double check the percentages although Kelly did you do that as part of the DRT process can you verify any of their numbers um I you know we defer to Tom [clears throat] make the final

and ultimately I mean looking at the I mean just using you know and I understand with planning and dimensional standards uh we always uh numbers mean everything but conceptually uh you know 60% at the ground level as it faces the street if you just look at the front and I could I don't know if I'm sharing I could share that um we're not at 60%. Sure. Yeah. I I think the upper levels were the ones that are pretty gosh dang close to 25 if not well over in some cases.

Absolutely. And I know uh formerly uh in the previous design we enhanced the glazing percentages um by bringing a lot of glass to the garage doors as they were on the alleyway. But now it's the side of the garage along the alleyway.

All right. Any other questions? Uh, Kelly, I had one for you. Um, you mentioned in your staff analysis, uh, trying to just understand where you were coming from, your staff analysis of the conditional use, um, for multif family. Uh, you say the downtown plan identifies side streets as appropriate locations for infill housing that transitions between commercial core and adjacent neighborhoods. Which adjacent neighborhood are you referring to? Riverview. Riverview is a mixeduse development, not a neighborhood. Okay. Noted. That was what you were referring to, though.

Yeah, the vicinity. Um, it's a residential area. It's directly next to and across from multiple family development. Um, I understand I understand your point. The Riverview PD is mixed use overall. It's more of a horizontal mix of uses rather than vertical. And I think it's appropriate to characterize that as a neighborhood. Um there is commercial develop sorry residential development surrounding it. Um you know on two sides it's very prominent uh you know our most closest neighbors I guess. So that's where we're coming from. But I hear you. That was the only question I had for staff for the applicant. Any other questions?

I have like a point of curiosity. Um, the first two variances feel like they would have been hardship, like a a hardship justification because there is no Yampa Street to satisfy one and there's a big easement across the front of the lot line. So, you can't build to the front. Um, I don't remember if it was setback or property line, but you can't build as far forward towards the the front lot line as the code wants you to. And I'm just curious why those were justified as al alternative um acceptable alternatives instead of hardships.

Uh the first one was an acceptable alternative and that's just kind of like where we landed on it. You could certainly make a different finding. That's absolutely your perview. The second variance you mentioned um we actually did choose both hard fit and acceptable alternative. Sometimes we do that. Um yeah, thanks. Any other questions? Do we have any public comment for this agenda item? Um, we don't have any in person. Are there any online? You can raise your hand.

Okay, seeing none, I'll first come back to the applicant. Do you have any final follow-up for us? I think my only uh conclusion or final statement would be with the new code um community plan is really predicated. I I read through it um over the weekend. was joyful reading [laughter] and a lot of the new code is to really encourage uh density in our downtown and uh development of infill lots. This lot is currently a parking lot in a very busy alleyway. Um it finds itself in no man's land as the CY2 zone district because that seemed to be the closest fit. Um, from that pretty much every variance has sprung forward. Um, we've done everything in our power to uh honor the code, bring pedestrian act activity uh through our site and connect the yampa core to downtown. So, um, from our perspective, we are enhancing the community in what is currently an infill lot and we feel we're honoring the code.

Great. Thank you. Any final comments from staff? Nothing to add. Thank you. Any final questions? I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and emotion. I have a vague recollection of this project and I think it was wasn't that long ago. It wasn't that long ago, but I'm trying to remember if there were four of us that had the split vote last time. [laughter] I think it was a full eight though, was it? Okay. Okay. I think you're right.

Um I'm I'm supportive of this. I I you know, the whole cy zoning now I recall that we zoned it that way. [gasps] Um and it that is what causes a lot of these variances. I think having the access from fourth street is better than having it from, you know, any place else that there is some activation. And I do remember a conversation about couldn't we just have like a a coffee shop or something on Fourth Street to provide some commercial activation? And I I'm not sure that that's applicable. I mean, that's an alley back there. Uh the glazing I uh I don't have that much of a problem with the glazing issue. Uh so from that standpoint I'm I'm supportive. I I'd like to see that lot be developed into something honestly. The discussion

uh I think the first couple of variances are just you know pretty straightforward and easy. they're impossible to meet without a variance. The lot width um filling the width of the lot variance number three um is almost the same thing because you can't fill the lot width while providing the required glazing. So you have to choose one or the other. Um so I have no problem with that. the ground floor height. I've said it a lot of times at this point that I think it's a variance we should expect if we're allowing the conditional use of residential in a commercial zone. Um, which I'm supportive of in this case and was last time as well. Um, the glazing one, I wish that I knew that we had the right um, calculations because I truly do think that they're it's a much smaller variance than it looks like. Um, but even so, just even so, I'm I'm totally supportive of that variance because it looks there's quite a few windows on the upper floors. The one spot that I would have loved to see more windows is right on the street level, but at the same time that just creates a fishbowl that is kind of awkward for everyone, the people inside, the people outside. So, I'm perfectly fine with it as it sits. Yeah, it's all I got.

I'm struggling with this. It's a beautiful project. It looks great. It's infill project. That's great. Um, I always struggle with not getting our commercial. Uh, claiming the zoning problem. I I don't buy that. It's either CY or it's CO or they or if they didn't like either of those own districts, they could have come and asked for a PUD. So, yes, it's not on Yampa Street, but the vision of Yampa of the CY zone district is not just Yampa. It's an area. it's an area of x amount of commercial and whatever the x e x that x number is and and residential and being pedestrian friendly, you know, very similar to uh co except with a little less with less intensity. Um so those discussions I except for not being able to face y a street any other challenge of the cyone district goes with the property period. No other it doesn't fit doesn't doesn't work for me. Um yes I understand that the downtown plan does diminish the importance of commercial east east of fourth street or south whichever direction that is at that point. It it doesn't eliminate it you know and get that connection. Uh the mountain plan, the downtown area plan does talk about commercial and having the experiential uh commercial experience to be able to touch things to help to help divert us from our online commercial uh online buying experience. They call it it specifically talks about that in the downtown plant. And this is an important an important element. So I'm a little leerary about this about no commercial. Um, and then the glazing, the glazing is not just is not only about a visual impact to the pedestrian. It's also about providing light to the residents

and occupants inside it. And 10% on on I think it was at least 50% the walls seems a pretty small to me. Whether that's an accurate calculation or not, I assume it's the calculation that the city has created. At least I assume and I assume staff has double checked the applicants numbers. Um so not the lack of glazing is a little bit of an issue for me even though it looks nice when we see it. Um they could have put zero uh glazing on the the west the west facing facade that's right against the other PUBG building and and increased it on the alleyway and fourth street would have made me happier. Um, and I'm not really sure where if if my concerns where they fall on actual how it's going to affect my vote, but these are things I worry about all the time, especially in the very uh areas that are intended to be commercially orientated. It's commercial Yampa, not not mixeduse Yampa, not not residential Yampa, commercial Yampa, right next to commercial old town. I I'll join. Uh I like the things you just brought up. Those are my concerns as well. Um, what I think is interesting, and I think maybe Kelly, I'll give you the credit for what I think is the intent that's maybe being met within the glazing, is that if you're struggling to determine if it has enough glazing, it looks like it ought to have more, then one, it was measured wrong. That that could be. And that's that's actually a big problem. We shouldn't be looking at things that are measured [laughter] and indicated wrong. But maybe more correctly, the design was

successful in mitigating uh how little glazing there is and creating a building that looks like it has a lot of architectural interest and is and is still creating that that interest where it looks like the facade each facade has more glazing to it. Um so it might just be an architectural success um rather than a graphical error. Um [snorts] maybe it's both. It's hard to say. Um but but I think that the building was designed really well and I'm I'm tending to give a lot of credit to to that being the visual success of it even though they're not providing um enough glazing. Um the other variances I think you guys already spoke to uh really well, but I think that each one if we essentially if we if we start with the fact that we've got a conditional use that's acceptable that is multif family only on this project. I like how they've changed this project. Uh, I think that it's that accessing one location along the alley and coming in before they're trying to get in or out of garages, which are a little bit more of a tricky situation than actually just turning off the alley into the courtyard, driveway, whatever we want to call that, um, is very successful. I think that's a great improvement from what they had before. The orientation towards Fourth Street is a great improvement. um as you already mentioned, Kelly, uh the um the building width versus being able to mitigate some of these other um issues as well. I think uh that is a very uh justifiable analysis or acceptable alternative. Um, and especially with this type of town home style construction where the garage and residential are on this ground floor as a part of the unit makes it non-redevelopable and therefore the ground floor height uh makes sense within this specific type of residential

construction. I think all the variances are working really well. problem is, as I felt months ago when this came before, I think that um Rich, to your point, the conditional use is still a big problem for me uh as it was before, not providing any commercial use whatsoever uh in this area, whether it's supporting, if you want to call it, uh an adjacent neighborhood, the you know, commercial aspect supporting that adjacent neighborhood, or whether it's just a continuation of what is downtown, which is our commercial core emphasis, and not even providing any um whichever way you look at it, I have a major problem with that. So, uh everything else, the design itself, I'm just summarizing my long speech, the design itself, how they're doing their their five variances, very successful. I just still think it it it this property is meant to have a commercial aspect. Um uh especially along fourth and um I can't support the conditional use just from what I think that how I interpret the downtown plan uh requirements for us. Any other discussion? Anybody want to make a motion? Um, I'll I'll reiterate what what Brian said. It's this is a better plan than the one we had before. Um, and I know we split votes on it last time and city council approved it.

[laughter] So, um, um, I'll I'll make the motion to approve PL 2025 0315 and the four conditions associated with it. I'll second. Any final discussion? Okay. Well, I was just going to say that we I'm pretty sure we need to and I don't think it'll change anything, but just for the record that we are approving or denying this application based on its own merits, not based on any previous version, whether it's better or worse than a than a previous application or a previous vote by council

or a previous Exactly. That's all. Right. I'll call for a vote. I no no I that motion fails so that gets fun for us. Um, and I'll open up to the applicant. Um, if you guys would like to see us uh table uh this until we have more uh No, I'm okay right now. Uh until we have more or would you like us to um just fail the motion u because we can't get to a successful one? Uh I was trying to say more um commissioners here at a future date.

It's my understanding a tie vote goes as basically a a no vote. Um, [clears throat] and Kelly, right? So, that motion failed. We don't have a no vote. We have We don't have a vote. Not like a no. We don't have a yes vote. We don't have a no vote. Yes. A neutral vote. Like we still have an open meeting where we could make a new one to vote against. And then if we can't come to one, then we just won't have a successful vote and that will default to no. Yeah. So, but we could postpone this until you have more.

I'd like some more clarification because I was under the impression that if it was tied that it basically is a neutral like that there's no findings out of the night. Not that. And I don't know if that's a permission to I have some I think information that's material. Okay, I'll hear it.

Thanks. I actually checked in with the legal department ahead of this hearing to understand what would happen if planning commission had a split vote for a recommendation item. Um I checked with Dan Foot, uh the city attorney. He informed me that for recommendation items when planning commission has a split recommendation, it goes forward with that split recommendation. So council would receive a recommendation that's 22 is how I understand it from our legal department. So if if that is indeed the um [clears throat] the final solution on that one, [laughter] uh we would like to move forward with a split decision.

Okay. Um if that's what you're asking, that's fine. We can go. And if that's what we can do. Yes, I understand that's the appropriate procedure from our legal department. Yes. Yeah. We've that's great. No problem. Thanks, Tom. Uh then we will have a split decision and we have voted two. So, thanks for your time tonight. With that, let's take a quick uh 10-minute break.

All right. I think we're back and running. Um, so we'll jump into our agenda item number four. This is PL 20250282 EV charging CDC text amendment. Um, Kelly, when you're ready to tell us all about it.

Yes. Okay, Kelly Douglas, senior planner. Again, um I'm excited to bring you this item tonight. This is a CDC text amendment um that proposes to update our code to align with Colorado House Bill 24-1173 and the Colorado EV charging model land use code. Um the House bill, which I will not repeat over and over again uh for [laughter] all of our sanity, it requires cities of our sides to either adopt the model code, adopt equivalent standards, or to formally opt out. Uh the approach we've taken or we're taking is to adopt standards that are consistent with the model code while tailoring them to fit our CDC's structure and formatting. Uh the overall goal is to create clear definitions, a predictable predictable standards and a consistent permitting process for EV charging, both principal use and accessory uses. Um with this amendment, we introduced two new EV charging uses in article 3. Um EV charging centers as a principal use. These are the larger fast charging sites kind of functionally somewhere in between a surface parking lot and a gas station or a fueling station. Um the proposes the proposes the changes we're proposing with these new uses uh or with this new use is by right in CC CS and industrial. So that's kind of consistent with the gas station part and then um conditional in MFG COC cyc and then three of our um TND transexs that of course aren't anywhere in the city yet but this is a forward-looking amendment. So we're we're going to look that far forward too. Um and then it's prohibited these uh principal use EV charging centers would be prohibited in our like lower density residential zone

districts. The other use that is proposed to be added is an accessory use. That's the EV charging facilities. These can be level one, level two or the fast charging stations, the DC FC and um are incidental to existing uses. They are proposed to be allowed by right in all zone districts and reviewed at the building permit stage when they meet the exemption criteria. Um much of the amendment is just kind of clarifying how existing development standards apply to EV charging and adding like targeted exemptions language where it makes sense. So I will outline those sections of the code in article four the development um standards that we're proposing to make changes to. So for so we'll start at the top with landscaping um and that will be the accessory charging facilities are exempt when the principal use isn't changing and if any existing plantings are displaced they just need to be replaced elsewhere on the lot in accordance with the landscaping standards. We know those are going to be changing soon. We are anticipating an update but I don't think there'll be any um problem with that here. the this exemption will just make sure that any new plant things comply with that new section or whatever is in effect at the time. For screening, uh the requirement applies only to EV utility equipment. Um sorry, it it only applies to level two and DCFC charging. So those type of stations um and only along the shared lot line, not around the entire installation. the the language in this section also gives the director some ability um to exempt screening when it isn't necessary. So there's a little bit of flexibility there in the lighting section intentionally uh and that's from direction in the model code as well in

the lighting section. EV charging areas are identified as priority locations for higher illumination support safety uh and visibility. So it's kind of a small change. the off- streetet parking section. Uh it it does a couple things. ADA requirements are clarified for charging spaces. Um all EV charging spaces count toward parking minimums. I think that's an important one for just for staff and also for anybody wanting to develop EV charging equipment. We're just trying to make it really clear what you do and don't have to do, what applies, how things count. So that's what this section's doing. And then lastly, uh, and this comes straight from the model code as well, that, um, there's a credit for van accessessible EV charging spaces that are not reserved exclusively for disability. Those can count as two spaces. So, that's a special little incentive that the state's requiring we include. Um, and that's the section where it fits best. So, that's where you're seeing it land in section 406. for snow storage. Um, accessory charging facilities are exempt from snow storage standards when the principal use isn't changing and any snow storage areas displaced by an installation must be relocated elsewhere in accordance with the requirements the snow storage requirement standards uh while still maintaining proper access and circulation. So, it works pretty similar to landscaping. If you move, if there's something required, a tree, snow storage space that you now want to put a charging, an accessory um EV charging use, that's okay. We know that those areas are probably most likely to be infected, impacted by these accessory EV charging uses that are kind of retrofitted, if you will, over time. The it's the same. Please relocate in accordance with that section and then you're good. Um, so then we move on to I think this is

the performance standards section section 411 and that adds a reference to NFPA and NES clearance. Sorry, it it's utility requirements. It's probably a standard that was in a reference that was kind of missing in the first place. So that's sort of a cleanup and part of the model code and that's that's a great addition in staff's opinion. And then finally, there's the clear vision setback section and that it's just to add EV charging stations. They can't be in the clear vision setback triangle. So that's just kind of similarly a clarification. Um so folks know what can and cannot occur in certain areas, certain setback areas. Um on the process side, accessory charging facilities are exempt from development review if they meet all the conditions that we kind of just walked through. So, they move straight to building permit and that's where they'll be reviewed. There's still standards like we talked about, but that's how they'll how we'll make sure they're met. Um, principal use EV charging centers. So, like in your mind, you can think gas station more or less. Uh, those those will require a planning application. Um, and they'd follow whatever the appropriate development plan conditional use process would be. the development plan it would fall into would depend on the size of the site um and just our normal development plan applicability. Uh so that would so that may be projects you see in the future. The model code tells us that EV charging centers are kind of more of the the forwardlooking like kind of preparation uh piece of this amendment. I think that's kind of like while we're here, we might as well anticipate this future land use. Um I think the model code, the state, what we just anticipate is probably more accessory charging facilities, more probably coming our way

on a sooner time frame than a principal use that may come before you. But if and when that happens, you'll be the first people to see it. Um finally, the amendment, it adds a set of definitions to support the new EV uses. um it's just to improve clarity and ensure consistent interpretation throughout the code. There's the use and its definition. There's no use standards. Uh but that lives in article 3. And then there's some other definitions that support that use. They're not part of the use definition, but they support it. So those are included in article 8. Um in terms of the approval, oh getting creative with my pronunciation. Um the approval criteria. This amendment is fully consistent with the community plan and the uh Brow County climate action plan. It operationalizes our sustainability and mobility goals and implements the community plan direction. Oh, this is the new community plan. There's a very explicit section about um EV infrastructure. So, this obviously does that. Um so, we're pleased to bring it to you. Um there's also specific city council goals around transportation mobility and environmental sustainability. Uh reduce barriers to clean transportation infrastructure, keep our development frame framework up to date, and it's a little bit circular. City council wants to um achieve the route county climate action plan. So there's a little bit of a loop there. Uh overall, you know, we find that it's consistent with the criteria for approval. We recommend approval. We support this amendment. Um, hope you do too. Happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Kelly. Yeah,

open up to questions. You guys don't mind. I want to ask one real quick and then dwell on it for a sec. So, help me understand, Kelly, between centers and facilities. We have DCFC as part of a facility thing, right? As an accessory use, which is allowed in residential zone districts. You have, again, this I think I'm probably understanding this wrong, right? So, as I say through it, bear with me and please tell me how I'm understanding it incorrectly. You have screening landscaping applicability for DCFC and level two for charging facilities, but does that apply in single family and two family zone districts where otherwise screening and landscaping don't have standards? So, does it still apply there? I hope desperately. [snorts] Can you please ask me one more time? I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be dense. I want to make sure I give you the answer.

The question is I would like to see I'll just tell you what my hope is, right? And then you tell me if the code's doing it. My hope is that when we are allowing the um the three fe three-phase DCFC uh type charging in like RO zone districts that we're not creating a scenario where somebody can put a big old transformer charging thing with the hook right there at their corner of their property line in their driveway unscreened I don't think is a very successful solution for us them on their property great fast charge your own car that's great but screening should apply to that but I don't know how you apply screening to residential zone districts because typically we don't have standards in those zone districts.

Okay. I read this. So it's an accessory use like that. I don't think like one family, two family that's its use and it has its own requirements, its own exemptions. Okay. The accessory use EV charging facility EV is its own use. It doesn't say there's no like relational thing like oh you're an accessory to this use therefore these standards do or do not apply like the accessory the standards that apply to the accessory use apply regardless of the thing it's accessory to

I think I understand and just to make sure so there's nothing because right like as as you're showing us what's changing in the code you're in applicability B3 right is what you're adding I just wanted to make sure that the applicability ities in like one and two aren't like removing one and two family projects from being part of it. And I don't of course have the entire code memorized. So I wasn't sure if they were like already exempted before we even got to this somehow. It sounds like they're not. But that just kind of continuing to explain where my concern was.

No, I think I also think maybe a little bit of like question in your mind might come because when you're looking at this amendment and you start with [clears throat] landscaping, it says exemptions. It says add one. That add one is just adding the number one. And then it says one family residential shall be exempt. And then add two and it talks about EV charging facility. So I think I don't want to presume how you're receiving this information. That's not to amend one. It's just adding a number because right now it doesn't.

No, of course I agree with that. But that exemption is already existing. So, it's existing in 402C that one family and two families are exempt from landscape se standards. Further down in the code at 403b applicability, we're talking about this screening stuff, but already in 402, they've been exempted. Okay, I feel like maybe my that got us a little bit away. [laughter] So, this section is this single family. Um, let's see. Just read here.

So the one family and two family residential principal uses are exempt from landscape standards of this section. Mhm. Right. Yeah. And so it the screening wouldn't apply because it's already been exempted from the entire section. I'm I guess I'm having a little trouble following because the the primary use doesn't matter like the EV charging facility, the accessory use has its own standard. If it applies, okay,

it applies like it doesn't there's no hierarchy of like if this use if this EV charging accessory use is accessory to a single family home, then it does not need to be screened. It just you want to have an accessory charging facility. You're in the RO zone district. That's by right. So the use is by right. And then you would go through the standards and let's see the first one landscaping would be the first one that you would encounter and you would see you're not proposing a one family or two family president principal use. You're proposing an EV charging facility. So you'd go to two

accessory use.

Accessory use. Yeah. EV charging facility is an accessory use. That's why they have different names. Um, so EV charging facilities proposed on a lot. Okay, so this is telling me I have a single family home in this example. Uh, there's no changes to the single family home. So I'm exempt from landscaping requirements even though I was already exempt from them. So that's kind of that. But then you moved Okay. So then we move down to screening and we do the same thing. I'm propose I have a single family home. It's already there. I'm proposing let's say it's a level let's say it's level two for the purpose of this and I want it at my house. So I would come down here and it says for EV charging facilities that include level two. Oh that's me. The following things apply. It doesn't matter that I have a single family home. I want a level two charger at my home. So I have to screen it

per this standard. Okay. Does that track? I Yeah. I would love it if it's that way. It was just a gray enough area that I was like, if I'm just stupid, that's great. But if it is semicon confusing, then could we clarify the language so that I'm the only one moving forward who is ever confused about I think it's a good question. I don't know. That's the way we apply the code. Like we wouldn't say, well, you have a secondary unit accessory use and that's not exempt from the landscape standard. So we're apply we're applying in the landscape or like off street parking mind or something like that you know what I mean like um

if you look at it that way does right I guess that we apply the code like that right like where we like I think we consider the principal use and that the accessory uses fall under that and they wouldn't necessarily be subject to I mean it's a really good question I mean like here's what I was here's what I was proposing tell me if this frustrates you But just to clarify and make sure that nobody else has the question, what if when you have that new ad three and you say for EV charging facilities, this is in 403b for EV charging facilities that include DCFC and level two charging stations in all zone districts, you know, something as simple as that. You know,

you'd have to change the applicability. I think you'd have to say except for accessory EV. That's fine if it's more complicated than that. But something like a simple couple of words that like points out that nobody's exempt from it. Uh yes, it could be done. And we don't and to just to clarify, we do have standards for single family and duplex. We just don't require um development review, right? We have duplex design standards and just not that not that it matters to what we're talking about but I just thought I'd mention

right but like we don't have standards. So it wouldn't be abnormal I guess to have a standard for single family and duplex but we don't have any landscape standards currently. Can I ask a question? I'm sorry that my quick question didn't end up being quick. So

no it's it's it's about your question. I'm just trying to understand maybe where the confusion is happening possibly um because landscaping is like a totally different section and what because we're only seeing pieces it's like kind I feel like it's maybe getting combined with screening when they're totally different sections with different applicability like it see it seems pretty clear to me that like well single family homes are not exempt from the the the 403 from screening. Yeah. So it seems like it's clear, but maybe that does make it landscaping to green sometimes. So is that what's getting confusing or is it I Yeah, I don't know. See? Yeah.

No, it could be it could be as cut and dry if if we if it was that sure that 403 applied to residential, you know, single family and two family zoned. Yeah. Properties. Yes. Right. That [clears throat] that's my only worry is that a lot of times, you know, um as you know, you know, you're not really worried about what the CDC says about landscaping. Yeah. Because you know that you're exempt immediately because you're a single family. Similarly, single family and duplex don't do a lot of screening in general. Not that yeah,

things don't apply, but it's just kind of not really referenced as obviously. And I just want to make this as obvious as possible just for how we're applying those. Again, you can picture I'm I'm bringing up worst case scenario. Obviously, most level twos would probably be in a garage or attached to the building because who would put them on a pedestal? That just is going to cost more money. But, well, unless you need to, I suppose, but um just simplifying to make sure that they know that that does apply. Maybe it is obvious enough. And I just wanted to make sure. Um I I could be convinced for sure. No, I I see what you're saying. Yeah.

I don't think that adding clarity to the code is ever a bad thing. Sure. [laughter] And to be clear, it would screen the uh equipment, the utility equipment that supports the charge like the right facility, not the not the facility itself, not the Yeah. Not the plug. Sorry, I don't have one of these. You know what I like the where you actually you with a computer and and the and charging equipment. It would just be the back end is what's proposed to be screened in here. Just want to make sure that was clear. Well, I mean like level two isn't that like a big box.

That's level three that get No, level two is just a 220 um like 50 amp wire or 100 amp depending on what you're putting in. But um yeah, it's just a wire to a outlet essentially. Level three though is is threephase. So it's transformer that that changes it to DC to charge your vehicle which should be screened, right? Especially down, you know, all of our residential areas, right? I mean, especially everywhere. But it's I've got a level three charger and I put it on the right next to where I parked my car, right?

And there it is. Or even better, I put it right next to the transformer at the edge of the street because then I don't have to run it as far and now it's just right out there on screen getting hit by snip, you know, stuff like that. I understand. Yeah. Yeah. I have a new topic or you know, new new question if we're okay moving on to the next thing. Staff come up with did you feel just real quick need it or where are we going with this? Yeah, I think we would need some direction if you intend to screen the actual we're calling it a facility, right? Is that let's use the words. Uh

yeah, the words are actually extremely important and um the words we chose are because the words available are limited. You can't call everything a station or it doesn't make s you know like it can't just all be EV charger. So I know the definitions are a little bit dense and they feel like similar but different and but that's intentional. It's by design and it's the direction of the model code. So like I on one hand apologize for that and on the other hand this is as good as we've been able to get it so far. Um so yeah, I think it's really important for us to be able to make improvements or modifications to make sure we're all talking about the same thing and calling it the same thing. Um, this is not a a like critique or reprimand. It's mostly just to keep it straight because that's been kind of a challenge of this whole project. [laughter]

Yes. Um, so back to if you're concerned about requiring screening landscaping for single family duplex. We're going to have to be explicit about that. We may have to make some changes prior to going to council. So, we'll need that direction. Um because I don't believe that well given the the questions about it we can do we should make it more clear. Well, I think

we'll find the right way of doing that, but we just need the specific. Think the three of you, Bob, Kelly, and Cala, have helped me compile the answer that I think I was looking for, which is that even if this is Kelly's part, even if it's an accessory use, it would still need to to determine if it needed to follow the screening 403 in general that does talks about screening no matter what the principal uses. And if that's true, then even if we put it as a use by right in literally every zone district, then no matter what the principal use is, these DCFC uh utility equipment would still have to be screened. If you agree with that, then I have no changes to make.

Um I think that's the way it's written now that any level two or DCFC chargers, accessory chargers, stations, those are stations. Let me make sure I'm saying the right thing. Well, you say utility equipment, which is the most correct, and I and I like it. But Right. Well, it's like whether it applies or not is based on the charging station, the EV charging station. No matter where it is. No matter where it is. No changes. Yeah. Awesome. Thanks for the lengthy conversation. Will you please change the subject?

I don't know if I'm ready. Um, I have a question. There is what seems like a small change in the definition of charging um facility. Well, charging center. Well, they were all charging centers before, right? And now they're getting split into two different things, a charging center and a charging facility. But the original one said that the EV charging stations may be located in required parking spaces. And the new one, the new ones both changed that to say um that that they provide charging for EVs located adjacent to dedicated spaces. So it went from they may be relocated to they have to have dedicated spaces. um which is concerning for me for one very specific reason. Um we talk about preserving industrial land and making sure that we have space for industrial uses to do their stuff and it like they do they have the land they have because that land was inexpensive at one point and they can operate on it because it was inexpensive at one point. But imagine a landscaper who just uses their lot for outdoor storage and has all their trucks on it, stores all their materials, stores all their stuff, and they want to switch to EVs. They can't do that without a lot of those outdoor storage lots are passed on an old code that didn't require parking lots or parking spaces. They just required an apron. And so I worry that this that change in that definition creates a hurdle where they then have to do an entire development plan to create the

parking spaces that they could then put charging on. Does that make sense or do I have that totally wrong?

Um I I can't really speak to some of that feels a little hypothetical to me. Um, I could name like 10 lots that are exactly in that position right now. I mean, I I think this is not talking about parking. Like it in the use definition, it says that it should be located adjacent to dedicated space for vehicles while they charge. I mean, I I I think generally this will happen at parking spaces because that's where cars are located. So I think that's like the natural thing. I mean I don't know I don't know exactly how those things would come together. Um I think where cars are required like want to park need to be paved. If we receive maybe I don't have the answer to your question right now. I don't really know how those would come together because

if we received a I mean I guess location for EV charging in an outdoor storage area. Okay. I think Okay, maybe tell me what you is that like the question. I think if the site not only that but a legal non-conforming outdoor storage. Uh no actually I would say if it's legally conforming with its approved plan or maybe is legally non-conforming. That's the principal use. Like it's a gravel parking area, but that was legally built when it or legal when it was built. That would be legally conforming with its approval. Or maybe it's legally non-conforming. It never got an approval. It's been happening way more than it's been happening way longer than before the standards that would currently preclude it.

Non-conforming just means it's not conforming to today's standards, which requires paving. I'll complete my thought. I think I think we get the point, but I think it would have to be either happened in advance of the code that would currently preclude it, making it legally non-conforming, or it would have to be conforming with its approval, and then we'd be applying the standards for the accessory use, kind of similar to our discussion before, to that use. If someone has an unpaved spot that is not legally conforming or legally nonconforming and wanted to put an accessory charging facility there, well, yeah, they might need to pave it.

It would be a spot that was never permitted. So, I I think that answers your question. It depends on the state on a on an outdoor storage lot. If it's was legal or legal non-conforming, we're just putting the pedal. We're putting the I got to use the right words. EV charging facility that would not require paving. I thought that Kelly just said the opposite. She just said the opposite. No, I think we're saying the same thing. Yeah, we're saying the same thing. If it is a legally it is a a legal use on a lot that was approved or maybe happened before

Mhm. and they propose charging this when it talks about located adjacent to dedicated spaces as long as it's not changing the use. I mean, if it's going to be a parking space Mhm. then we need to pave it. Sure. Right. It's now as part of a parking lot, but if you're Right.

Yeah. Let me I think like maybe the whole accessory use it includes a direct statement I think that relates to this. I'm going to read it. It says, "When EV charging facilities are proposed on a lot with no changes to existing principal uses, the existing use shall be exempt from additional site improvements or other requirements provided the EV charging facilities otherwise conform with applicable land use regulations of the CDC. I think that's speaks directly to this circumstance. I think that's talking about other aspects of the site." Right.

Right. Which is what I think you're bringing up. If you have an aspect of the site that's legally that conforms with its approval or it has a legal non-conforming registration and there's no changes proposed to it, then as long as the EV charging facilities otherwise conform, then you're good to go. I guess I'm concerned with this being interpreted that they don't otherwise conform because there are no adjacent dedicated spaces to beside which to put the EV charging facility.

Okay. I mean, I think I hear your feedback. It sounds like you're concerned about describing the location of accessory EV charging facilities as next to a place where a vehicle is. I I hear you. I think I'm just I think it's the dedicated spaces. Okay. And versus like previously it said they may be located in required parking spaces and that seemed more clear to me that they may be but if you have some other place that you store vehicles then they may be there too where this sounds it would be very easy to interpret this that they need to be next to a dedicated a dedicated space and that could be interpreted as a required parking space which I mean

I know they're all kind of doesn't say that but I hear what you're I hear you for That was my only question. Something to noodle on. Yeah, something to noodle on for sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Any other questions uh for Kelly as we consider this?

No, we have no public. I'll skip public comment. Um, if you guys have no other questions, um, we could move into our discussion and motion portion. Great to see this move forward. Uh, I'm really excited about losing that language about limiting the number of EV stations per per parking lot, per parking space. Um, it's like if someone wants to have all EV parking spots as an accessory use, that's their right, [laughter] even if it doesn't make sense to us to do so. Um, so yeah, I think you did a great job with this. Uh, I hope the future state regulations don't require us to reinvent the wheel again.

Yeah, sounds great. And is there more discussion? You can make a motion. In honor of Mr. I guess to I move to approve PL 2025282 release recommend approval. Can I can I do I have to wait for a second before I can keep talking? Why don't you just Well, you may not want to make a second, so never mind. I don't want to make a second. Does anybody want to make a second? I'll second it. Any discussion on the motion? I think I'd like to see that further clarification.

But maybe yours maybe you're satisfied with it, but I guess I I I don't know about that one. But I think I would like to see just like a couple of really minor changes before this becomes what we use to decide what happens to somebody's proposal. I think my hardest part with like I definitely don't want loopholes to exist, right? As much as I I definitely support this in general, I don't want loopholes to exist. I had my own loophole worry. You're talking about yours. I'm I was struggling to understand how those specific um storage lots were being affected, how they don't have parking, and how they would fall into a loophole. I just I I was confused. So, I'm having a hard time helping you even find a way to do language in order for us to like recommend language as a part of this or something like that as opposed to just

supporting the the what did you make motion? Yeah. Um maybe you could help me or or maybe you could just say for your thing what your piece is and of course city council is going to hear this. I mean, there's a couple different ways we could go, but yeah, I think it's just like that. What is the definition of a dedicated space or dedicated spaces? That feels like parking spaces like what's a it does to me as well. Way to ask that question. I was like, so staff, does an outdoor storage facility have a designated parking location? Depends on which one, right? Because this we now require parking spaces for parking, right? But for outdoor storage,

we don't designate where every piece of equipment has to go. No, no, it's probably alluding to what are those spaces where those vehicles are being stored, not parked. Are those designated spots that would meet the code that language in the code and that's what I kept hearing Klay ask is that the word the issue is the word designated. Yeah. Yes. Right. Dedicated. Yeah. And and if they are being stored like that, then aren't they and I could be wrong. Aren't they

Yeah, think we can such longterm storage that do they really justify needing to be plugged in? Like like if you're if you're taking it and and leaving it and using the power, it's not outdoor vehicle storage. It's a parking place. No, it's I mean those those lots get used for vehicles that move daily back and forth. Yeah, construction use or landscapers use those lots or I'm trying to think of some other uses. Oh, the tow truck, the towing company. I mean, his is a newer approval, but like those are the kind of uses and they're moving those vehicles all the time.

So, but they're allowed to be stored on those lots. Well, that helps cuz that that at least I can explain why I'm confused is I didn't think that would be considered outdoor storage. which I would have called that those were being parked. Yeah. For whatever reason, that's how they're being used. I don't know if that's Well, I that's why I'm confused with your your point and I understand it now. Thank you.

The other the other thing that I brought up in the um initial meeting about this was the other possibility that I thought may happen would be like um work lives where people have like um a use that they do all day. I think um the best example I could come up with then and this is the one I'm gonna use now is a a flower shop. They I don't know how else to have their whole thing set up. They make their flower arrangements, whatever. Then they leave for the day. They have an EV delivery vehicle. They don't own the work live. They lease it. So the only place that they could like put their

their flower delivery vehicle is inside where they can jump off of a panel. Can they do Could they do that at night? Could they park that business vehicle inside their work live and then move it back outside because that's the only place they have to charge? I don't I don't know. I can't tell from this code. If that were proposed, would that get approved? Because that's not a dedicated space for a vehicle. In fact, it's not a space for a vehicle. It's a work space. But at night, if they want to charge their vehicle, would that be approved? I don't know. I can't tell if that meets code or not. I I would personally have a hard time encouraging that.

Well, I'm not encouraging it. I'm saying it could be proposed. What would the answer be? And if you're not encouraging, then are then are we discouraging people who can't own their own building from buying EVs for their businesses? I don't know. Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate at this point, but right, it's these are the properties I know really well. So, I'm like trying to think through all the possibilities of like tenants that we have and nobody's asked us to put an EV charger in anywhere. But we always let them build it and put it in.

Well, if they built it if they built it and put it in, they would put it in inside because that's where the panel is. Like there's no there's no way to get unless you run some long electrical cord and then you lose it degrades after that far. So, I don't know. I'm just trying to think through possibilities. So if if I understand and I honestly I don't think I do. Uh and I'm doing it too.

It's [clears throat] uh you know there's a there's a lot and it's a construction lot. Let's say they're construction vehicles moving in and out all of the time and you want to put in an EV charging station. So you put the EV charging station in there. Now it becomes a dedicated parking spot for someone who wants to charge their vehicle. which means I couldn't use that space or that area uh any other time even though I'm waiting for a delivery of another truck or another truck to move out or whatever it is. Is that the the concern?

I mean that's yeah I mean that's not exactly the concern but could be a concern like I just don't know what dedicated space means. That terminology is confusing to me of it. Okay.

Could I offer maybe a I I think if you So it's trying to describe an area where a vehicle might be and the charger has to be located next to it in order to charge it. It has to be close, right? So this is just trying to describe without using the word parking space. That's why we changed it. Where that might be. I hear your concern. I think that if you remove the word dedicated, it describes that area and maybe alleviates confusion. Yeah, I think it would. Okay, great. Dedicated sounds Yeah, like something sounds like something striped and paved. Yeah.

Yeah. And so if you were going to stick a charger out in one of your dirt lots at Native Excavating for two of your trucks, you'd have to pave them and stripe them, and then you'd have to come forward with a development plan for that. That's that's her concern. That's a concern. I don't know that that's how it would apply, but I think we just found an easy solution. Like your easy solution. We could stay and still talk about it more. We could I mean solution that that is

um that's acceptable to me. I guess in talking about it, the the other qu my other question came up about what if that space is inside of something? What? Like that question may come up. Should we go ahead and answer? You brought that up at work session. We did. Yeah. And I I had forgotten about it until we started talking about it. I mean, I I think it would just go through the pro, you know, like it's inside, so screening wouldn't be a thing, right? Like I mean, I I don't uh I don't really know what the issue would be off the top of my head. It seems like when you have something indoors um you know

well I I think that it goes back to dedicated because but we're taking out dedicated you're taking out that and I think that takes away your concern about the flower shop. Yeah. I mean it's it seems like if we took out dedicated

that the indoor question kind of gets answered but I just was I would love to understand if that was the intention. Well, I think it depends on the use, you know, like you can't park a car in the middle of a warehouse and tell us like, you know, oh, we're going to charge it and like it's supposed to be a warehouse that's storing something, you know, like a contractor shop. Vehicles are like that's part of the youth, storing vehicles. That's a common probably something you're really familiar with, really common in the industrial zone district. Those might go together great. Like peanut butter and chocolate, you know what I mean? I can see that but not like I think it kind of depends on like the building and the space and I don't think I can necessarily answer that question cuz I can't like envision all the possible scenarios but I mean this amendment is really set up to make EV accessory charging facilities easy. It's meant to make them reduce the barriers and really just get as many of them as we can. So, I mean, that's the really high level read on this amendment. So, we're trying to make it happen. Um, I don't think there's anything precluding that, but if you have a warehouse and you're telling us you want to park a car in the middle of it to charge it, like I think we might have a little problem with that, but again, that's just meing something like we'd have to see it.

Sure. Would you like to offer a friendly to Rich to remove dedicated? What do I have? Rich change his motion to agree with that and remove the word dedicated. Why do that? Literally just what I said. Just Yes. Just um would you would you like to remove your motion? revoke your motion and I will accept a friendly amendment to eliminate designate designated or dedicated dedicated dedicated from the I guess it's the definition section the definition section of the charging facility or charging facility great accept it that's awesome great discussion anybody else have anything else on this motion

no great yeah I do have one okay good

going back to what you were talking about Brian earlier um about 402 C adding one. I think for a novice reader of this code, they'll read 402. C.1 and go, "Oh, I don't even need to look at the screening or landscaping and they'll just skip it." So it would be nice to see that you you know a couple more words in there that says you know either let's run out of the definitions here that let's see EV charging utility equipment that's just the transformers in the back end right and then EV charging stations are the standup thing with the plug I have that right

um okay so like an EV charging facility the accessory use. It includes it is made up of components uh such as an EV charging station that could be the level one level two DCFC and it also depending on the type of station that it includes has certain EV charging utility equipment. Right. So, but I think sorry, but you need to go to the definition to understand what needs to be screened in in the article 4 landscape. Right.

Right. And then you got to jump down to article 8 to figure out what you're screening and then you got to jump back up to landscaping and then try to figure out if you're still exempt or not. At first, you jump to landscaping and find out you are exempt, but then you got to jump to screening separately, which is separate, but you still have to do it. There's a lot of ways you need to understand how to operate our code in order to actually find out first what you're doing and second whether or not you have to screen it or not.

Yeah. And even if that language was just like see this section for screening and see this section for definitions just so you know right where you're supposed to go to find these things out because I mean a few of us here in the room read the code a lot for our jobs and we can navigate our ways around pretty quickly. But people that don't necessarily do it, homeowners that just want to put in a charger are going to be lost in the in the weeds here. And that's what I'm worried about.

I think so. The EV charging facility definition, it says at the beginning an establishment location with DCFC level two or level one EV charging stations. So, it already is including those words in this definition. And EV charging station, that's capitalized. So, it lets you know that it's like a defined term. Um, so I think that if you read this, this is kind of my logic, right? Part of the difficulty with this is that the state requires that level one and level two be exempt from certain things. and the combinate like how our code is set up the way we have to like kind of consolidate things to make it simple but then chop it up to make like DCFC has these standards but level two doesn't and level one is exempt from like in order to do that this was like what seemed like the most simple way. So let me talk you through this and you can tell me. Um so without even so just looking at the definition which I think is like a reasonable thing for anybody to do that is in is proposing this it it starts with DCFC level two or level one. So that's not like what exactly that is. Yes, that's down in the definitions but it's telling you from the beginning that that's like a thing you need to be aware of. So, if you're proposing an accessory EV charging facility, you have to know what kind of charging station you're trying to have. And then as you work down through the standards, when you get to screening standards, it talks about DCFC level two. And I like that's not I guess what I'm trying to say in a long-winded way is that's not the first place you've seen those, you know, like if you started with the definition, you've seen the station names before. So I get the jumping back and forth. We've tried to like

Yeah. Go ahead. So I'm not interrupting. I'm sorry. No, please. Um the that's the definition of the use, right? Then we also have a definition of the actual like that term like the physical equipment, right? And so article four is referencing the actual equipment. It says these uses for these accessory uses this was what needs to be screened and then it's talking to about the definitions in article 8.

Yes. Right. like that term state EV charging stations the three kinds is further elaborated upon in article 8 right but those three words or those three types charging utility equipment is in article 8 right so that's what needs to be screened in the screening reference when you have a level two or DCFC charging Mhm. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I have an idea. AJ,

when you have the use Yeah. When you have that use, you need to screen this part of it.

They have a sentence in their 306C. Um while they're, you know, where it's describing electrical uh vehicle charging facility, they have a sentence, EV charging facilities may include supporting site improvements like lighting, landscaping, and EV charging utility equipment. We should just add the word, comma, screening within there, and that will just help them point to at least thinking about it. They've already added a great sentence that's trying to remind us that we should be looking for stuff. All they pointed to us though is landscaping, which those are exempt from. But if we also added screening, we're pointing them to yet another good direction. We may not have said 403 just like on on landscaping we didn't say 402 but we could just easily add that word and at least we're being a little bit more descriptive

right then they at least are thinking about looking at screening right at least it's been brought up and say okay landscaping is exempt but it does say screening in 306 does that sound good I mean that would I think I'm all right with that yeah makes me happy I don't know if that sounds yeah I think that at least adds to it you know it it gives you one more thing that you know you need to go look at. Yeah. Rich, would you accept a friendly amendment that adds screening behind landscaping and that staff concur with that additional language is not troublesome? Well, I mean I think it's a little confusing because landscaping can be screening. Also, um I wanted to

No, lighting is its own section. Landscaping is its own section. That is

okay. Another thing I wanted to like kind of throw in the mix is the applicability for the buffering, screening, and fencing section works a little differently than the applicability for most of our other sections. It shall apply to land uses and development in all zone districts when specifically required by the CDC or as a condition of a land use or development approval to mitigate land use. Fencing standards apply in all zone districts. So part of why this applicability language is a little different is because this section applies a little differently. Um it it it doesn't say it applies to all zone districts. It applies to all uses in all zone districts. That's how most of the applicability statements in this section work. So that's just like a little more context to why you're seeing this section be treated a little differently because it is.

I appreciate that. But I wasn't talking about the applicability section. I was in 306 C which was really just the definition. So we're saying EV charging facilities may include supporting site improvements like and then you listed off some things that it may include. Screening is one of those things.

And May, I would like to go further than May. It sounds like almost always screening would be almost always although landscaping does is still the right word. It may still okay, but you know, screening is a big one that almost will definitely be required, whereas lighting and landscaping might not be.

Screening sounds okay to me, too. Sorry, I keep trying to find it in the night. 306 C 30.7

the definition of the use and saying what it includes. Um yeah uh personally you know I don't think that's necessary but if that's uh a needed clarification happy to add it for sure. which is you can do whatever you want with my friendly amendment, but that's my request. You can offer a friendly amendment in appropriate language, including the where where it's going to go and what after the word landscaping in that sentence in section 306, which 306 C. It's on our page. No, I'm looking at it. Got an establishment or location is the first sentence. Mhm.

Second sentence, EV charging facilities may include supporting site improvements like lighting, comma, landscaping, comma, add screening, comma, and EV charging equipment. Thank you. I accept that. Great. Thank you. Is there a second on that? Second. Thanks, AJ. Any other discussion on this motion? Awesome. I'll call for a vote. Yes. Yes. I I I. Great. Then that passes unanimously. Um Bob, do you have a director's report tonight? I do not. Thank you very much. I was excited for one though. Yeah, one one of these days I'll surprise you.

Uh we don't have any old business either. Does anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I. Great. We're adjourned to 823. Thank you. Thank you guys for bearing with