Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll go ahead and get started. This is our uh planning commission public hearing for December 11th. Can I start with roll call, please?

AJ Summers, Rich Levy, Brian Adams, Luttor, David Box. I don't see anybody else online. I want to make sure I wasn't missing a planning commissioner. Um, before we begin any agenda items, is there anybody who's here tonight to give us public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Nope. Seeing none, is there any online? Tim, you've got your hand raised on online. Do you have a

I do. Uh this is your uh minute taker, remember me? I just wanted to uh to pop in and apologize that uh you guys have some short shrift lately because uh

I had a really compressed schedule there for a while. So, I was getting staff what they needed for their council items, but not getting everything to you guys the way I should have been. So, I just wanted to let you know that, uh, we're going to get back on schedule here. Um, I'm sorry, things are going to be a little bit out of order. Um, but in the next couple meetings, we'll get back to our our regular schedule where you're going to get, you know, your public hearings like the month after along with the the work sessions if they're, you know, if you keep on the on the schedule that you've been keeping as far as those go. Anyway, I just wanted to pop in and let you know I'm I'm still here and I'm sorry I things got away from me a little bit there.

That's right. Thank you, Tim. I appreciate those comments. That's kind of you. Um, we'll just look forward to when you can send them to us. No worries. Thanks.

Is there anybody else online who has uh public comment for us? Not on tonight's agenda. Okay, seeing none. Um, we'll get into our agenda items tonight. Um, as there's uh just five of us tonight um and we have members that need to leave early and recuse themselves for various things. We're going to try and move around the order real quick. Um and we're going to move agenda item number three first as long as that's okay with everybody. Um so in that case we'll do so this is agenda item number three which is PL 2025288 12th in Yampa subdivision

and I need to recuse myself because my firm is on the design team. Great. Thank you AJ. Um, so with that, if we could get a presentation from the applicant, Colin Kelly. Uh, appreciate you guys uh, considering our project here. We're doing the replat of uh the source saddle condominium building, the building known as the double Z building, and then a parcel that we're currently under contract uh with the city of Steamboat to purchase uh taking those three down into one for a project that you'll be reviewing here shortly. So, I think we're a couple months out. So, okay. You have any questions?

Fire away.

Great. Thank you. Yeah, Ryan, if you have something as well. I've got a little more I'll go into a little more detail on what Kellen's Colin started. Uh Ryan Spouse with Lamar Consultants were a civil engineer and surveying firm here in town and we're helping Colin with the project. Um as Colin mentioned, this is um a step in a bigger project. Um sometimes you see them all at once, sometimes you see them peace meal, and this is one of those cases where you see it peace meal. Um and the reason is it's a little more complicated. Uh Colin is the applicant. Um but the property owner is Colin and then the city of Steamboat Springs. Um so let me share my screen here real quick. Um, so this is a subdivision preliminary plat. It's actually uh technically I think more a consolidation. Um, but the code calls it a subdivision. Um, all right. So this is um just to orient you. Here's 12 street. Here's Yampa Street. This is the Yampa River and then Little Tootses Park. Um the properties that Miss that Colin owns are um the old double Z site and then the old sore saddle building and then the city actually owns this parcel right here which extends partially out into 12 street. So um the city sometimes owns property outright. Um, sometimes there there's

also right ofway, which people think the city own, but really the city's more of a steward of rightway. Um, the city can't sell right ofway. It can vacate it. Um, whereas a piece of property that they own outright, they could sell. Um, and that's the case with this parcel here. Um, they own it outright. So, just like they own this building outright and could sell it to uh In-N-Out Burger if they wanted to build something, um they also have the opportunity to sell this parcel. Um no one's really sure why they own this and it's not right of way. Um the best that we could come up with is it has something to do with Soda Creek and where 12 Street actually got built as opposed to the rightway that was originally platted as part of Steamboat Springs. Um, so Colin approached the city about purchasing some of this property. Um, and the city looked at it in depth. Staff did a review and the parcel of land that's behind the sidewalk is about 24 ft wide and 140 ft long. And in looking at it, the city could not really find a use for that parcel in their facilities master plan. Um and then also as a matter of cleanup, you know, it really would be better to dedicate the blue area, which is the parking lot and the sidewalk as true right ofway. Um so right now the city is responsible for maintaining that sidewalk. Typically, if it's a private property owner, they have to maintain the sidewalk that's in the rightway. Um there's also some liability that comes with it. Um so Colin made a proposal to the city to purchase the land for the appraised value and city council um agreed with that. Um that purchase is contingent on this preliminary plat being approved and then a final plat being approved and recorded. And so essentially what the application would do is take the green

parcel which Colin owns, the red parcel which the city owns and consolidate those into a single lot and then the blue area which is the parking and sidewalk would be dedicated as right of way by the city of Steamboat Springs to the city of Steamboat Springs. Um, this picture shows the the we called it sort of a no man's land in our narrative that the city owns. Um, and the reason it's particularly important to Colin, but also to um fulfilling the downtown master plan and some of the goals of the CDC is related to the building code. So, the windows and doors that are in the existing source saddle building right there, um, if a new building were built, those would not be allowed per building code because someone could come in and build a building here because it's private property. Um, acquiring this property would then allow uh a new building to have doors and windows along 12 Street, similar to all the other frontages you would see downtown. Um, so the result of the plat would be one single lot that's about 17,000 square ft um in area and then a new rightway dedication for the sidewalk and parking spaces out in 12 Street. Um there is one variance associated with this application. The maximum lot width for the zone district is 100 ft. Um the proposal would result in a lot that's 125 ft along Yampa Street and 140 ft along 12th Street. Um we think the variance request meets the criteria for approval. Um, specifically Wateride Village has

frontage that's um about 150 ft along Yampa Street and 140 ft along 11th Street. Um 1125 has frontage that's 125 ft along Lincoln Avenue and 140 ft along 12th Street. Um 140 ft is the typical length along all the numbered streets. So technically any lot along a numbered street um that is platted per the original city of Steamboat Springs criteria or platted per the original plat of Steamboat Springs exceeds the maximum lot width for the zone district if that makes sense. Um so we don't think there's any adjacent or impact to adjacent properties. It's similar to other lots in the vicinity. Um it will meets additional um um goals and criteria in the subdivision um standards in the CDC that Toby called out very well. Um we also think it furthers the community plan and and most importantly will um lead to an active streetscape as envisioned by both the CDC and the downtown master plan. Um, so with that, we'll turn over to any questions you guys might have or Toby for her presentation.

Great. Thank you very much. And yeah, Toby, do you have a staff presentation for us?

Yeah. Um, so as Ryan mentioned, um, this will be a one lot subdivision on the northeast corner of 12th and Nappa Street with a variance to lot width. Um, property is made up of three lots. It's about 17,500 square ft. Um it is developed with existing buildings that have previously been home to orange peel, powder hounds, uh foxes, and double Z. Um it is uh within the FEMA designated 100red-year and 500year flood plane for the Yampa River. Um there will be a reconfiguration of these lots as was mentioned. Um the property is under contract um as Ryan described. Uh so we don't need to go into that too much more. Um, we do support the variances and find that they're consistent with the purpose of the zone district and the applicable plans. Uh, the subdivision does conform with the requirements for the CDC and CY2 standards. Um, again, as the lot has been previously developed, um, we don't anticipate that there will be any problems in developing this lot in the future. Um, the development will have to address the flood hazards in its development. Um the subdivision should be similar to other lots in the area. Nearby properties are similar in shape. Um and then the surrounding character is developed in a pretty urban fashion. Um so again, this this development will have to meet those standards and address its proximity to the river and the park, but development shouldn't impact others around it. Uh, regarding the variance, um, the lot width setback is really in place to maintain smaller buildings and smaller lots and urban character that's consistent with how the downtown has developed over time. However, as was mentioned, the nearby lots do have a similar character and form um, and some similar dimensions. So, um, this standard, the lot width standard does

address some lots and see why many of the lots along that, um, north side of the street are consistent with the proposed lot and we don't think that the variance to these widths should impact adjacent properties or uses. Um, consolidation of the lot with the variances does allow the property to develop so that it's consistent with the new community plan and the downtown plan. Um, both plans encourage adding density to the developed areas to support transit and investment where there's existing infrastructure. Properties in the downtown land use district, which anticipates a mix of uses, walkable sidewalks, and the new development will enhance that existing development. Um, consolidation of these lots will create an infill parcel that can add some vibrancy to the end of downtown and still be consistent with the lot sizes and widths nearby. Um and we also find that this um an acceptable alternative is met with this variance criteria. Um again the overall property includes four separate sections where if they were developed individually that would lead to some inefficient development and creation of um or creation of remnant parcels. So by consolidating these lots um with their existing widths the subdivision better meets um several subdivision standards in our code. Um, so we do recommend approval um of this preliminary plat.

Great. Thank you very much, Debbie. Do we have any questions from commissioners to staff for the applicant? I'll start with a dimensional one just to make sure I'm understanding right. So I think when I tried to add up the three lots you really end up with 150 ft but because 25 ft is being dedicated then that's why it's a 125 ft frontage on Yampa. Is that correct? Perhaps I thought that the the full width was about 140 ft. So um but there will be some remaining dedication. Okay. Um, but the amount that's being asked that 125 foot that is the variance is based on uh I think there's 125 ft on Yepa and 140 on 12th.

Sorry, I mean the Yep. the the three as they're added across Yo. Did I say 12? Yeah. My brain is broken. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. So, what was your question again? So, along 12th when Nope, I did it again. Along Yampa when we're adding up the various properties and we're getting to 125 ft. That's because we've removed the amount that's being dedicated to the city to 12 streets right away. Yeah, Ryan might be able to answer better, but I'm getting nods from Ryan, but I thought okay, the existent was about nods are in the record. No, that's great. Thank you. Um, other questions. I guess I'll go with staff. The purpose for the lot width limit would be

to sort of ma minimize the scale of lots and buildings um so that they're more consistent with downtown properties. Um however, our code says in a couple different sections that the character of Yampa Street is really supposed to be distinct and different from the character of Oldtown. So I think that the dimensional standards are more consistent with lot development in the CO district which is on Lincoln. So um while I think we're trying to limit the scale of lots to limit the scale of development over time um several lots have been combined especially on Yampa Street. So I do think at this point the cy dimensional standards are a little bit out of sync with our our plans and our existing development and our goals. Um but typically it would be to sort of make those um make those lot sizes smaller. We can still try and meet the same intent of development of that lot with our dimension or with our design standards which call for breaking up the buildings into smaller sections. So when this property does develop, um we'll have the design standards to sort of ensure that the building won't be a large mass and will be broken up. So that can sort of be a substitution. Well, that's kind of where I was going because I think one of the reasons for lot width is to ensure walkability that you wouldn't want one large store. We'd want multiple fronts that have pedestrian interest. And when it comes to a development plan, would we have that ability to make sure it's not a large blob? No offense.

Yes. Know if it's going to be a blob or not. Yeah. Our design standards um would allow us to make sure that there the building is broken up broken up architecturally, ensure that there is access onto both Yampa and 12th Street and some articulation in the building. So, we do have that in our design standards and um we would enforce that for any development on this property whether it's the one that's coming forward or a future one. So, okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Is there any public comment on this agenda item?

No. Not seen any. Uh is there any public comment for this agenda item online? If so, you can raise your hand. Click click the react raise your hand button. Seeing none there either, unless you guys have any final followup you'd like to offer. No. Or Toby? No. I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

Uh John's not here. So I will move to approve planning or excuse me, I will move to recommend approval of PL 202288 eliminating plat and major variance for a one lot subdivision. Second. Great. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? I thought we should have discussion before you made your motion. We don't. There is time now if you'd like. Yeah. Um, no. I I I think that's great use of that piece of property. I'm glad to see it's being renovated and there's going to be access offer. So, I think that's pretty cool.

Okay, great. Any other discussion? Nothing to add? Actually, what just popped in my mind is we we recently been seeing some HBC comments about another property. Was this property not eligible at all for H HPC review?

It was not eligible. So, they did talk about um this building recently at HPC and the Orange Field building. I think um if I can recall what Caitlyn said like a portion of that building was a historic struct was a historic item I believe. I forget which it was but the overall construction of the building as a whole as it came together was not deemed to be an eligible resource. Thank you. Popped into my mind. Great. Um, I I'll only add that I think the the variance, especially as it applies to 12 and and just the standard lot depth, I mean, is is a must, honestly. I think not approving that would create more problems.

I agree.

Um, and so I think that's a really easy one as far as the width here. Um, what's interesting and just worth saying as long as we're here having the agenda item is that the size of double Z uh and the size of um what's the building called again? Yeah. Well, Orange Peel, but there the building name. Thank you. Yeah. Uh is is a great example of how smaller lots as they did exist um created successful and interesting architecture and interesting different shops with different ownership over time. there there's a great reason to have narrower lots and that stressed me out a lot at first. Stressed is the dramatic way to say it. It caused um a deeper dive into understanding what the variance was and what it was producing and what benefits or harms it might create was just those as a great example of success over time um with those narrower lots. That being said, I do think that especially with the understanding of this um city lot and how that's being reconciled um with how that creates a more correct corner between the two public roads, but then ends up with an added space here that needs to be combined into something. I think I even read that it that the city required that it be uh combined into the neighboring lot, right? That was part of the

it was agreement stuff agreement that all of that together creates a situation where now if if you had to combine that into the orange peel building as I'll call it that this time but not the double Z building then you're we're actually creating a very narrow slice of something that that I know does look like or seem like it's lived its life and and at this point creating or allowing the variance is actually the best case scenario on this lot or on this block I should say. um that doesn't necessarily mean that I think that the bigger lots and the efficiencies are an obvious good answer with this variance, but in this case, I think it's it's easy to um to arrive at that. So, I know that was long-winded, but um wanted to get all that on the record.

I think you guys already went. Anything else you wanted to add? Great. I'll call for a vote. Yeah. I I I

And it passes unanimously. Best of luck at council. We'll let AJ come in again. I appreciate you letting us uh jostle around the agenda items uh this evening. So now we'll jump back to agenda item one. Excuse me. Agenda item one is PL 2025 0337 peak strength gym. Is the applicant here for presentation? Hi, thank you. Uh, good evening. My name is Blake Weise and thank you for the opportunity to present tonight. I'm the applicant for Peak Strength Gym at 2400 Lincoln Avenue. I'm proposing to open a 24-hour membership-based strength training gym in the eastern portion of the existing building in the space previously occupied by an auto parts retail store. The gym will focus on high-quality strength equipment and an accessible community oriented environment without amplified activities, child care, or other high impact uses. Access will be controlled by a secure app system and typical usage will be low. I estimate around 20 people or fewer at peak times once membership ramps up. The property is part of the parks forb subdivision and is fully developed and already includes shared parking, landscaping, snow storage, and refuse management that serve both current ten tenants of the building and the surrounding subdivision. The only physical site improvement planned is asphalt repair and restriping, which we intend to complete in the spring prior to the timeline required in the staff report. We worked closely with Toby and with neighboring property owners to ensure the site functions well for both the existing retail use and the new gym use. As part of that, we clarified a mislabeled shared driveway note on the previous site plan. Uh those front parking spaces are fully on our property and available for our use and the updated plan reflects that. Overall, the site plan

shows adequate on-site parking that meets the CDC requirement without relying on any parking in the county shop road rightway. And we've incorporated bicycle parking in full compliance with the code. Snow removal and storage are performed subdivisionwide and have been adequate for decades and no new impacts are introduced by the proposed gym use. This project meets all applicable conditional use criteria, fits the purpose of the comm commercial services zone district, supports multimodal access for pedestrians and bikes along with the adjacent transit stop, and aligns with the city's community plan by offering a muchneeded health and wellness resource on the west side of town, limiting the need for cross town trips. I've reviewed the conditions for approval and I'm fully supportive of both requirements. Completing the asphalt and restriping by July 1st of next year and installing the bike rack prior to opening or by February 1st. Finally, I want to express the my appreciation to city staff for the collaborative approach throughout the process. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for your presentation. And Toby, do you have a staff report for this agenda item?

Sure. Um, so this property is located at the corner of County Shop Road and Lincoln Avenue. Um, it was developed in the early 80s as a commercial building with two interior spaces, uh, parking, landscaping, and other site development features. The property was recently used as the Napa Auto Parts store and the second space in the building is currently occupied um, by a retail use, which is plan B consignments. Um the gym is uh a health and recreation center use which is a conditional use in the CS zone district. Um as uh Blake mentioned, the only site development that's proposed is the resurfacing of the asphalt and restriping of the parking spaces for the gym. Um so this health and recreation center use requires more parking than the previous retail use. Um so the retail use uh required 19 parking spaces, the gym requires 29. the existing asphalt area on the property can accommodate the increase in parking um with the restriping and the resurfacing. Uh so the site does include shared facilities for both uses in the building. That's refuse management and some of the shared parking. Um and again I guess the parking the parking on the site does accommodate the um retail use also on the property. Um so both uses have enough parking. Um the other shared services are for the subdivision and that's snow removal and snow storage and then landscaping was developed with the site as is. So snow storage, landscaping and refuge facilities are adequate for the existing and the new uses but they are nonconforming. Um there is no increase and the nonconformities with this application. Um earlier this week you received an updated site plan that shows all the proposed parking and the existing site features. Um, one other non-conforming existing site feature is the access distance um of the entrance to the property to Highway 40. So, um, you had an email about that earlier, but

that is also non-conforming and doesn't need to change with this current application. Um, we do find that the project is consistent with the new community plan. Um we found it was consistent with maintaining community initiatives 2 and five by providing indoor recreation opportunities um with bike parking and multimodal connectivity. Um the project also contributes to sustain the place initiative 5 and fund the future initiative 4 by establishing a new type of use in the existing developed location uh with no new impacts to parking um and access to transportation um and no impacts to the environment. Um we do think the use will improve the quality of life um by bringing daily resources to the west side of town. Um the project will be in the mixeduse district which encourages a diverse mix of commercial uses and daily essentials to accompany residential development. Um the CS district does allow for communitywide commercial uses. Um a health and recreation center in this location with no impacts is consistent with the purpose of the district. Um we also believe that the pro proposed use should not have any negative impacts. Again the site is developed with existing landscaping parking um a snow storage plan and refuge facilities. Um though the site will require more parking. Um the existing asphalt on the site can accommodate all those spaces and this new use should not have any impacts that are different from the previous use. Um, we do recommend approval of this project with two conditions as listed.

Great. Thank you, Toby. Any questions from commissioners, especially those who might have a conflict? Oh, upcoming time conflict to go first. Yeah, thank you. Um, Toby, thank you for the presentation. Question for you. Given the fact that the striping for the parking that is required won't occur until midsummer um and I believe they're planning on opening prior to that. Is are there any requirements for signage or any other item given the fact that parking in the winter is like bumper cars sometimes?

Yeah, I think there is there is some um some faint parking stripes on the property. So, um, that can serve the existing consignment use so that they're sort of like made whole. Um, so I I don't have any concerns with the the asphalt and the striping as they are now for the existing use. And so, the new use, he's taking that into account in his in his operation. So, they will need to also, you know, remain on their own property, but that's sort of the the new use. Um, that's their responsibility to do that. So, I I don't have any concerns until that striping happens. Typically, striping and asphalt can happen earlier in the season, too. Um, we often just give July one in case we have a great snow year and, you know, a lot of mud season. So,

given the weather now, it could happen today. Yeah, it could happen today. Yeah. Any other questions? Yeah, I've got one. Um the five to foot six foot buffer between the asphalt parking and the building itself. Is that concrete pavement or is it grass or how do you get it into the building? Um I think there is some concrete pavement but they could describe I think that there's a little bit of concrete pavement there

asphalt now from the building out and that uh buffer allows for where we'll put parking blocks and things when we do the re reassphalt and striping on the east side of the building. Yeah, the east side and the south side. It's asphalt now. Um, is it going to remain asphalt and this is just striping you see on this plan or is that a Yeah, so on the south side there's actually maybe two feet of concrete. There's a concrete pad off the building. Yeah, apron off the building and then there's blocks and then stripes. Um, and so we will I think the plan is to keep asphalt on the east side, blocks and stripes. And it actually is stripes now, but it's it's very faint. Okay. Yeah, I just wasn't sure of the material. That's great. Thank you.

Yeah. Great. Other questions? I have one for Toby. A question that may not have an answer. Since this is a community services zone district and a gym seems like a community service use, why is this conditional? Think because um Thank you. That's a good question. It's a great question. Um, we could evaluate our uses when we start to evaluate our our new community plan and our um our new zone districts in the future, but I think a gym um often has a lot of impacts, a lot of parking impacts. So, I think that's why it is considered to be a conditional use. Um, we've all, you know, seen Oldtown Hot Springs and its parking impacts. They have parking standards. So, that's Yeah. Yeah. So, address that.

I I'm not quite sure. It does seem like a very compatible use. Okay. Yeah. I just had to ask. Yeah, great. Other questions? I mean, I I'll build on that because my only question was um you know, with conditional uses, typically you expect that there's maybe more of an adverse impact somehow, whether it's parking or noise or just natural time of day conflicts or uh odor or anything like that. I can't I couldn't imagine any of the surrounding uses having impacts or that this use was putting itself in an adverse thing that it would be frustrated. Is that your conclusion as well?

Yeah, it does seem very consistent with other commercial uses um that have tenants or customers that come to it. So, yes, we don't anticipate any adverse impacts. Um so perhaps it's a use that we can re-evaluate in the future. Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? Is there any uh public comment on this agenda item? I is there any online as well? You can raise your hand. Great. See none there either. Uh unless you had anything else to add or Toby. No. I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and motion.

Uh I I think this is a a good place to have a health and fitness facility. I do think it serves the community on the west side, which is a good thing. Um I was going to ask the question on the conditional use, but that was good. Um, so I I'll motion to approve PL 2025 0337 with I think two conditions. I'll second a motion. We have a second. Great. Any other discussion on the motion? Yeah.

Yeah. I'm just going to rant a little bit. U C dot has a a limit of how close driveways are supposed to be to Highway 40 of 300 feet. The access point is I'd guess around 20 feet and it's dangerous. I use this intersection almost every single day and people come off of Highway 40 and diagonally go right into you the closest point into the parking lot and in the past the city has made their own effort to fix this. They did it at the at Napa downhill drive highway 40 of their own initiative where and I understand it's not the applicant's responsibility because there's no redevelopment going on but it's something the city should be looking at. There's already increased traffic because we put a traffic light in and now people are avoiding the traffic light and coming out at that intersection instead of going through a traffic light.

Interesting. And I've seen many people come straight at me not realizing that there's going to be traffic there because they're coming off the highway at 40 miles an hour and no, I don't want to make a right-hand turn and then a left. I'll just go diagonal. So just to put this on the city's radar to say maybe they should take be proactive in fixing this before because the last time there was a huge accident there and then they fix the problem. Maybe this time they can do it before someone gets hurt. Interesting. Is that a reason to not support it in your mind? No, not at all. Because it's not it's not part of our that's why part of the conditional approval. I see. I just had to put it out there because there's no other appropriate place to scream and shout, right? still potentially a safety issue whether but it's part of this

it's not the applicant's responsibility. It's been that way for years obviously and that's just great. Thanks for adding that info for me. Yeah. Any other discussion on the motion? Uh I think this fits the commercial services use like was mentioned here. Uh it'd be great to have a gym on that side of town. I think the applicant's argument that it might reduce trips while maybe a car or two. I think that's great and I'm fully supportive of this. I agree. Residential or or residents supporting daily services on that side of town are needed and this is this is great on that side of town. Yeah, I agree. And being a 247 badge access adds to that as well.

Perfect. Any other discussion? I'll call for a vote. I I I And that passes unanimously. Thank you for your time. Chair, I need to excuse myself. Commissioners, thank you. Happy holidays. Appreciate it. You as well. Byebye. We'll jump into uh what is listed as agenda item two now. Um this is PL 2025 0326 which is lot 1 Overlook Drive. Is the applicant here for a presentation?

Hi, I'm uh Stephanie Lord Johnson with Bergland Architects. Um, I hadn't really planned a giant presentation. Uh, really it's been uh we've been working with Toby and Jeremy for a little bit and our clients trying to figure out how to use this lot. Well, uh, our clients uh, purchased it and you know, it's rare that you get a lot that has the opportunity for four density units. So, we were exploring what might be possible. And then the further and further we got into it and the um I'm going to say the steepness of the site, the access to the site, it really came down that the clients really were like, you know, a single family home is really all we've ever wanted on this lot. It makes sense on this lot for this community. It fits the neighborhood. So, um the extra density units for this lot because of I mean, we looked at dividing the lot. We've looked at stacking the lot. how do you get there? It really just didn't make sense. So, we then explored the idea of switching the zoning back to the um RN1 and just coming in for a single family residence on the lot. And I could go through it or I don't know if Jeremy was going to read it, but I think we've tried to address all the comments of fire department really only allows one unit off of um Glacier Ridge Road, which is where the developable portion of the lot really is. So, um, that is really kind of the reasoning for the request of the reasonzoning.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. We'll let you if we have questions. Jeremy, do you have a staff presentation?

Do. So, as you know, um, this lot is just shy of a 1acre parcel currently zoned MF. It is surrounded by a cluster of different zone districts. To the east and to the south, we have RN. To the immediate north, we have MF3. across the street across Overlook Drive we have MF2. So there is a sort of smattering of of context that we'll consider here as we get into it. Um looking at the criteria for approval to be consistent with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district. Obviously this is an undeveloped site. Uh so the assumption being that anything that gets developed there will meet uh those standards but the lot itself and its physical proportions and dimensions uh does meet the RN uh zone district standard. So it's eligible from that capacity. The height massing appearance and intensity of development in this zone district um like I just talked about we have to the east uh the RN. So it would be obviously compatible because it would be the same zone district. Looking at the MF3 to the north and the MF2 across the street to the west. Uh one consideration that I u mentioned in the staff report was that those are topographically very separated um from this parcel. Obviously the MF2 is across Overlook Drive across the street and it's further recessed as you go down over the hill. Uh the immediately adjacent parcel to the north, the MF3 parcel is downhill from basically the developable portion of the site that you just heard the applicant talk about is is really the top of the site. You access it through a shared access easement from the east. Um, a consideration as well for this uh criteria is if we look at the current MF zone districts, if you want to build a

single family home, you can do that by conditional use and it has sort of separate substandards that match our RN district standards in terms of like height and scale. Uh just a point that our CDC I think suggests and gives strong support to the compatibility that if you're going to build a single family home in the MF, it should basically look like an RN home and now they're proposing that we move to RN zoning. Uh the advantages to this that staff looked at obviously it is a a down zoning. um would protect the character of the more adjacent properties kind of on the same elevation to the to the east and the south. And looking at our future land use map uh which is suggesting one and in and two family homes, we find that also as the applicant has discovered uh you know these single family residences tend to work much better in our uh steep topography areas and sites as steep as this one. It's not saying that steep topography can't handle multif family developments. Uh but this site in particular is not quite big enough to do you know significant uh grade change. The we could not find any environmental impacts. And lastly as we uh look at further in the direction of our community plan you know we this application was submitted under the previous community plan. So we judge it against that future land use map is how we've been handling this transition. I did want to give you a brief report out on the new community plan. So the former future land use map uh suggested that this would be the future land use district neighborhood residential low which corresponds directly to RN zoning. It's the only suggested zoning for that future land use district. So there's

obvious direct support from our old plan. If we look at our new community plan, we have districts. This is the the mountain residential district. It allows for a little bit more variance in terms of what zone districts we may apply to it. Uh but in this case, if we read through some of the narrative and some of the direction that it's giving us, it does talk about, you know, increasing setbacks, uh letting buildings build into uh the hillside. As mentioned, we think single family homes can probably do this more successfully. Our end zone district does increase the setbacks as suggested by the new community plan. So for all of those reasons and meeting all the criteria of approval, um staff recommends approval of PL 2025032 or rather uh recommends recommendation for approval. Um

that's all. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any questions from commissioners? Yeah, I've got one question. Um I'm I'm assuming the access is through Glacier Ridge because it's really steep on the other side to the west you mean on to Overlook. Yeah. Coming from overlook it is very steep. Very like I won't say one to one off the cuff. I the applicant may know but very steep. And I'm quite I'm curious. I know. I guess fire must have looked at this, but making that turn and getting to that house, it's got to be a difficult thing to do.

Yeah, I think they've instructed the applicants that and that's limiting. There was an old plan that said you can build four units on this lot. So, this was long, long time ago. They called it a PUD. It was even before PUDs. We're talking ' 80s or so. and it allowed or supported that, but it was already even limiting to make sure that this wasn't a true sort of just gang busters multif family site. They were thinking in terms of small multif family. So that has been carried through that would sort of be the max um dwelling unit capacity of this site. Then fire came in and said, well, units that are accessed from that lane because it's already shared by duplexes do have uh limits. tell that the applicant expressed any conversations they've had.

We have talked but into the microphone. Sorry.

Sorry. We have talked to the fire department, right? Um and what we worked on with them, the turning radius that is down there, somebody's already widened it once. So that turning radius, we actually have a a three-point turn up on our driveway to accommodate if any truck that can get up to the house can actually turn around at the house. We are widening the driveway portion up to this lot by um I believe four feet to make it 16 feet which would meet the requirements that are in the guidelines so that they actually get 16 ft instead of just a 11 12T drive. So that would help the two units that are also below us in any kind of traffic. And then we're also sprinkling the building. So that I mean that actually was a huge constraint on what we can really do on the lot because they don't want any more. That's all we could do at the end of this length. So, we did put some significant time into trying to make that work and better that.

Thanks. Any other questions? Yeah, I'm curious as to why they want to take the extra step to reszone instead of just using conditional use to get approval on this project. Dimensional standards are almost the same minus the F Yeah, I will let the applicant speak to that. I

mean, I think really the after we went through so many discussions with the client, they had looked at do we do account for a future use, do we not account for a future use, um the ability to truly actually put something there in the future is so limited that it really um truly doesn't make much difference to the use of the lot. And forgive me if I speak out of turn, but a a single family residence, they liked the architecture of it, and they also liked that that was maybe a more direct path. They're just trying to do a single family home versus going through the full development proposal or a conditional use application. So, there wasn't um an epic advantage either which way. And if we just want to do a single family residence, why not just keep it that way? because well we really I think it was found it would be exceedingly difficult to ever get another unit and trust me we talked about every option with these guys of how we could do that.

Okay. Any other questions? I don't have any other uh is there any public comment on this agenda item uh online especially? If so, you can raise your hand. Okay, seeing none. Um yeah, unless you had anything else to add or Jeremy, uh staff doesn't have anything else. I'll close our public portion, come to commissioners for discussion in motion.

Um I like I said, the only concern I have is about Glacier Ridge. That's one very narrow road and it's a nightmare in the winter. It really is. Um but I I'll motion to approve PL 2025 0326. And I don't think there are any conditions. It's not. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Great. Any discussion on the motion?

Yeah, I had one. Uh hopefully in the future we'll get some more delineation as to which area plan and which uh plans apply because I spent some time looking at the canvas community canvas which isn't truly applicable. It's nice to know, but if the applicant isn't required to meet it, then I don't want to spend my time do it. It was good time because I have to we have to learn that new product anyway because if that was in place I would I would be questioning down zoning because one of our first keys in the plan the most important one is housing more housing not less period regardless of what the future land use map says. Um, and I'd be really and I was really struggling with it because obviously as as was pointed out, they could put a single family one there anyway. And so I was really wrestling with that. But philosophically, I had trouble with it thinking of the new plan. But under the old plan, I don't it's less strict and the future land use map would take more precedent obviously than a new uh community canvas that is not applicable at this time. So that I really wrestled with that. I'm not keen on downzoning at all.

Surprised that with MF already in place, how we how the new map, the district map even still says it should be a lower density and not taking in usually we look at what's already there and like oh well let's keep going in that direction but that map doesn't go that way either. So So I thought about that a lot too. Can I jump in with your conversation? I thought that's pretty I don't know what else I could say. Absolutely. That was my first thought as well was oh downzoning oh oh why why kind of a thing and I think for me it was remembering we didn't really get a lot of chance to look at topography or orgraphy

difficulties within the site the access the glacier ridge all of that stuff this time however I have the benefit of seeing it when it came before us once before right several of us do or all of us maybe um yeah so um remembering back to that and the accessibility difficulties on this property is what really made this one acceptable where like if it was on a flat lot, you know, uh with a lot of capability, I would have had a lot more struggle than with no actually that many units on this lot was worrisome to begin with. Uh kind of a thing. Um and how that was going to happen successfully. So that's how I was able to justify having the exact same concern you did.

And and actually I remembered that last one. I think it was four units that were going to be there. And that access really concerned me because I thought we had said it should access off of Overlook. One of them was going to potentially Yeah. Uh but I mean the one house there doesn't bother me. So I I'm not concerned about down zoning. Is it is an improvement from a safety perspective is I guess the better way to say but I was you know but but good discussion nonetheless because it is a concern kind of as a generality. I'm with you on that. Any other discussion on it?

Yeah, I mean I shared the same concerns with down zoning. I mean it is directly adjacent to a multifamily. Then I remembered we we went through this before and it was going to be tough to develop as four units. Um, and I I just couldn't stop being curious as to why they would bother with this step when you could just do a conditional use application and, you know, skip a second set of hearings potentially. But, um, yeah, I guess that's kind of all I really wanted to add. Um, the new versus the old area plan really kind of made a difference. I mean, this was prior to the new one, and I don't think downzoning is something moving forward with the new plan is something we really are going to want to consider very often. But since we're still working under the old plan and the it's got topographic constraints, I think it's probably fine. Y great. Any other discussion? Then I'll call for a vote. I I

And that passes unanimously as well. Thank you for your time. Great. Thanks. And that uh CDC, we'll jump into agenda item number four then. This is PL20250306 routine CDC text amendment.

Yeah. Um so Toby Stafer, senior planner. So, um, this amendment is part of our ongoing effort to keep the CDC updated and incorporate changes to state and federal law or Supreme Court rulings to implement imp interpretations and add clarity to the CDC. Um, generally for things that we discover during the course of our day-to-day work. So, the proposed changes are meant to be minor items um that improve application of the CDC. Um the highlights include um an update to various sections of the code to comply with new state law about manufactured home amendment to the height of the building height in duplexes um in MF districts. Adding parking standards to uses that did not have a standard. Revising the process for hotel and hostel uses and adding use standards. Adding natural medicine healing centers in response to changes in the state law. Amending design standards for mechanical equipment. Updating property posting procedures and substantial conformance applicability. Amending the definitions of family wetland parking lot and mechanical equipment. Oh, and adding the definitions of mechanical equipment, natural medicine healing center, and natural medicine business and various other updates that are not meant to be substantive. Um, we do find that the amendment is compatible with direction in the new community plan. Uh the changes to the hotel and hostel uses will improve consistency of the CDC with down with the downtown plan. Um we also discuss um some changes with how the h the hotel works um in the downtown plan and there was some comment about that ahead of time. Um there is one there are two goals in the downtown plan that are um applicable in this case. We do have goal LUZ2 which encourages a diversity of land uses that support locals and

tourists. Um that calls for complimentary ground floor uses east of fifth and west of 10th in addition to retail and restaurant which we would expect expect in the core downtown. And one of those uses is lodging. Um, and there's also goal LUZ6, which is to increase lodging opportunities, which specifically calls out um, making some changes to the CDC in commercial Oldtown, commercial Yampa, and commercial Oak to allow hotels as a byright use. So, this amendment will implement um, strategy LUZ 6.1 specifically. Um, we also find that the amendment um will correct several errors in the CDC and improve clarity and it will also benefit public health and safety by implementing some changes to state law which are um ineffectively doing that. So, we recommend approval, but we can have any discussion that you'd like.

Great. Thanks, Toby. Any questions? No question. Well, staff, uh, now that we have a new community canvas area plan, how does that affect, uh, sub area plans that were created previously?

When we did the new plan, we looked at a lot of our existing plans to make sure that they were compatible. Um, I think our general concept is that the new community plan is sort of an overarching plan, an umbrella plan that all the other sub area plans should be feed into. Um, I did find that the downtown plan, which applies to a lot of the uses or at least the hotel and the hostel uses, is very consistent with the community plan. And so far in my other applications, um, at least development applications, I'm finding that the plans are work together well. So, um, our text amendments, um, moving forward, this one and all future ones will need to comply with the new community plan. Um while it's while we don't look at applying the text amendments specifically, some of our amendments can make our code diverge. And so we'll be looking for that when we are um doing text amendments, making sure that the small changes or large changes that we're making in the CDC are consistent with that community plan. So

well, I guess we're in open session basically. I I mentioned I missed the meeting. I'm sorry that when you guys talked about it that I had real concerns with hotel on on Oak Street. Um, and going back to our community plan, as I alluded to in the last thing, our sense of community is our number one thing in the community canvas. You know, lack of affordable housing for people live here, families are leaving, increase in remote workers, and social stratification. To me, a hotel downtown is not for the everyday person. It's going to increase social stratification and Oak Oak Street does not seem like the place for it for me. I understand the dimensional standards may really put a limit on what what that would be, but I just have a hard time with it. I mean, parking and everything that goes along with hotel visually doesn't fit with me as well as socially. And that recommendation being in here, I'm having a hard time with it.

I think you know if you read the work session minutes, uh, same. Yeah, we talked about that, but it's still there. So, but it is still there. But I still have a problem with it. Absolutely. And I'm sorry I missed the discussion.

I mean, when we talk about hotel and hostile uses, I I'd like to at least put some of it to bed with Toby's kind of overall um agenda item here, right? Set of things. For example, if we if we look at uh the changes she makes to I have to open it up because I won't remember it otherwise. um the CC and CS zone districts how those in both hostile and hotel have changed how it's changed in G1 for hotel um and even uh the CO uh changing to the limited use uh which basically is I think just the ground floor thing but I want to read that more correctly as we talk about it even going to a use by right on uh Yampa for hotel I think is in keeping with my interpretation of the downtown plan uh looking for more um of a simplistic uh avenue for hotels um in the downtown area, but I I still have a problem with hotel as a trying to change to a use by right on that CK2. Um, I could see it staying as a conditional use, which still finds an opportunity if that opportunity isn't having the negative impact that I worry that it could have, which I think you just voiced better than I did at either of our work sessions. Um but even as a limited use similar to the limited use that that uh CO has along Lincoln. Um trying to uh create certainty for the developers which is maybe a little bit what the development plan or downtown plan is looking for but um creating an opportunity for us to remove those concerns that you just voiced as well. I don't think going to a use by right is the way to solve it at this point. either. But I do see two ways to solve it. Just adding to what you said because I do

I can't imagine limited use being the one that's usually dimensional standards and not giving us the ability to look at other other impacts. Conditional use, right? Just gives us a lot more leeway. Yes, it it removes certainty. I'm sorry about that. But in this case, you know, our new our new plan does not say our number one priority is increasing tourism or increasing hotels beds. Number one is housing for people who live here. And they call it out a number of times. This is our priority in this plant new plan. End of paragraph. Yes, there's lots of other goals and initiatives as well. And this a small change. I mean, Oak Street is probably going to have a minimum a minimal uh opportunities for a hotel that at least what a hotel looks like to most of us. Um but still, I I really I don't see it. You know, York Street's supposed to be a transition down to, you know, they're down down in a downward slide, downward scale would be a better word, you know, and it's not Oldtown. It's not Lincoln Avenue. you have my support recommending that we change that to C as part of our recommendation tonight. I I don't have a problem with that. I

I would guess that would be the the best. I wouldn't prohibit it. Conditional use. That would be my thought. I I think that'd be I'd be h I don't know if I'd be happy with that. As a planner, I I can find that acceptable and hope that I'm still here to bank the gavl when that hotel comes on a conditional use. What do what do you both think who haven't weighed in on that?

I I mean I don't mind it being a conditional use. I know we had a long conversation about it. Um um and I I'm trying to recall the entirety of the conversation, but um I understand Rich's point and I I think I agree with it. Yeah, I thought that's where we landed it after the work session to be totally honest that Oak Street was conditional. As we talked about Yampa Street, there's not enough room on the riverside to even build a hotel even if you wanted to. And then we talked about, you know, the very limited redevelopment sites on Oak as it is, but if they were to redevelop it, we'd want to take a look at it. And that was my recollection but I a while ago now I guess so maybe that's not where we landed.

How did our work session end? I mean we didn't do any voting or ups and downs. No the minutes talked about it. Um, uh, Toby gave us some some great other side of the coin arguments and actually tonight again brought up the the things that potentially support going to the R, um, within the downtown plan, which again I think are open to interpretation because the downtown plan is extensive and it does mention Oak Street, but I don't know if it's mention it as use by right as as some might interpret it, but um, to be great gave some Great information and

yeah it does give us more by right. So the the downtown plan says that

um hotels should be a use by right in the COCY and CK zone districts. So um while there was some discussion about conditional use during the work session you might remember that Rebecca did mention um is there a reason to make it a conditional use? Are there any impacts from a hotel that might need to be considered? Um and there may not be. However, I'll I'll just note that um with all of our plans, we always have conflicting goals. So, while we do have obviously housing is a strong goal, we have also heard from the mountain area plan and from the downtown plan that hotels are an important goal and that we need more lodging in this community. It is a green zone. So, any development um and it is a commercial zone. So downtown is a green zone and it's commercial zone. Um seemingly appropriate everywhere else for a hotel use. Hotels can benefit locals. We all have people that come to stay in town and if you're like me, you don't you get tired of everybody at your house every weekend. So that's just, you know, personal comment. But hotels can provide more lodging areas that might free up some other um short-term rentals or other housing units that might come back on the market if we had more lodging available. So, while there was a discussion to make this a conditional use, um our staff recommendation is still to follow our downtown plan and guidance from all of our plans to um make hotels a buy use, but it's actually going to be a limited use. We did keep um not in the CK2, so but in the CO, we did keep retail um and restaurant uses as important in the CO district to keep our vibrancy there. Um but uh you know we will we will bring your information forward to see council and evaluate all of that there. So

are you saying in the CY CK zone district that that's not going to be required to have commercial on the first floor? We did not add that into the use standard. It is still a commercial Yampa district, isn't it? Yeah, we did not add

which means generating sales tax. the the downtown plan did indicate that lodging uses were acceptable outside of the core of downtown. Um and there was that goal that said that they should be by right so that they are commercial uses in commercial zone districts was our guidance from the downtown plan. Um so we we did not include that use standard for CY or CK. So it it's by right because the downtown plan essentially says that's that's what it should be. That is our recommendation.

Great. Unless there's anything more to add. I mean,

I know I'm really trying to think about the conditional use uh process and in reality what criteria we would be able to use to say no. I mean I guess it would be the impacts the and obvious and you know realistically the there aren't many uses that cause truly conflicting impacts in our world even to be you know brutally honest. I hate I mean the loss the one of one of my thoughts was I'd rather see an apartment building there than a hotel but I don't know how to codify that you know how to codify that sitting here

when the frustrating thing and I think Toby alluded to it just now but explained it in more detail uh at our work session is the green zone concept which is that apartments in a green zone aren't that different from a hotel these days in in today's trends they And I'm speaking negatively instead of optimistically, but that's would be the potential the potential uh flip side to that or loophole within that. Yes, I understand. Yeah. Because if it would be apartments, they would be short-term in a heartbeat.

Yeah. Uh any other questions to Toby regarding this or discussion on anything including continuing this conversation? Nope. Okay. Uh I really didn't either. Uh I it's interesting uh personally having had the opportunity I mean I know I'm not alone in this but just speaking for myself having had the opportunity to participate in the downtown plan process while it was created. Uh I don't know how this slipped past me then. And I'm actually more upset about the fact that the downtown plan was allowed to say that than I am willing to say, "Oh, the downtown plan says uh kind of a thing." So, um it's kind of an interesting position to be in and kind of a well, it shouldn't have said that on Oak Street. I I feel this way and and and that hasn't really changed uh as far as the potential impacts or potential lack of serving the residential portion of our community on this specific street of the three. uh downtown. I'm not against hotels everywhere downtown, right? It's it's pretty easy to make sure to to say that this isn't just anti- uh visitor experience mentality. It's just Oak Street is is a very unique uh intermediary between those different groups in town and I think needs to be able to serve both and offering as use by right I'm not sure is saying that properly. But I mean, but a lot of Oak Street is, you know, nonprofits and offices and that kind of stuff,

you know, that there are nonprofits on every block down on Oak Street. They're all over the place. As it ought to be. Is that your point? It is what it is. It is what it is. What it is. It is what it is. Okay. Then to move this along and to make sure the conversation continues, I offer a friendly amendment that uh hotel use on the CK CK zone district CK1 CK district be changed to conditional use. There have to be more discussion at the next level. I think it probably means CK2. It's not we're not putting um hotels in CK1 which is the residential side. CK2 on the in the is where just CK

I thought it was CK one and two that's what she's saying. Yeah. So I think one is one is on the north one is softer one is on CK2 sorry so um CK2 is is the south side where the businesses are. So um you're correct that there would be um CK isn't broken up in the use chart. So, but if you wanted to delay, I think they're they would not be allowed in CK1, but you can specify that. So anyway, Toby, I I that's

have a I have a guess I already know the answer to this question, but as this is a recommendation to council and how other applications have looked as votes versus um changes uh before getting to council, are you as staff as representation of all staff of the mindset that this is as written is how you're going to present it to council no matter what, but how the vote looks is what may change. Or would you be willing to change it based on the planning commission's feedback before you present it to council and present our feedback?

Yeah, we've we've gone both ways uh when we've uh brought text amendments and then when we have a differing opinion from planning commission. So, I can't speak exactly now. I think our recommendation might be the same um as it is moving forward to keep the the amendment as we have it. But with your discussion and information, we will sort of regroup at staff before we go to council, see if we want to make our a change to our recommendation. And we would certainly provide both recommendations. We have done that in the past when there's a disagreement. We provide both recommendations and the minutes. Um, and we also try to highlight that in our staff report to city council so that then they know that there's some options to choose from. So, so we need to make a motion then. Right.

Right. We will amendment that way if they want if they don't like our agreement they council would actually have to change our motion I believe. Right. What motion gets forwarded to them? Your recommendation motion. We will send recommendation. We will send both recommendations to them. And at least that way it's they see that in writing that and I just want to note too um you'll probably get there but we do have one person online still that might want to provide some public comment. They did have some comment on this amendment in the past. So just when you get there

I would love to. Thank you for pointing that out. Um I guess the thing that doesn't feel like it sits right with me. I mean, I I know, trust me, I know the amount of of careful consideration and expertness that comes from you, from staff, from everyone. Uh that being said, it doesn't seem like it fits right that the appointed commission whose task is to look at long-term planning and codes and be responsible for that would not be the voice that is being presented to council to adopt something that seems strange. Like I said, I think that we have amended our our recommendations in the past after there's been a disagreement or even after we've changed some discussion at work session. Um I would make that request again when we when we take this back with your information and see what recommendation moves forward. So we might we might end up with one recommendation but again when we have had differing opinions we offer both recommendations. Oh, absolutely. Because a more rounded uh conversation to anybody, especially to council, is is key. I'm very much on board with that. I just feel like it would uh feel like it fits more our task and responsibility from planning commission to see a a 40 vote. I don't know if that's how it's going, by the way, but theoretically a 40 vote of something that commission feels should be sent to council in this legislative uh application with deferring opinions from staff rather than the other way around in this case. Um, so I think that's maybe what you were getting at, Rich, and I apologize if it wasn't, but but that I would prefer seeing us uh look to make the change in the code and

make a a recommendation vote to council based on a change that we all agree on or not. Uh, rather than just voting zero to four in opposition of what actually gets sent to council if that were the way it ended up, right? Like I'm being extreme in both cases. I just don't like the idea of voting or people against a vote. I would rather change the code and vote in favor of it and then provide dissenting opinion uh in that way uh just seems more appropriate. That was certainly my my if I'm alone in that I mean please help. That's my intent. It's I don't want to stop this here and go back to the drawing board. No, absolutely not. Yeah.

No. So, are we saying we need a motion to approve with a an amendment to the by right use for hotels and CK theoretically? Yep. That would be what could be motioned. I would certainly be in favor of that, but that that that's kind of what you're thinking. Okay. How I think the process would make sense tonight anyway. I agree. Yeah, I agree as well. And I I actually have one additional question before we go that far and we don't want to forget our commenter also.

Absolutely. Um during our work session I felt like we also landed on that a hostel is the same thing as a hotel at a different price point. Yet in the use table host are still limited whereas we're going by right for hotel. I feel like we should have hostile in the same category as hotel. And correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's kind of where we were at the table the other couple few weeks back. I remember that comment, but I feel like I was resolved in the information we got from staff that they should still be different. So, I actually remember it differently, which is interesting. Maybe we could go to

Well, I No, I we definitely agreed to keep them as separate items, but I'm surprised that they end up with a different type of criteria for approval. Oh, interesting.

You know, I I thought it was conditional. Hotel was conditional. We were just talking about, you know, kind of the price point, what happens in host versus hotels. Um, I don't know that a limited use to be totally honest, I don't think a hostel is going to show up at any point, but I was surprised that it didn't come in either just by right like hotel did or, you know, both of them coming in as conditional. And to take that even further, when you look at the difference between the two in their um permitted use matrix, um they're different in more cate more zones than they're similar.

So not only just oak, but almost everywhere they're different from each other. There's only a few where they're actually similar. Um I don't know, Toby, do you want to jump on that as well? Help us out.

Yeah. Um Rich asked a similar question, too. Um and in reading the definitions, they are similar and there is, you know, they they seem similar. They're both they're both of course lodging uses. Um I think typically a hostel is um usually at a smaller scale. Um can sometimes be you know more equivalent to a an inn, a BNB or even even a residential um unit or an STR. So I think that's traditionally why we've had them as separate items rather than calling everything that is a hostel a hotel or calling everything that is a hotel a hostel. Um there does seem to be some distinction typically in how those uses um get implemented in physical form and a little bit how it how they are used. Um they they're definitely both lodging uses that may or may not hit a different price point. But um I think we tried to keep them um in the zone districts that they are. We thought that the the hostile use in the for the in the co and the cy um we did want to include the pedestrian active building frontage. There was some discussion there that we thought that retail and restaurant should be still principal uses in the co. Um whereas compared to a hotel that seemed like a typically more commercial use than a hostel. again um they can take all forms but um we were trying to sort of update our code. We we identified some discrepancies in the code um between hostel and hotel. So we are trying to bring them up to where they are more equivalent um while still trying to consider the more typical characteristics that a hotel is often larger um than a hostel though though again they can take any form. Thank you.

Did you just say that staff feels that a hotel has has a more commercial component than a hostel? Did I just hear you say that? We did add that use standard after response from this planning commission. So I think initially we didn't feel like it was. So

it's um see it's in the first exhibit what we added to that. is under 13. CO zone district, eating and drinking establishments or retail sales and services uses shall be included with the lodging use and located within the pedestrian active building frontage. That was just for the old town zone though. So, uh, in context, we were talking about like a flagship hotel downtown would ideally have restaurants and bars or shopping in that entry level. So, it's not just an edifice that, you know, visitors come and go and no other, you know, no locals ever step foot inside. Great. I agree.

So, we feel good there. leaving hostile different from hotel as Toby described or do you have more concern than that? I'm all ears. I want to make sure. I I don't know if I have any further concerns. Like I said, I I don't anticipate anyone coming forward with a hostile use in Oldtown really at all. Um just a feeling. Okay. Um

other questions? Yeah. Is that okay? Uh yeah I I'm I'm looking at the notes from the last meeting the work session on the hotel discussion and it's you know Adams you had hotel listed as use by right on Oak Street and um and Toby indicated that they were going to look at it but it should be a discussion we have in a public hearing in a larger group that is the recommendation that's in there. We don't have on the first page of the of the second work session of the second work session. I don't recall ever saying I'm in favor of them as

No, no, you didn't say you were in favor. No, you just said you had you had hotel listed as use by right. That that was it's a statement. Okay.

And then Toby responded, uh, I probably do need to change those use by rights. I can put them limited use, but it wouldn't apply anywhere except CO. and we didn't apply that standard from our discussion to hotels in CK and that it's probably bad. We kept it in there. So, uh because uh we thought we would have that discussion in a public hearing or a larger group. We could still change that, but I still think we need to want to discuss it in a larger group. I guess it's the larger group, although I think we have the same number of uh Uh that being said, let me take this opportunity. Do we have public comment online for this agenda item?

Yeah, great. Please uh if we can make it so that you can unmute yourself and you can give us uh your name and address and and give us your uh public comment. Hi, my name is Brandt Carlson. Uh can you guys hear me? All right, we can. Yeah. Y great. Uh my name is Brandt Carlson. Uh, my US address is 98 Arapjo Lane. Um, I currently reside in Europe at the moment though. So, but I'm a longtime Steamboat local. So, um, yeah. Um, I am interested in building a hostel in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Uh, and there you go. So, because you come from Europe where the hostels are. Sorry, this is your public comment.

Yes. Uh, just a little bit of background about me. I'm going to a university over here. um learning about hospitality. I'm writing uh two thesises on um capsule hotels and hostile uses um in mountain communities and resorts. Um one of those thesises uh specifically uh is focused on on Colorado. Um yeah, I I I'm new to the building process, but uh I going over your the use cases um that you guys are starting to make some changes to. It seems like it might be a little bit difficult to to build this establishment, this kind of establishment in Steamboat. Well, have to jump through a couple hurdles. Um, but uh in in general um I think your discussion you guys just had makes a lot of sense as a as a local. Um regarding Oak Street, I I think uh a hostel, a small hostel could be a great transitional uh business for that area. Uh like like Toby was saying, hostels are not very large typically and um it's more of a smaller uh business format. Um yet again, economics for downtown Steam Springs can be quite difficult on a low-end hospitality business like that. Um yeah, no, I think you guys are on the right foot and um you know, nothing's ever set in stone. I'm I'm many years out from what may be a reality one day. So um I'm just listening in and and thank you guys for acknowledging that that I was listening. So thanks.

Yeah, thank you for your comments. None others. I'll close public comment and come back to more questions and discussion. Sure. Yeah, I stand completely corrected. Um so we currently have hostiles listed as limited in commercial YMA. We have it conditional in CK1 and limited in CK CK2. Curious if there's appetite for discussing those uses or those limitations to uses right now or if this is something that needs a broader work session on

I I mean I am interested to hear your thoughts. I guess I'll put it that way. Yeah. Uh I I think he he he very much um got to my thoughts when we were discussing hostiles back in the work session and still at that time I didn't really think hostiles were something that anyone was really considering but he's absolutely correct that the size and scale of a hostel would fit nicely on Oak Street typically. Of course, you could come in with a 200 room hostel, which would be something massive, but you know, a lot of hostels, especially in Europe where he's studying, are, you know, six, eight rooms, which, you know, there's existing buildings on Oak Street that could potentially fit that bill.

It provides a different um capability of of travel and visitation. I think that is different from a hotel like I do see those different in concept although it's hard to define and I wasn't able to readily define the difference during our work sessions but it does seem correct what you're saying. Yeah. So then do you kind of like amend your question maybe or like do you feel like maybe it it actually is appropriate as it's proposed because of that or well I guess what I'm still hung up on is that it's by right for a hotel under what we're looking at here whereas a hostel is not and has to jump through additional hoops where it seems like a hostel might actually be the preferred by right

type of by right um lodging use on Oak Street versus a hotel. Interesting. I think without a size delimiter limiter, it's really hard to say. There's a lot of places where a smaller product fits where a a larger hotel does not. But without differentiating them by size, I think they're otherwise they're equal. Yeah. What are

you say one is going to generate more sales tax or more pedestrian use than the other. um you know and even price point I think that's a little of a misnomer. I think for a single traveler it's different because then one person can pay but I bet you on a room per room basis they end up being about the same price as a hotel. The difference is you and I and somebody else we don't know can share a room for $50 each. It's still going to be a $200 or $300 room. So that that's where I think that price point thing is different. it does attract a different type of person, but doesn't mean that they're going to spend any less money, be more disruptive, have more or less cars, or any of those things. Um, so, and I was had the same thing on either. I don't really see a a legal difference between the two, except for possibly a shared room with unknown occupants, unrelated occupants.

Can I add a clarifying comment that I probably should have added earlier? Yes, we'd love to.

So, a hostel on Oak Street is a limited use. So, it has the the two use st it currently has the two use standards that are in the code now um that are about outdoor gathering areas and um supervision by resident managers. If a hostel meets those two use standards on Oak Street, then it is essentially by right and that is the same as a hotel. So the on Oak Street um there so we are proposing to add a hotel as a limited use I believe um but again the the standard for a hotel only applies in CO. So both of those uses um while there is some use standards for a hostel would could essentially be by right on Oak Street. So they are being treated the same with the exception of those two use standards. So in CO both a hostel and a hotel are required to have um a active retail or restaurant use in the pedestrian active building frontage. So they're worded differently but that's what we're expecting of a hostel and a hotel in CO. And then also for a hostel in CY we are expecting um retail and restaurant. And that is again just because CY is typically where our um while a smaller hostel is more likely to locate on CY because of the scale of those properties over there, we still want that to be a retail and residential district. So while there is some difference in how those are applied in the use chart and in the standards, we believe that the outcomes would be fairly similar. So we are trying to standardize those uses to some extent. We did not propose to change the two use standards that are in existence for a hostel. Perhaps that's another step that we could take and maybe it's outdated, but it does seem to have some value to

differentiate between those uses because they are used a little bit differently in the lodging world. Thank you, Toby. I'll jump into that conversation portion just real quick that I mean that we talked about that at our work session. You can check the notes on that too if you want. No, actually I can't find that.

But no, I I like the idea that a limited use provides that certainty. And I I said it at the very beginning of our conversation tonight as well, is if we can resolve the concerns in a way that's concrete within the code, so it still feels like use by right as long as they know what's expected, they being the the potential developer or designer. Um then great. And is there something within the limited use criteria that we could set that would still make it behave as use by right but still qualify what we want to qualify about Oak Street? Is it just not to exist period or similar to uh the CO zone district? Do we just not want it on the ground floor? And if we had the other uses that would then need to exist on the ground floor, would we still be getting the intent we're talking about tonight along CK2? um that I wondered that at our other meeting. I wondered again tonight. Is there a way that we could resolve it that way instead of conditional use um as a solution?

Now, that's just for the hostiles or for the hotels. I think for both. I That's what I'm trying to bring up because I think it's a very interesting concept. Um how I like the way that Toby laid out the the limited use criteria that they have currently. It just doesn't address the specific issue of hotel on Oak Street. I think it actually addresses the limited use feeling like use by right. That was your point which is why Toby brought it up. I think it resolves that personally. It just doesn't for hotel for me yet. Um but if you feel different about how that L resolves hostile on Oak Street, I I mean I definitely want to hear, but I was convinced anyway.

No, I I think the L I think that's a good limited limitation for for hostiles on Oak Street. Um, what about for hotels?

I don't know. Maybe it's just the size and scale of what you think of a hotel versus you think of a hostel. To me, it's the fact that something else can exist. you know, it can't get inundated uh with a trend of hotels uh that loses the ability for Oak Street to provide services that residents, walkable residents downtown and the larger area of of locals uh to be able to utilize the downtown core for as well. And to me, it's the it's the removal of ground floor does that. They had some uh interesting push back regarding dimensional uh things that might not allow a hotel to be very big if it were not allowed to be on the ground floor. To which I say I think that solves my problem. I'm okay with that. Um but um I just wonder if that's not the the solution is just doing the same thing that we're talking about on CO in CK2 as well.

Is is it the same as CO? Is it restaurant uses and retail or is it restaurant, retail and office? You think about walking down Oak Street. It's mostly offices on both sides. It's not a ton of retail. What one? Two restaurants maybe, right? Yeah. Um whereas, you know, you go half a block the other direction, there's all restaurant retails. Yeah. There's a coffee shop, too. Um,

yeah, I guess that's the question. Should we add office to that? Also, I mean, that's not exactly what we're usually looking for in pedestrian active zones, but that's kind of what most of Oak Street currently is. And I think has been successful being on Oak Street personally. Yeah. There's also the bakery over on 11th. I think that's four. Um, trying to remember other ones. Smell that bread. And those are just the ones that directly front it. But anyway,

how would we frame a motion here would be to approve whatever PL 25306 with a change for from by right use for hotels on NCK to limited use

and And we frame the limited use as restaurant retail just like CO or restaurant retail office depending on how you guys feel. I'm not going to get hung up on that. But I agree that the ground floor one will limit the size of the of a potential hotel there and will keep the pedestrian oriented frontages usable for people that live in this town. The difficult thing I mean I'm guessing I'm putting words in your mouth in my brain Toby. I'm sorry. However, the difficult thing is is how this recommendation looks to council as we're at a public hearing and past the work session stuff where I tried to bring it up and wordsmith these ideas at work session with no success is how do we do that tonight against the recommendation of of staff and actually come up with a well-worded well-rounded answer is how a limited use works I

it's not a good place to be in that's the end of my sentence again I was just like just we had the same arguments about the hotels at our work session and it just went back and forth that we never resolved it and so we're not resolving it here I don't think unless we make a motion that says something different right and I think we have the wording because we can use the wording from the CO district and just change it and say in the CK2 zone district it would not say or it would just add office essentially to that same sentence.

And like I said, it doesn't necessarily need to add office. If you guys are all uh, you know, agreeable to that, that's that's good. But I would go with restaurant and retail, too. Um, I think office is a great addition. Okay. Finally. I I think that would be a successful code. Personally, I don't know. So, but we're we would make then make a motion that was not the same motion that has been provided by staff, right? And then we would vote on it and then that would go to staff and then they would present it to council,

right? And and and the and what's both. Okay. But AJ equal make the motion. Make the motion. The other thing I'll also you go there note which I could have noted is we can also um remove hostile hotel or both uses both of those changes we can remove that from this text amendment as well if you want to have a further work session on it. So that is another option for you to consider. I would bet we we're going to stay in the same

I think that's really clever. But yeah, if it doesn't change anything, then what's the point? It's kind of an interesting Yeah, but but I I do like that concept of just here's something that we all agree upon. Let's just send that to council first kind of thing. But if we if we'd be stuck, then let's just deal with it tonight. Deal with it now. I mean, and see what council has to say. Yeah. Right. Ultimately, what decide now? We can always argue for change in the future, too, right? I had a separate question though. Why why does hostile have an outdoor gathering condition where the hotel does not?

Again, I think that that's an existing um use standard. Uh again, I think the scale and the and the type of use is a little different. Perhaps it's an outdated use standard. Our again, our goal with this routine text amendment was hopefully to make minor changes. Um um so we didn't anticipate removing any of the current use standards for hostile. So um perhaps that was an oversight

changing things from conditional use to or use by right are not just a tech those are policy changes. Those are so I hear you. I'm not asking to change that. But again, it seems like a a we're forcing some reputation on one use that is unrealistic that what because it's a hostel, they're more rowdy that they need to have their outdoor spaces need to be controlled whereas some fancy hotel does not have to have their gathering spaces restricted. It's it is interesting. It's a little disturbing. I I presume that is because there was a requirement to provide an outdoor area and not providing it because hostiles are allowed in these residential zone districts and that

putting it in a in CY that doesn't have an adjacent residential zone district doesn't need that kind of thing. But this because it's being allowed in more residential areas therefore needed to provide that that adverse impact mitigation. Uh and that that's where that had come from. So I I thought it was it was that nuance. Um, but it's a guess. I'm okay to let that go for now. Done. Also, it's not allowed in those zone districts, which I thought I was also confused. I don't know the whole thing.

I will indic I will let you know that um we did receive comment um about hostels and did notice the discrepancy between hostels and hotels. So, one effort or one goal of this text amendment was to bring the two uses um into more consistency in the code. So,

right, if you guys are ready, go for it. We clarify a couple things. We're talking about switching hotel to limited use in CK2. Are we talking about changing it to limited use in CY as well or are we not talking about that? I don't think I did not have Leave Cy alone. I'm okay with that. So, it's just CK2.

Okay. Oh, my thing crashed. Hang on. It's a good discussion. All right. So, I'm going to make a uh a motion to recommend approval of PL2025036 with the following modifications in the use matrix 300-1 permitted uses changing hotel in CK2 two to a limited use and also the limited use requirement in CK2 to add that in the CK2 zone district eating and drinking establishments, retail sales and services or office uses shall be included with the lodging use and located within the pedestrian active building frontage.

It's exactly how I hoped you'd say it. All right. Second. So, we have a motion and a second. Uh, any other discussion on the motion? Did we cover it, Toby? As far as you're concerned, you feel comfortable with that? And that's just for hotels. Yeah, that was just hotels that the the limited uses for CK2 for hosts are adequate. Yes. So we have the use standard. So we would essentially just to sort of reiterate the use standard. It's number 13 on page 4.5

says in the CO zone district eating and drinking retail sales shall be included with lodging within the pedestrian active building. So that would likely say CO and CK. No, that would be A. And then he just read in B would be a new one that says in CK2 basically all the exact same sentence except adding and office by second a second use standard. Yeah. For CK2 just to simplify uh or delineate the two from each other. It was your motion but did I interpret that? That is what I intend. Yes.

So we have a motion and a second on that. Thank you Toby. Um, any other discussion on the motion? We could talk about the hotels forever.

We really could. We really could. No, I will say I mean everything else I know we already talked about most of it at work sessions, but as long as we're making a recommendation, I think that there's a, you know, all of it except for this contentious issue I thought were great changes, easily supportable. I like the changes to um uh two family uh buildings in the MF3 and then we just have it at the MF3 for now and maybe we think about density and height as it relates to some of the other zone districts in the future. All of the other changes um uh very much support. It's as simple as that and I think there's there's good reason for them all. Agreed.

Agreed. Okay. Any other discussion then? No. Uh then we'll call for a vote. I I I I And that that motion passes unanimously. Um thank you for your help on that with Toby. We'll we'll try and make agenda item five just as complicated. Um no, we really won't. I hope. But um agenda item number five then is PL 20240137 sign process CDC text amendment.

Yeah. So, this is to clarify language and update the process for the sign code. Um, the current sign code took effect January 2021. It was a significant revision um from the old sign code which was last updated in 2010. After we adopted that new sign code, we implemented the city view system that manages all of our permit and development processes. Through our work with the community and using the new sign code and using new city view, we found that um there were some areas of improvement. So, this text amendment um and this project grew out of a need to change the sign permit process for increased efficiency, accuracy um and clarity for staff and the development community. So, this amendment will amend the incentive section to encourage use. It'll amend various sections of the sign code to update those permitting procedures. We will allow internally illuminated signs in the single family residential context area. That's only for changeable message signs. Um, the reason for that is because the single family residential context area includes institutional uses such as schools or churches that often utilize a changeable message sign. Um, we will remove the linear frontage requirements for wall signs. We will increase the max wall sign size for secondary frontages. We will also make some changes, some procedural changes to minor and major adjustment and make some various other changes to sections of the code. Um, we don't believe that this amendment will sub substantively change the intent of the language in the CDC or make it less consistent with the new direction in the community plan. Um, this amendment sh will maintain the sign standards adopted by the city and should improve our administration of this code. Um, it will correct some errors and some unclear language and we do recommend approval of this text amendment.

Great. Thank you, Toby. Any questions on this one? I don't either. Just for public uh uh or or for record. Um, I quickly brought up that question to you about the gray area within the design incentives

uh portion. and your your answers at the work session were really helpful uh regarding first of all how often it's used and what we're trying to get at with the code. Um, I still feel like, man, that's an opportunity to to create more certainty than than open to interpretation uh items within that. And I wonder since then, do you think I this is I know speculation at best. Do you think that it doesn't get used very much because there's so little certainty within that that there's not even that nobody even wants to try and find out if their design is is to be interpreted as good and that maybe that's actually stopping people from trying to do the things that we're actually trying to incentivize. Um or do you think it's actually doing good? We just haven't had a lot of signs and it is what it is. It'll be successful someday. I'm curious where you guys come down on that. Yeah, it's definitely speculation, but my feeling is that um I think our sign code is good or at least adequate. So when people meet the standards of our code, that seems to be sufficient for their business needs. So they haven't had much reason to use the incentives. That's my understanding of it. Um when we have had some signs that generally want to be bigger, taller, larger than uh the sign code allows, usually we sort of indicate the the process that's required for that, which is quite expensive when we're when you're just doing a sign and um somehow they find a way to meet the standard. So I think it's more of the the flip side. So I think as a first approach to incentives for design um it maybe is just missing the mark. So we probably just need some more work and I I took your comments um as a as an item to work on for future um a way to make these incentives. It was sort of an idea that

we wanted to try with the sign code that we might you know further apply in the long run to other aspects of the CDC. It doesn't seem like we hit it quite right. We might be able to think more about that again when we look at the broader design incentives and design standards and maybe some incentives there or incentivizing you know implementation of our plans. But I think mostly it just um doesn't quite incentivize people enough. You know there's enough or there's enough um current signage allowed that they don't feel they need to do more. So

well and that part gives me optimism right with that first and last sentence of yours is that if we somehow ended up with a code that is making applicants uh satisfied as well as um considering and and controlling the things that we as city feel need to be uh and it's doing both already no incentives need to be given that's sounds great. So, if that's where we're at, awesome kind of a thing. Yeah, especially if that's your experience with applicants uh who are bringing you stuff. So, that's that's actually music to my ears, honestly.

Thank you. Any other questions for Toby or discussion? No. Uh we lost our one commenter. We don't have any public We'll skip public comment. Uh and uh yeah. Is anybody want to make a motion then? A motion to approve PL 202250137 sign process CDC text amendment 20240137 0241 I guess. Is that the wrong number? Nope. It's 2024. Really? Thank god we got it in this year.

Hey, I uh I'm in that PL 2024 0137 sign process CDC text amendment. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor? Or I'll just go one by one. I'll take a vote. I I I I Great. Then that passes unanimously. Thanks for the effort on that, Toby. Uh I assume do we not have a director's report this evening? We do not. The only thing I can mention for you to know, you probably already know that we canled all the planning commission work sessions and meetings for the rest of the year. So, we'll see you in January. All right. Okay. Say that again.

Uh there are no more meetings in No more meetings for you guys this year. Merry Christmas. Happy holidays. That's great. Uh so we have two minutes then that were created uh for our old business. So first one is uh policy work session minutes for October 27th. Any changes or motion? Motion to approve. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh yeah, actually no, I'm okay with that. Uh all in favor? I I And then uh lastly, we have policy work session minutes for November 10th. Motion to approve. Second. Have a motion and a second on that. All in favor? I.

Great. That passes as well. Then I think that's it for us. Anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? second motion and a second. All in favor? I I I. Great. We're adjourned at 652. Thank you.