> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://yvindy.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Seven months from first meeting to final hearing: Inside Steamboat's development review
- URL: https://yvindy.com/steamboat-development-review-seven-months/
- Published: 2026-11-06T21:09:19.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-06T21:09:19.000Z
- Description: A typical Steamboat project took about seven months from its first meeting with city planners to its final hearing, the Independent found in the city's own timelines for 100 projects. Counted from a complete application, projects that needed a City Council vote took nearly two months longer.
- Author: Anna Parashina
- Tags: Government, Steamboat Springs, housing

## Key points

- The typical project took about seven months from its first meeting with city planners to its final hearing, by the Independent's calculation from the city's own timelines for 100 projects.
- Counted from a complete application, projects that needed a City Council vote took a median of about 145 days, nearly two months longer than the 90 days for projects decided without council.
- At 12th and Yampa, council's step took 82 days, the second-longest of 56 council projects; the typical one took 26\. Councilors' concerns included a wall height the developer's team put 4 3/8 inches over the limit, and staff as much as 1.9 feet over.
- Five months after council's final yes, the 12th and Yampa lot was fenced gravel with no building permit posted, and construction there likely won't start before 2027.

A 240-square-foot shed planned 5 feet from its side and rear property lines, where Steamboat Springs' code requires 10, needed a hearing before the city's Board of Adjustment this summer. It was scheduled for one 69 days after its application was complete.

That was quicker than most. From the first meeting with city planners to the final hearing, the typical project took about seven months, the Independent found in the city's own timelines for 100 projects; about two of those months passed before the application was complete. From a complete application, it took 113 days.

Projects that needed a City Council vote took a median of about 145 days from a complete application, nearly two months longer than the 90 days for projects decided without council. They also took longer to reach a first hearing, 116 days compared with 90; council's own step, from the first hearing to the final vote, typically took 26 days.

At 12th and Yampa, across from Little Toots Park, council's own step took 82 days, the second-longest of the 56 council projects. City planners had recommended the building, eight homes and a restaurant. In April, council sent it back to the Planning Commission over its size.

Among the items councilors wanted reviewed was average plate height, a code measure of how high the walls rise. Developer Collin Kelley's team put it 4 3/8 inches over the city's 38-foot limit; city staff's figures ran as high as nearly 2 feet over. It was one of nine exceptions to the code the project sought, and not the biggest: the project also sought an overall height of 41 feet, 6 inches, against a 38-foot limit. Council approved a redesign June 2.

On Thursday, Nov. 5, the corner was a fenced lot of gravel with no building permit posted. A condition of council's approval covers that gap: if a building permit wasn't issued within 45 days of the start of demolition, the developer had to post collateral to regrade and replant the lot. The city's permit portal lists an improvements agreement for the lot as "Approved w/Conditions"; the developer proposed a $16,703.75 letter of credit, to stay in place until a building permit is issued or the site is permanently revegetated. With winter setting in, construction there likely won't start before 2027\. The city records the Independent reviewed show no building permit or start date; building permits come from Routt County Regional Building, whose files the Independent didn't check.

The numbers come from timelines that city planning staff attach to development items going to a hearing. The Independent read every one posted with a 2024–2026 agenda: 135 timelines covering 100 projects, from a shed to an 80-unit apartment building. Sixty-five of the 100 took longer than 90 days from a complete application to a final hearing, Colorado's Proposition 123 yardstick for fast-track review, which applies only to housing at least half affordable. Most went back and forth: 79 revised and resubmitted their plans at least once.

![Bar chart of 100 Steamboat Springs projects by days from a complete application to the final hearing, in 30-day ranges: 35 took 90 days or less and 65 took more. The typical project took 113 days; 5 took 361 days or more.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/3a/aa3a9637-6f90-40b7-a01c-13f8ce5c1e50/content/images/2026/11/housing_review_01_how_long_dark.png)

Small jobs wait, too. A deck that reached 5 feet into a 15-foot setback took 44 days to get to its hearing and was approved. A garage with an apartment, 10 feet from Butcherknife Creek where the code calls for 50, was scheduled for a hearing 141 days after its application and approved at 164\. "There are no proposed building plans at this point," staff wrote.

![Bar chart of days from a complete application to the final hearing for selected projects: a construction staging yard 21; a deck 5 feet into a 15-foot setback 44; a shed 5 feet from its lot lines, where the code requires 10, 69; Village Drive Apartments 89; enclosing part of a covered porch 97; siting a garage and apartment with no building plans yet 141; Eddyline Townhomes 224; 12th & Yampa Residences 231; Steamboat Basecamp Apartments Phase 2 252; 2075 Walton Creek Townhomes 264; The Boat Yard 362; and 635 Yampa 522. The typical project took 113 days.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/3a/aa3a9637-6f90-40b7-a01c-13f8ce5c1e50/content/images/2026/11/housing_review_03_selected_projects_dark-1.png)

### Who has the clock

Half of the city's review letters came within 22 days of the plans they answered. Before a first hearing, applicants' responses took the biggest share of the time, 43%, and city review 30%, by the Independent's calculation from 90 projects whose timelines list every step. In housing, the city's share was 36%, still less than applicants' 41%, and the city's letters on housing took a median of 28 days, compared with 21 for commercial projects.

![Stacked bar chart of the time before a first hearing. All projects: city review 30%, applicants' responses 43%, scheduling and other waits 28%; city letters a median of 22 days. Housing: 36%, 41%, 24%; letters 28 days. Commercial, lodging and mixed use: 30%, 39%, 32%; 21 days. Public, nonprofit and utility: 25%, 46%, 29%; 20.5 days. Single-lot and minor: 29%, 36%, 35%; 20 days.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/3a/aa3a9637-6f90-40b7-a01c-13f8ce5c1e50/content/images/2026/11/housing_review_02_who_has_the_clock_dark.png)

### Yes, not yet, then yes

The final yes at 12th and Yampa came 259 days after the first meeting with planners on the building's application, by the Independent's calculation from the city's project timeline. With three of its seven members absent, the Planning Commission split 2-2 on March 12.

At council April 7, Councilor Bryan Swintek suggested sending it back so the commission could look at plate height and "the general massing of the building." "We got a skeleton crew on planning commission," he said. "It would be nice just for more discussion on that."

Councilor John Agosta said he felt the building was "too big" and suggested lower ceilings: "instead of having 14 feet, 12 feet, 12 feet ... if you did 13, 11, 11, that gets you down 3 feet."

Council voted 4-3 to send it back. The commission recommended approval 3-2 in May, and on June 2 council approved the redesign 4-1, with Councilor Amy Dickson opposed and Swintek and Agosta absent for the vote. Council President Pro Tem Gail Garey, who had moved to send it back, voted yes, calling it a better project though still too big, according to the minutes.

Kelley thanked council "for remanding us" and said he wished Agosta were there, because "it was at this podium last time we were here that I realized we made a giant mistake on something and it gave us the opportunity to fix that."

![Timeline of the 12th and Yampa review, Sept. 16, 2025, to June 2, 2026: preparing the application 28 days, city review 29, revised plans 40, city review 32, revised plans 25, scheduling and notice 23; the commission's 2-2 split on March 12 and council's 4-3 vote to send it back on April 7 (26 days); then a second look with revised plans, ending with the commission's 3-2 yes on May 14 and council's 4-1 approval on June 2 (56 days). 259 days in all.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/3a/aa3a9637-6f90-40b7-a01c-13f8ce5c1e50/content/images/2026/11/housing_review_04_12th_and_yampa_dark.png)

### The city's case

Before the final vote, Dickson asked staff, "Why don't we just change our code?" Senior Planner Toby Stauffer said staff is working on it: "We have recognized that we have problems and concerns on our side from the development side with our design standards." The standards also shape downtown's character, she said, and "it is always a trade-off." And, she added, "sometimes our wheels of government don't move as fast as we want."

In May, council updated the city's expedited review for housing that deed-restricts at least 30% of its units, "to maintain eligibility for Proposition 123 funding." Planning commissioners can no longer call up those projects, and if council calls one up, it must hear it at its next available hearing or at a special meeting. The amended code refers to "project timelines" without saying how long they are.

*How the Independent did this: Days are date differences between steps in each city timeline, for projects with final hearings from January 2024 to October 2026; "typical" means the median. City review runs from each submission to the letter answering it; when the final plans get no letter, their review counts as a wait. Timelines are written before a hearing, so later delays can be missing. Staff-level approvals, and applications withdrawn or still waiting for a hearing, aren't in the timelines. The Independent combined applications reviewed together, left out three city code changes, corrected 15 mistyped years and assigned project types from names.*

## What's next

- **Monday, Nov. 9, 5 p.m.:** The Historic Preservation Commission takes up a demolition permit for 929 Pine St., at Centennial Hall, 124 10th St., and on Zoom (meeting ID 830 1313 0086). In October, after staff compared the cost of building and demolition permits, draft minutes record Commissioner Scot Mitchell as saying, "It seems to me that our systems are making it easy to demolish and hard to build."

*This story is based on the city's public records and meeting videos and on the Independent's own visit to the 12th and Yampa site.*

*Disclosure: Emily McLarney, the wife of Independent owner and editor Michael McLarney, serves on the City of Steamboat Springs' Ad Hoc Housing Advisory Committee, which reviews short-term rental tax requests.*