Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2017-04-18Prepared: April 5, 2017 • Revised: STUDY SESSION AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:30 a.m. Town Board Room 11:30 Lunch Chair Moon 11:35 Large Vacation Home Review - Special Meeting Director Hunt Update (10) 11:45 Fall River Village II (20) Planner Gonzales 12:05 Comprehensive Plan Modernization Update (10) Chair Moon Director Hunt 12:15 Building Height Discussion (60) Director Hunt Guest Speakers: Steve Lane & Roger Thorp, Seth Hanson Planner Gonzales Chair Moon 1:15 Adjourn Chair Moon Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 11:15 a.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. Prepared: April 5, 2017 * Revised: April 13, 2017 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION April 18, 2017 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions Introduction of Planner I — Robin Becker 2. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes of March 21, 2017 4. * FALL RIVER VILLAGE II, LOT 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION * Staff request to continue this review to the May Planning Commission meeting A. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2017-02 B. PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 2017-01 C. REZONING REQUEST FOR LOT 5A; RM—Multi-Family Residential to CO—Commercial Outlying D. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP Owner : Fall River Village, LLC Applicant: Metropia Management, LLC do Paul Pewterbaugh Request: Multi-family development consisting of 12 condominiums units and one Community Hall. Staff: Audem Gonzales 5. REPORTS A. Mountain & Resort Town Planners Summit — Planner Gonzales B. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Joseph Urquhart Residence Variance — Approved April 11, 2017 C. Estes Park Town Board 1. EVDC Amendment relating to Vacation Homes — Approved March 14, 2017 2. EVDC Amendment relating to Accessory Kitchens — Approved March 14, 2017 3. Cloud Nine Subdivision Annexation — Approved March 28, 2017 4. Resolution to outline procedure and schedule for Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Update — Approved March 14, 2017 D. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. Cloud Nine Minor Subdivision — Final Plat — Approved March 20, 2017 2. EVDC Amendment relating to Vacation Homes — Approved March 20, 2017 3. Resolution to outline procedure and schedule for Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Update — Approved April 3, 2017 E. Community Development Update 1. Downtown Plan Update 2. Hydrology Report Update F. Other 1. Update on Accessory Kitchen Amendment 6. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Chair Michael Moon, Vice-Chair Russ Schneider, Commissioners Betty Hull, Doug Klink, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Bob Leavitt Chair Moon, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Klink, Murphree, White, and Leavitt Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Carrie McCool, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Planner Audem Gonzales Chair Moon called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purposed of the Planning Commission. There were approximately ten people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Pat Newsom/town resident would appreciate a working sound system in the study session meeting rooms. She commented on the cap of vacation home registrations and the discussion that occurred during the study session. She did not agree with extending the deadline of March 31, 2017. She was concerned about increasing the height limit in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district. She was concerned about establishing corridor plans as part of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, February 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-08, DOLLAR GENERAL, LOT 31, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 32-35, AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 31 & 37, WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLACE, LESS 2000032927; 455 STANLEY AVENUE Planner McCool reviewed the staff report, as Planner Gonzales was ill. The applicant, Vaquero Estes Park Partners, LLC desires to construct a retail store at the corner of Highway 7 (S. St. Vrain Avenue) and Stanley Avenue. Dollar General would occupy the building. The building is proposed to be approximately 9,100 square feet with a 30-space parking lot. The access point for the building will be on Stanley Avenue. Building materials will comply with the Estes Valley Development Code. Planner McCool reviewed the criteria for the development plan and minor modification. This information can be read in detail in the staff report. The application was routed to all affected I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall agencies, including the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. CDOT preferred access from Stanley Avenue. One public comment was received in regards to building materials. Planner McCool stated there was a request for a minor modification regarding grading and the loading area. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) provides staff with the authority to approve certain minor modifications, this being one of them, which was approved by staff. Staff Findings 1. The development plan complies with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. Community Design policies). 2. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the Development Plan. 3. Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were received. 5. The Development Plan complies with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. Public Comment Devan Pharis/applicant was available for questions. The composition of the proposed retaining wall would be a natural-colored, decorative, split-faced look. The building materials for the building will be similar in design, but a slightly darker color. There will be landscaping in front of the retaining wall to camouflage the view of the wall. A revised photometric plan was submitted, and it complies with the EVDC. Rex Poggenpohl/county resident and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment member urged the Commission to consider amending the EVDC to allow a larger driveway opening for commercial properties, and to encourage the governing bodies to keep child-safety in mind. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion about a pedestrian-activated signal. Condition of Approval 1. Provide cost estimates and full design details for the sidewalk. Financial security shall be provided for the sidewalk before any building/grading permit is issued for the property. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to approve the Dollar General Development Plan according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 7-0. Commissioner White requested staff pursue the pedestrian-activated signal with CDOT. Commissioner Murphree recused himself for the next application review. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4. VIEW @ 242 PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP Planner McCool reviewed the staff report for Planner Gonzales. The proposed project is for ten condominium units on the property located on Virginia Drive. A Development Plan and Amended Plat are also part of this project, and will be reviewed at staff-level. The application was routed to all affected agencies, and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. One public comment was received regarding building height. Staff and Commission Commissioner Leavitt asked for an explanation between market rate and attainable units. Director Hunt provided the explanation. Staff Findings 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as well as the Development Plan. 2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 3. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board. Public Comment Chuck Bailey/applicant spoke about how the proposed development came about. The ability to build ten units on the site is a direct result of the recent EVDC amendment regarding density. The project proposes two four-plexes and one duplex. Four units will be designated "attainable" and will be deed restricted for twenty years. The lot is long and narrow, and presents design challenges. Adequate parking was important to the developers. Dan Timbrell/town resident was opposed to the height of the proposed project. His views of the Divide will be obstructed if the project is built as proposed. He was concerned about the loss of property value. Bonnie Hautamaki/town resident asked several questions about the development regarding parking, traffic, and the number of units allowed if no attainable housing was proposed. Conditions of Approval 1. View@242 Development Plan approval shall occur within 60 days of the preliminary condo map Planning Commission public hearing date. 2. Amended Plat approval shall occur within 60 days of preliminary condo map Planning Commission public hearing date. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/White) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map to the Estes Park Town Board according to findings of fact and conclusions 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Murphree abstaining. 5. REPORTS A. Director Hunt reported there is a Comprehensive Plan Update in process, thanks to a committee that has been working on it. A Resolution between the Town Board and County Commission provides for a 12-18 month review period including extensive public involvement. B. Director Hunt reported an amendment to the EVDC regarding vacation homes was continued to the March 28t h Town Board meeting. The March 31st deadline date is proposed to be removed, allowing individuals to continue to register their home as a vacation home as long as the cap has not been reached. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approved the code amendment on March 20t h . C. Director Hunt reported an amendment to the EVDC regarding accessory kitchens was continued by the Town Board to the March 28th meeting. If the Town Board does not vote to approve the removal of accessory kitchens, Director Hunt would at least like to see the removal of the affidavit requirement, and removal of the section regarding the interior entrance, as it would be unenforceable. He would like to add a statement regarding outdoor kitchens, whereas they would not be considered an accessory kitchen as long as it was exposed to the outside on at least two sides. There was brief discussion about the procedure of taking code amendments to the decision-making boards. The general consensus from the Planning Commission was to have the revised draft amendment go back to the Planning Commission for a final recommendation before moving on to the Town Board and County Commission. D. Director Hunt reported the Community Development Annual Report will be completed prior to the April meeting. E. Planner I Robin Becker will begin work with the Town on March 27, 2017. There is still one vacancy on the Planning side of the department. There being no further business, Chair Moon adjourned the meeting at 2:36 p.m. Michael Moon, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 4 wimf.me••• A [P Staff Report TOWN OF PASTES PAI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: April 18, 2017 RE: Discussion regarding possible EVDC amendment for Building Height Planning Commission Objective: Continue discussions regarding possible EVDC amendments to increase building height limitations for multi-family buildings, simplify height measurement, and review alternative code approaches for this purpose. Code Amendment Objectives: Amend the EVDC in one of two ways: Either (a) change the maximum allowable building height for multi-family buildings from 30 feet to 40 feet in the RM (Multi-Family) Zoning District; or (b) change multi-family building height from 30 to 40 feet in several zoning districts (RM, CD, A, and A-1), provided that the project meets criteria for housing attainability and/or workforce needs. A separate code amendment (formerly combined with the main amendment) would simplify calculation of height by using average elevation at base, average height for some types of roof design, and using finished grade for the base measurement. Discussion: Additional discussion internally and externally has taken place since our March 21 Planning Commission study session. These discussions have led to development of the "Incentive-Based Alternative" exhibit, attached. This exhibit modifies Chapter 11 in EVDC, which deals with incentives, including the density bonus for attainable or workforce housing. To keep the alternatives clear, we have added the label "Dimensional Standard Alternative" to the exhibit that modifies Chapter 4. This Dimensional alternative is similar to the versions you have seen in February and March, but with some key differences. Dimensional Standard Alternative: The basic concept is still the same as in previous months, in that maximum building height in the RM District would increase upward from the present 30 feet. However, a few changes have been made since March: • The maximum building height in RM is now 40 feet, down from 45 feet. The original 45-foot proposal was intended to be a placeholder, subject to refinement after discussion with building design professionals. Those discussions have occurred (and will continue occurring). Our professionals advise that a multi- family building can be built with three full stories at 40 feet plus roofline. Both alternatives now state a maximum height of 40 feet. • Both alternatives specify that the 40-foot limit is available only to true multi-unit buildings, which by existing EVDC definition means buildings with three (3) or more dwelling units in a single structure. The Dimensional alternative specifies that all other principal buildings in RM (in practice, single-family houses) remain limited to 30 feet. This is a narrowing from the earlier amendment, which allowed any building to be 40 feet. Concerns have been expressed that the Valley should not see a proliferation of 40-foot single-family houses. • Part of Footnote (4) is to be struck out. This footnote deals with maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This is an old-fashioned concept that appears numerous times in our Code. Staffs goal is eventually to do away with FAR altogether, as it serves no useful purpose and merely adds complexity and contradiction to development. We are striking it in this amendment because, if left in place, in many cases it would prohibit three-story buildings in RM zoning, rendering the change in height meaningless. • Staff had previously suggested a height limit of "45 or 3 stories plus roof, whichever is less". This did not seem to get much reaction either way in the March 21 study session. In the interest of keeping things simple, that language is no longer proposed. We are back to a straightforward height figure. • The design standards (stepbacks, etc.) have been removed. This was also done because PC did not show much interest on March 21. However, staff believes the concept remains valid, and may be addressed in the future, perhaps in the Comprehensive Plan. Incentive-Based Alternative: This newer alternative would utilize the existing criteria for attainable and/or workforce housing as the basis for allowing multi-family buildings up to 40 feet in height. Incentives would include either: (a) occupants with income less than 150 percent of area median income (AMI) for Larimer County; (b) occupants for which at least one family member is employed within the Estes Park R-3 School District boundaries; or (c) both. As with the density bonus already available under this section, a project would undergo annual review and approval by the Estes Park Housing Authority to determine that occupants can and do meet the incentive requirements. At least 50 percent of all units' occupants will have to meet the target(s) in order to remain in compliance. April 18, 2017 EVPC Study Session Page 2 of 5 (written April 13, 2017) This framework does not automatically mean that all projects thus approved will be owned or operated by the Housing Authority. Their role in this case, as with the density bonus, may just be analyzing and confirming to the Town that a building is in compliance. Staff has asked the Housing Authority for input and comment on this idea. The response was that they would think about it. At this writing they have not made a determination as to their position. Town staff, including Community Development Department staff, do not have the resources to add this duty to our own workload. Another important difference in the incentive-based alternative is that it would apply to other zoning districts, not just in RM. This amendment, like the other alternative, would apply only to multi-family buildings, However, multi-family development is allowed by right in three other zoning districts besides RM: they are CD (Downtown Commercial), A (Accommodations/Highway Corridor), and A-1 (Accommodations/Low Intensity). The reason these districts are included is that it is difficult legally to separate the incentives based on zoning district. Chapter 11 is already structured to distinguish by developmental standards and type of use, rather than type of zoning district. This is a fundamental difference between Chapter 4 (Zoning Districts) and Chapter 11. Chapter 4 is structured to define and describe how each zoning district has different standards; Chapter 11 (and most of EVDC outside of Chapter 4) does not make such distinctions. It can be argued that introducing an RM-only section into Chapter 11 is arbitrary and capricious, and that such a distinction is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan, by good zoning practice, or by law. It may be that there is merit in allowing the incentive-based approach in all four of these zoning districts. That idea needs more discussion, however. Additionally, other dimensional and development standards may need to be reviewed to see if they help or hinder the concept of height incentives for multi-family buildings in CD, A, and A-1 Districts. For example, CD and A-1 have maximum FAR standards. Cd has an odd provision that sets minimum land area per dwelling unit on the first floor at 2,200 square feet, sets the second floor at zero square feet, and is silent on any floor higher than the second. This needs attention for obvious reasons. Exhibit B: Measurement, Definitions The contents of these sections have not changed since March, except for the fact they have been placed in a separate exhibit. This organization will allow adoption of those sections independently of whether or not we adopt the Dimensional Standards alternative, the Incentive-Based Alternative, or neither. April 18, 2017 EVPC Study Session Page 3 of 5 (written April 13, 2017) Regardless of the specific 40-foot building height issue, changing our calculation of base and height measurement for all projects, as this amendment does, is a necessary step on its own. Several questions have been raised about measuring from finished grade - specifically, whether a developer could pile up a massive amount of fill in order to put a 40-foot building on top of an artificial hill. Another EVDC section would prevent this from happening. Sec. 7.2.B.2 reads: Limits on Changing Natural Grade. The original, natural grade of a lot shall not be raised or lowered more than ten (10) feet at any point for construction of any structure or improvement, except: a. For foundation walls incorporated into the principal structure to allow for walk-out basements; or b. The site's original grade may be raised or lowered a maximum of twelve (12) feet if a retaining wall or terracing is used to reduce the steepness of manmade slopes, provided that the retaining wall or terracing comply with the requirements set forth in this Section. Staff believe this section needs work in itself, but the basic principle is sound and should remain applicable. Graphics: Three sets of graphic items are included with your written materials: • A pair of illustrations showing a fictitious building at 30 feet and 40 feet on RM- zoned land, viewed from Virginia Drive; • A pair of illustrations showing another fictitious building at 30 feet and 40 feet on RM-zoned land, viewed from Moraine Avenue; • A map showing location of all RM-zoned properties (built and vacant) in the Estes Valley Planning Area. Illustrations: The illustrations comparing 30- and 40-foot buildings in the same location would seem to speak for themselves. Staff would observe that the 40-foot buildings in these locations do not notably interrupt the skyline, ruin perspectives, or constitute an alien presence in Estes Valley. We would add that these are only two locations out of many possible RM locations. Some may show more noticeable interruptions at 40 feet than these do. April 18, 2017 EVPC Study Session Page 4 of 5 (written April 13, 2017) However, the central message of these paired illustrations comes down to two things: a. The differences are not all that great between a 30-foot and a 40-foot building. b. In order to preserve uninterrupted views, even 30 feet is going to get in the way. So is 20 feet. Or 5 feet. The only way to guarantee an uninterrupted view is to prohibit building in that location altogether. A straightforward (albeit expensive) way to preserve open, unbuilt space is for the public sector to buy the property, or at least arrange with an owner for a conservation easement or similar instrument. Map: The map also speaks for itself. RM-zoned property is a small proportion (less than five percent) of the land area is Estes Valley. Staff at this writing are working on another map that will show properties zoned RM, CD, A, and A-1, to illustrate the locations potentially affected by the Incentives-Based Alternative. We expect to be able to hand out this map at the April 18 study session. Action Requested: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments - Standards for Review, and provide feedback to staff in preparation fora Public Hearing on May 16, 2017. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A [Chapter 4: Dimensional Standard Alternative] P.C. Draft (A): April 18, 2017 2. Exhibit A [Chapter 11: Incentive-Based Alternative] P.C. Draft (A): April 18, 2017 3. Exhibit B [Both Alternatives: Ch. 1: Measurement; Ch. 13: Definitions] P.C. Draft (A): April 18, 2017 4. Pair of exhibits as viewed from Virginia Drive and from Moraine Avenue 5. Pair of exhibits as viewed from Moraine Avenue 6. Map of RM-zoned properties in Estes Valley April 18, 2017 EVPC Study Session Page 5 of 5 (written April 13, 2017) EXHIBIT A [Chapter 4: Dimensional Standard Alternative] P.C. Draft (A): April 18, 2017 Estes Valley Development Code CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS Section 4.3.C.4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Max. Net Zoning District Density (units/acre) Minimum Lot Standards [1] [4] (Ord. 25-07 §1) Minimum Building/Structure Property Line Setbacks [2] [7] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Max. Building Height (ft.) [8] Min. Building Width (ft.) Area (sq ft.) Width (ft.) Front Side Rear (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) /10,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [6] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: 'A Ac. RM (Ord. 18-01 §14) Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 60; Lots 25- Greater arterials; than 15-other 100,000 streets sq. ft.: 10 (Ord. 15- 11 §1) Multi- family dwelling structure: 40 All other principal buildings: 30 10 20 [5] 200 (4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an incmacc in tho addresses measurement of maximum height of buildings on slopes. Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A [Chapter 11: Incentive-Based Alternative] P.C. Draft (A): April 18, 2017 § 11.4 - ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY / HEIGHT BONUS A. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of attainable housing for persons living and/or working in the Estes Valley. (Ord. 2-02 #9) B. Eligibility. All residential subdivisions and developments in residential zoning districts are eligible for the attainable housing density bonus set forth in this Section. All multi- family dwelling buildings as defined herein are eligible for the attainable housing height bonus set forth in this this Section. (Ord. 2-02 #9) C. "Attainable" Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable housing units" shall mean the following: 1. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility expenses) must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum income for an imputed household size based on one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. The imputed household size is equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the number of bedrooms in the unit, For example, rent on a two-bedroom unit would be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income limit of a three-person family; for a three- bedroom unit the rent should not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of a four-and-one-half-person family - the midpoint of the range of a four- and five- person family. c. If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a utility allowance, computed by the Estes Park Housing Authority, must be subtracted from the housing cost to determine the maximum rent. (Ord 2- 02 #9) 2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty percent (40%) of the one-hundred-fifty-percent Larimer County Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. (Ord. 2-02 #9) 3. Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County Area Median Income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer County published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Ord. 2-02 §9) 4. Workforce Housing. Housing units shall be eligible for the Maximum Permitted Density Bonus (Sec. 11.4.D) if at least one resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town and the Estes Park Housing Authority certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary Map. D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Except in the R-1 Zoning District, subject to the standards and review criteria set forth in this Section and Chapter Code, attainable housing units are eligible for a density bonus of up to two (2) times (one two hundred fifty percent [150%200%0 of the base net density standard set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. E. Maximum Permitted Height Bonus. Subject to the standards and review criteria set forth in this Code, classification of fifty percent (50%) or more of dwelling units in a multi- family dwelling building as defined herein as attainable housing units, shall make such building eligible for a maximum building height of forty (40) feet, subject to the Rules of Measurement in Sec. 1.9 of this Code. Multi-family buildings eligible for this Bonus may be in any zoning district in which multi-family uses are permitted by right in Sec. 4.3 of this Code. &F. Development and Design Standards. 1. Minimum Lot Size/Area. Notwithstanding the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the underlying base zoning district, the following requirements shall apply to residential subdivisions and developments that include attainable housing units pursuant to this Section: a. Single-Family Detached Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for single- family, detached attainable housing units included in a subdivision or development shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, provided that at least fifty percent (50%) of the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement. b. Two-Family Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for two-family attainable housing units included in a subdivision or development shall be twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, provided that at least fifty percent (50%) of the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement for two-family residential uses. 2. Public Sewers and Water Required. All developments containing attainable housing units shall be served by public central sewer service and public water service. 3. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B). (Ord. 02-10 §1) 4. Deed Restriction Required. Attainable housing units developed pursuant to this Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the availability of the unit for sale or rent to persons meeting the income or workforce guidelines and definition set forth in §11.4.0 above, for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years. The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney. § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts C. Density/Dimensional Standards. 4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Minimum Building/Structure Property Line Zoning District Max. Net Density Standards 111 141 (Ord. 25-07 §1) Setbacks 121 171 (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 Max. Min. Building Building Height (ft.) (units/acre) §1 ) Width (ft.) 1 81 Area Width Front Side Rear (sq ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) Residential 110,000, 5,400 sq. Uses: Max = ft./unit [6] 60; Lots RM 8 and Min = (Ord. 25-07 Greater 25-10 (Ord. 18-01 3 Senior §1; Ord. 15- 11 §1) than 100,000 arterials; (Ord. 10 15-other 15-11 30 M 20 [5] §14) Institutional Living Uses: Senior sq. ft.: Institutional streets §1 ) 200 Max = 24 Living Uses: Ac. Notes to Table 4-2 (4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30-a-Rd a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which addresses measurement of maximum height of buildings on dopes, (9) Maximum height for multi-family buildings in zoning districts where multi-family uses are permitted by right shall be 40 feet, for developments that comply with the provisions of Sec. 11.4 of this Code. • - - • within the building footprint to the highest point of the finished roof situated directly above the point of measurement. Small ar as of rugged tcrrain- • . • ' 2 . ' * • 2 • ' 2' • wielth-of-twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 1 3. EXHIBIT B [Both Alternatives: Ch. 1: Measurement; Ch. 13: Definitions] P.C. Draft (A): April 18, 2017 § 1.9 - Rules of Measurement E. Height. 1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height shall-be-establis-lacd by means the vertical distance measured from the mean average elevation of the finished grade ((lowest- point elevation + highest point elevation) 12) along the front of the building: (1) To the highest point of the roof surface, if a flat roof; (2) To the deck line of a mansard roof; or (3) To the mean height level between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof. um HEIGHT wart r IX Lows0140 ,11.f OF EXIST SKI NATURAL GRADE TO CRADPIG .01.1Ima a F assura; NATURAL MOWN PRIOR 10 GRADING NIL IN TERRAN NO PORTION Of OVILOSIG AAAv EXTEND ABOVE FiE143111 Lon EJUSIING VFW lk,RIV,IN CUT IN TERRAIN Fla IN TERRAIN HEIGHT 411MT FOLLOWS PROTLE OF FASTING NATURAI TERRAIN EMS nNG TERRAIN ElTaDeNG HEIGHT 2. Moos-Life-meat-of-Maxi ght-of calculation (ccc Figure 1 4). Thi pia-n-een-taining the plan with- -304-50(a-bA-where4 ME -Maximum C •• ntabove-original-grade 22 • C 221: "I •S 2.. tE)=E Original ground surface I T K-30' P473.3• m..4 o' sioN sim .4.-mi xmi 3. Exemptions from Height Standards. The following features shall be exempt from maximum building height: a. Residential-oChimneys to the extent required by the Uniform-applicable Building Code(s); and b. Wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent allowed by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Chapter 4 and in §5.1.T of this Code. § 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 114. Grade, Finished shall mean the final elevation and contour of the ground level after topsoil has been applied-to graded--slopes, as-measured six-(6) feet from tha.c.xterior walls of-the-str-ustureafter cutting or filling / compacting and conforming to the proposed design. Fwd: NEWSOM - my (and others) thoughts 1 message Michael <mgmoon@aol.com > To: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> FYI, I think this is better through you. Mike EDC Childcare Services Committee: Let's go make something wonderful happen for the kids of the Estes Valley! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: <newsom@frii.com> Date: April 5, 2017 at 2:14:39 PM MDT To: <mgmoon@aol.com > Cc: <newsom@frii.com> Subject: NEWSOM - my (and others) thoughts Wed, Apr 5. 2017 at 2:43 PM Michael, will you please distribute this to your Commission members. Thank you very much! pfn TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the last Work Study of your Commission, I remember you saying, Michael, "Everyone says Estes Park is unique and quaint...what does unique and quaint mean with regards to Estes Park?"... I come in contact with many people in different places through a week's time,... always asking where they are from, have they been here before — and if so, how many times with the replies from "first time" to a "life time". After they say they love it here, their reply is (truly), "it's so unique and quaint." Asking further, their answers are varied but always come to the point ...no matter where you are in the area, you can always see over the roof tops and get a great view of the (usually snow- capped) mountains, the trees and the skies. They remark that nowhere else does one have the opportunity to take in nature as in this place...after you come over Park Hill or around the curve on Hwy 34, there is this unique and incredibly beautiful place... and they stress, "Don't ever let it change!" ... Many mentioned that in just driving around the area, they feel the openness of the neighborhoods, the difference in the fact there are no "tract homes" and there is so much open area and houses are not "jammed up together". When I ask about the quaintness of the community, many times the response is the same, "...every store has its own identification and decor, window displays, benches to sit/wait! In a lot of the mountain towns...the store fronts are all the same and is difficult to tell one from another. It's just fun to walk the street and see the individuality and decide which one to go in to! I love it here." (Heard these very exact words four times last week from teenagers, grandparents, foreigners, and Valley people in one day!) So, thinking about issues that are coming before you... DO NOT GIVE A VARIENCE TO MORE THAN 30 FEET HEIGHT!!! One cannot see over a three story building no matter where it is. If the one-story shops downtown need extra space, they could make another story addition, but not two!! Also, regarding the Affordable workforce housing, I think this is a joke and just a way to increase the population...which do we really need, or WANT? Everyone says, "We need more young families with kids for the schools." ...but, what are they going to do for a living? I strongly suggest you do not change the zoning allowing more density!!! I have many thoughts to express but one of the main ones...the Avalanche Survey says we will need between 1,200 — 1,400 housing units in five years. laugh to myself... if at least one person is to be contributing to the community by working, where are 1,200 — 1,400 people going to get a job!! Also, each housing unit will not be limited to one person so think of the increase of population and the density of the area. I don't believe in the survey that was done from an outside source and perhaps ones doing so have not even been in the town. To change the zoning of single family dwellings will be the death of the unique and quaintness of this place many have called home for years!!! (I have many other thoughts on (not only) this issue as do others I talk with.) Seems many of those sitting on Boards, etc. say they were elected to do what the people want — but you know what? ...many DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. Thanks for listening to me! Patricia F. Newsom 450 West Wonderview Ave Phone: 970.586.4425 (office) — 970-586-6645 (home) E-mail: Newsom@Frii.com COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REQUESTS THE CONTINUANCE OF FALL RIVER VILLAGE II TO THE MAY 16, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DUE TO PROJECT REVISIONS.