Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2017-05-16Prepared: May 4, 2017 • Revised: STUDY SESSION AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:30 a.m. Town Board Room 10:30 Fall River Village II (20) Planner Gonzales Preliminary PUD, Rezoning, Preliminary Condo Map 10:50 EVDC Amendments related to: (30) Director Hunt Building Height in RM zone district Design standards in RM zone district Building height calculation for all zone districts 11:20 EVDC Amendment regarding Special Reviews (15) Director Hunt 11:35 EVDC Amendment regarding one single-family principal structure per lot (5 ) Director Hunt 11:40 EVDC Amendment regarding non-commercial use in parks & recreation facilities (5 ) Director Hunt 11:45 Lunch (15) Chair Moon 12:00 Comprehensive Plan Discussion -(60+) CC Tom Donnelly Northern Colorado Growth & Transportation Jacob Castillo Suzette Mallette 1:15 Adjourn Chair Moon Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 10:15 a.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. Prepared: May 3, 2017 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION May 16, 2017 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes of April 18, 2017 5. FALL RIVER VILLAGE II, LOT 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION Continued from April meeting (EVPC is Recommending-Body to Town Board) A. PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 2017-01 B. REZONING REQUEST FOR LOT 5A; RM—Residential Multi-Family to CO—Commercial Outlying C. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP Owner : Fall River Village, LLC Applicant: Metropia Management, LLC c/o Paul Pewterbaugh Request: Multi-family development consisting of 12 condominiums units and one Community Hall. Staff: Audem Gonzales 6. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE RM—RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT 7. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION FORMULA FOR ALL ZONE DISTRICTS 8. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE RM—RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT 9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISING THE CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE WHEN A SPECIAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED, AND TO CATEGORIZE SPECIAL REVIEW PROJECTS ACCORDING TO INTENSITY. 10. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING LIMITING LOTS IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICTS TO ONE SINGLE-FAMILY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE PER LOT Continued on next page The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 11. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING REMOVAL OF PROVISION THAT CURRENTLY PROHIBITS NON-COMMERCIAL USE IN PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES 12. REPORTS A. Estes Park Town Board 1. View @ 242 Preliminary Condominium Map approved April 25, 2017 2. Cloud Nine Subdivision Annexation approved March 28, 2017 3. EVDC text amendments to Vacation Home regulations approved March 28, 2017 4. EVDC text amendment to remove provision for Accessory Kitchens approved March 28, 2017 C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. Cloud Nine Minor Subdivision Final Plat approved March 20, 2017 2. EVDC text amendments to Vacation Home regulations approved March 20, 2017 3. Resolution to Outline Procedure & Schedule for 2017-2018 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan approved April 3, 2017 4. EVDC text amendment to remove provision for Accessory Kitchens approved April 24, 2017 D. Community Development Update 1. Downtown Plan Update 2. Floodplain Ordinance E. Other 13. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Bob Leavitt 9:33 AM (1 hour ago) to Town Karen, •ase forward this to the Planning Commission, Randy Hunt, and Ron Norris. Workforce housing is becoming an increasingly important topic for the PC. Recently we approved a project with 40% workforce housing on Virginia Drive. An RM height bonus, if approved, may include a workforce housing component. Given all the attention to workforce housing, it's appropriate to take a closer look at how the EP workforce housing system works today and how it will function in the context of multi-family housing projects. The PC is not responsible for developing the town's workforce housing system. However, we have a vested interest in ensuring that it works as intended for the community. We don't necessarily have to address the EP workforce housing system at this time. But it will become increasingly important as multi-family projects come up for review. Knowing how desperate the town is for workforce housing, the town and the public will insist that workforce housing be included in future projects, with or without a height bonus. It may be that the current workforce housing system is working well and that it is well positioned to handle future multi-family housing projects. If so, our task is to verify that fact so we can move forward with confidence that our actions are leading to their intended consequences. A report or presentation by Town and Housing Authority staff would be the next step. Here are my questions and comments: 1) How many workforce housing units are available today? How many are currently occupied by members of the workforce? 2) What geographic area must a person live in to be considered local workforce? 3) The Housing Authority performs an annual audit to ensure that their units are occupied by members of the workforce. What happens when they find a unit no longer occupied by a workforce member? 4) To obtain the density (and proposed height) bonus, 50% of the units must be used for workforce housing. Will these units be leased, purchased, or both? Will the units be deed restricted? How will the deed restrictions be enforced over time? 5) How affordable will the condo units be in the upcoming multi-family projects? What will the likely price range be for the units in the proposed projects? Will modest income residents be able to afford them? A) The median sale price of existing condos in first 3 months of 2017 = $260,000. Average = $266,703, Inventory in March = 21. This is for existing :dos. New construction will likely be more expensive. Source: Estes Park Board of Realtors. Larimer County AMI in 2015. Incomes may be a bit higher now. Family of 1 = $54,500, 150%= $81,750 Family of 4 = $77,800, 150%=$116,700 Source: Estes Park Housing Authority web site. 7) With incomes up to 150% of the AMI who is actually being targeted for these units? We usually talk about leachers, nurses, firemen, and policemen. Perhaps managers and small business owners could be included. Is this a good fit for them? It's a given that many of these people want to live in single family homes. 8) What happens if not enough workforce members are found who can afford the workforce units in a particular project? 9) What is being done to target lower income segments of the workforce such as restaurant workers, housekeepers, and store clerks? 10) In the upcoming multi-family condo projects, is any rental or down payment assistance planned? Any HUD Section 8 units? The community wants to see viable workforce housing included in upcoming multi-family housing projects. Housing of which we can say, with confidence, "I know it will be occupied by members of the local workforce." Answers to the above questions can help us understand the current workforce housing system and ensure that it can deliver workforce housing in future housing projects. Thanks, Bob • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 18, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Michael Moon, Vice-Chair Russ Schneider, Commissioners Betty Hull, Doug Klink, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Bob Leavitt Attending: Chair Moon, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Klink, Murphree, White, and Leavitt Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: None Chair Moon called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. He explained the purposed of the Planning Commission. The meeting began late due to extended discussion during the study session. There were four people in attendance. There was a brief discussion regarding workforce housing. Comments included but were not limited to: we need to have a process, height measurement is important; height and workforce housing are two separate issues; workforce housing needs to be defined; desire to know what the overall housing strategy is before making a decision. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Pat Newsom/town resident was opposed to rezoning single-family residential districts, did not agree with the numbers of housing units determined in the housing study, and was opposed to a height increase. Jon Nicholas/town resident commented on the workforce housing status in Larimer County, and was supportive of creating additional housing opportunities in the RM zone district. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, March 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 3. FALL RIVER VILLAGE II, LOTS 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION 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 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 18, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Gonzales stated the revised plans were just recently received. Staff requests the review be continued to the May 16, 2017 Planning Commission meeting to allow affected agencies time to review the revisions. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to continue the various applications to the May Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 7-0. 4. REPORTS A. Planner Gonzales reported on the Mountain & Resort Town Planners Summit he attended in March. Topics included affordable housing, transportation, economic development, etc. Many other mountain communities have issues with affordable housing. In many communities, parking is the largest detriment to developers when it comes to the development of affordable housing. Other communities standards are below 100% Average Median Income. Winter Park is purchasing downtown properties and providing incentives to developers. Regarding height limits, Winter Park is 55 feet, Steamboat Springs is 40 feet, Pagosa Springs and Telluride are 35 feet, Sun Valley, Idaho is 44 feet without slope adjustment. Jackson Hole has a 55-foot height allowance in multi-family districts. Regarding affordable housing, one community requires ADUs be built with large single-family homes, and requires them to be occupied, which has been successful in creating additional housing. Winter Park has plans to add approximately 700 units in their downtown area, both attainable and market priced. B. Director Hunt reported vacation home applications are still coming in, and we are still under the cap of 588. There has been a lot of push back regarding compliance with the dark-sky ordinance. C. Director Hunt reported the accessory kitchen amendment will be heard by the County Commissioners on April 24, 2017. The Town Board made revisions that leave accessory kitchens in place, while removing requirements for the affidavit, interior access, and addressing. The section on outdoor kitchens was supported. D. Safeway has applied for a variance and a development plan. The development plan submitted will be a staff-level decision (under 10,000 square feet). E. Commissioner White reported on her tour of the National Park Village housing project. F. Planner Gonzales reported a three-day work session on the Downtown Plan will occur April 25-27 at the Rodeway Inn. Most of the sessions are open to the public. Included will be stakeholder interviews with downtown business owners, property owners, etc. to discuss parking, transportation, urban design, and so forth. Commissioner Hull expressed disappointment that a town department would have to pay for a town event at a town- owned facility. There being no further business, Chair Moon adjourned the meeting at 2:43 p.m. 2 Fall River Village II (Preliminary PUD, Development Plan, Preliminary Condo Map and Rezone) Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: May 16, 2017, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: Approval of Development Plan for the construction of twelve accommodations units and community center, recommendation for approval for Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map and Rezone) Staff recommends approval of the proposed project PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Approve/Deny the proposed Development Plan LOCATION: Lots 1-7 and Outlot A, Fall River Village and Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition VICINITY MAP: See attachment OWNER/APPLICANT: Fall River Village, LLC / Metropia Management, LLC STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Present Situation: The project area is located between Elkhorn Avenue and Wonderview Avenue just east of Farview Drive. The property is currently zoned CO-Outlying Commercial and RM-Multifamily. The area is approximately 8 acres in size. The CO portion of the site contains a PUD-Planned Unit Development overlay. The western portion of the site is undeveloped and currently platted with seven single family lots. The eastern portion is built out with three duplexes. The area is accessed via Sunny Acres Court (private drive). The southern portion of the overall development is contained on a separate lot and includes several condo units and accommodation units called Fall River Village. Proposal: The proposal entails re-zoning the eastern portion of the site from RM to CO in order to make it eligible to be included into the Fall River Village PUD. There is an Amended Plat application running concurrently with this project that will combine the eastern portion of the site with the western portion of the site resulting in one legal lot. The undeveloped section of the site is proposed to be developed with three duplexes, two triplexes, and a private community hall. Twelve new accommodations units are proposed with this project. Coupled with the existing three duplexes, the site will entail 18 accommodations units total. There are five applications associated with this project. Below is a table separating each process and Decision-Making body, according to EVDC authority. Application Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission Approval Town Board Approval Staff Level Approval Amended Plat Yes Development Plan Yes Re-Zone Yes Yes Preliminary PUD Yes Yes Preliminary Condo Map Yes Yes REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Development Plan: §3.8.D Development Plan Standards for Review requires the staff review and recommend approval/denial to the EVPC. The EVPC shall review the development plan application and ail submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the following standards: 1. The development plan shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC; and, 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Code Amendment (Re-Zone): §3.3.D All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amended to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. 3. Preliminary PUD: All applications for Planned Unit Developments shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements and review standards set forth below and in Chapter 9, "Planned Unit Developments," and with all other application provisions of this Code. rrt1 Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 p Fall River Village II _I. Page 2 of 10 1. Preliminary PUDs. An application for approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan, together with submitted plans and reports, shall be reviewed for conformance with the following standards: a. The PUD shall be consistent with and implement the planning goals, policies and objectives as contained in this Code and in the Comprehensive Plan; b. Adverse impacts on adjacent properties, including but not limited to traffic, noise and visual impacts, shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; c. The PUD shall be integrated with adjacent development through street connections, sidewalks, trails and similar features; d. Except as provided in Chapter 9 below, all district, development and subdivision standards set forth in Chapters 4 (Zoning Districts), 7 (General Development Standards) and 10 (Subdivision Standards) shall be met; and e. As allowed in Chapter 9 below, certain standards may be modified or varied upon a finding that the proposed PUD incorporates creative site design such that it represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards, including but not limited to improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads and other utilities and services; or choice of living and housing environments. 4. Preliminary Condo Map. §3.9.E. All subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," and all other applicable provisions of this Code. A FEst il e R s i Valle v y .11 Plann il ing Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 3 of 10 j SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering Parcel Number: 35252840018 & 3525209005 Development Area: Approx. 8 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped western portion and 3 duplexes on eastern portion Proposed Land Use: 12 new accommodations units, community center and maintain existing duplexes Zoning Designation: CO Commercial Outlying and RM Multifamily Residential Proposed Zoning Designation: CO with PUD overlay Adjacent Zoning: East: RM Multifamily Residential North: E-1 Estate West: RM Multifamily Residential South: CO Outlying Commercial with PUD overlay Adjacent Land Uses: East: Residential condos North: Single-family residential West: Residential condos South: Residential/Accommodations condos and multifamily Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District REVIEW CRITERIA: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issue relevant to any particular project. 1. Landscaping. The site includes several existing trees (mature) and shrubs. The applicant has proposed providing 63 additional trees and 86 additional shrubs. There are several existing natural buffers (mature trees and topography) that are being enhanced with new landscaping. Other areas of the site do not allow for additional landscaping. Staff has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and has allowed the alternative proposal for locational requirements. 2. Public Trails/Sidewalks. A 5 foot wide ADA compliant sidewalk is proposed along Sunny Acres Court (private drive) and also within the internal development site that serves the new accommodations units and Community Center. A staircase path is proposed to link the Community Center with the lower portion of the Fall River Village PUD. A gravel path is proposed to link the overflow parking area with the new Fall River Village II project. Farview Drive does not have sidewalks at the time so this project does not propose extending a sidewalk to the public street. The staircase path and gravel path are not required to meet ADA standards. The 5 foot concrete sidewalk is required to be ADA compliant. 3. Utilities. The property is currently served by all utilities. The main lines are not efficiently located for the proposed development. Some sewer and water mains are proposed to be re-located. One fire hydrant is also '1' Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 4 of 10 Fall River Village II proposed to be re-located. All utilities will be re-located within appropriate easements. The Final Plat map shows all easements. Some electric/telephone/cable lines will also be rerouted within easements. The sewer main on Lots 5-7 will have to be lowered in order to make the driveway connection from the subject area to the lower existing Fall River Village. Grades at this location require the sewer main to be buried deeper. All public infrastructure is required to provide a cost estimate sheet and financial securities before any final plans are finalized for recording or other permits granted. 4. Fire Protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed this proposal and has no comments/concerns. The existing fire hydrant is proposed to be relocated near its current location. The submitted fire truck turning template has been reviewed and approved by the EVFPD. 5. Open Space. PUD applications require open space to be dedicated with the project. This project is part of the Fall River Village PUD which already dedicated open space (Outlot B along the river). This project proposal also entails protecting several rock outcropping areas and steep portions of the site through Limits of Disturbance areas on the plans. Newly protected areas on Lot 5A equate to roughly 35% of that existing lot. Staff finds the original PUD open space dedication (30%) meets Code standards in regards to size requirements for the entire PUD development area. 6. Stormwater. The project area is located near Fall River and does not propose on-site detention. The original PUD did not produce a stormwater report. The anticipated stormwater impact from the original proposed seven single-family homes does not warrant requiring stormwater detention facilities. A preliminary drainage report was provided to Staff for review. The proposed lot coverage is consistent with the original proposal of 40-50%. The applicant proposes to encourage shallow sheet flow over grass buffer areas to help filter the stormwater before it is discharged onto lower Fall River Village and then into Fall River. The majority of the stormwater is anticipated to flow southwest into the curb and gutter drainage system along the western portion of the existing infrastructure of lower Fall River Village. 7. Parking. The project includes the appropriate amounts of required off- street parking for the existing and proposed accommodations units and Community Center. The Community Center requires 26 off-street parking spaces. The Accommodations units on the west portion of the site require 27 spaces. 53 spaces are required for the west portion of the site. 58 spaces are provided. The east portion of the site with existing Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 5 of 10 IP! Fall River Village II duplexes/triplex requires 12 spaces. The applicant has provided 17 spaces at this location. A total of 70 parking spaces are required for the Fall River Village II project. 75 parking spaces are proposed. 8. Access. Sunny Acres Court is the only point of access for the entire site. It is accessed via Far View Drive to the north. This project proposes to enhance access points for emergency purposes by connecting the subject area with the existing lower Fall River Village development. The second point of access is for emergency vehicles as well as pedestrian usage (Sunny Acres Lane, existing asphalt drive on western portion of site). The original Fall River PUD included a traffic study which stated traffic can be effectively accommodated on the existing roadway network. Mitigation measures were not recommended. This project proposes to add five units more than the original PUD. Staff finds that the current proposal reduces potential access conflicts regards to emergency vehicles. 9. Community Center. The proposed Community Center is defined as a Banquet Hall/Similar Gathering Space which is accessory to the principal use (Resort Lodge/Cabins). Banquet Halls are restricted to guests, customers or visitors to the principal use. Per EVDC regulations, detached accessory structures cannot exceed 1,000 square feet in size for nonresidential uses. Previous projects in the Estes Valley have developed accessory buildings over the 1,000 square foot maximum. Current staff is unaware how that was allowed to happen. Staff is requesting a waiver to the 1,000 foot provision for detached accessory buildings for nonresidential uses. This request is part of the PUD waiver process listed in this staff report. 10. Rezoning. The project proposal includes a Rezoning request for the eastern portion of the site which is currently zoned as RM-Multifamily Residential and developed with three duplex buildings. The western portion of the site is zoned as CO-Commercial Outlying with a PUD overlay. The eastern section is required to be zoned to CO in order to be eligible for the PUD overlay. The applicant wishes to incorporate the existing eastern portion with the overall Fall River Village II project. Amending the Plat will result in one legal lot, proposed to all be zoned CO with the PUD overlay. 11. Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Guidelines for the Fall River Area state that this planning area is a dominant accommodations and residential area that is generally compatible with one another as uses. The Plan states that development should be located across the river from the roadway and lodge-style buildings should be enforced as an appropriate development type at this location. 0 F Est ll e R s i Valle v y li Plann il ing Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 6 of 10 I Staff Comment: Staff finds that the zoning (CO and RM) does not align with the future land use designation of Two-Family Residential at this location, but the proposal does fit within the future land plan for development type. The Comprehensive Plan states that accommodations uses are prevalent along the river and should continue to remain with lodge-style buildings even though the future land use map does not reflect this. 12. PUD Waivers and Modifications. Through the PUD process, waivers and modifications to Code standards may be approved if the proposal incorporates creative site design or is an improvement over the existing site. Improvements include but are not limited to open space, access, environmental protection, tree/vegetation preservation, efficient provision of streets, roads and other utilities and services, or choice of living and housing environments. The requested waivers include: 1. Floor Area Ratio. FAR for the CO — Outlying Commercial is required to be no more than 25%. The proposal calls for 29.7%. The property is being developed as an accommodations property. There is no max FAR required in A-Accommodations zone districts. 2. Off-Street Parking. This proposal calls for allowing parking within the access easement for Sunny Acres Court. The applicant stated this waiver would encourage traffic calming through the neighborhood. The drive is not designated as public ROW as it is a private drive. Per the EVDC, all off-street parking spaces shall be accessible without backing into or otherwise reentering a public right-of-way. This waiver is not needed to accomplish what is being proposed as there is no public ROW within this development. 3. Minimum Curve Radii. The internal drive is required to be built to street standards with a minimum centerline radii of 100-feet. The proposal entails a 50-foot radii on one section of the drive to allow units to fit appropriately on the site. Fire District standards will be met. 4. Building Height. The Community Hall is proposed to be built 8-feet higher than what is permitted at this location. Although this portion of the site is steep, existing conditions require the building to be elevated in order to meet grade requirements for the drive. 5. Driveway Grade. EVDC requires no more than a 9% grade for non- residential uses. This proposal provides a grade of 12% for the second point of access along the west portion of the site. This asphalt drive will be used as an emergency route and not for the general public. Residential drives have a max grade requirement of 12%. 6. Setbacks. The eastern portion of the site (currently Lot 5A, Sunny Acres) has an existing setback of 10 feet from the north and east property line. Three duplexes exist at this location and were built outside of the 10 foot setback. The property is currently zoned RM. With rezoning this section of the project area to CO, the setback will increase to 25 feet. The applicant is asking for a setback waiver to maintain the 10 foot setback at this location. Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 7 of 10 Fall River Village II 7. Type A Loading. The private community center is required to have a loading area due to its use type and size. A waiver is being requested to not provide a loading area. The applicant stated the size and use of the building will not require large trucks to service the property. Also, the location of the parking area due to the steep slopes to the south do not allow for a Type A Loading Area. The applicant is proposing allowing small trucks to utilize a standard size parking stall for loading. 8. Accessory Building Size. Staff has requested this waiver as this specific provision in Code is found to be unnecessary and not aligned with how previous projects were processed. Nonresidential detached accessory buildings (community halls, banquet halls, meeting space) located in nonresidential zone districts should be allowed to be over 1,000 square feet in size. Staff has reviewed all the necessary waivers and recommends approval. The site is proposing to protect natural open space above what is required for the entire PUD site. This developed aims at providing new accommodations units in close proximity to Downtown and encourages walkability with multiple sidewalks/paths. The Comprehensive Plan encourages denser development in close proximity to Downtown. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff. PUBLIC COMMENTS: in accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Typical mailings include a 500-foot radius. As of May 11, 2017, several written public comments have been received for this application package. All written comments are posted to www.estes.orq/currentapplications. Concerns from surrounding neighbors include but are not limited to: 1. Community Center roof top deck 2. Potential noise from Community Center 3. Reflective nature of metal materials on Community Center 4. Community Center parking and traffic 5. Community Center public/private events? STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The development plan, preliminary PUD, preliminary condo map, and rezoning comply with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Development Plan, Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map, and Rezoning comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. 3. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the Development Plan and Recommending Body for the Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map, and Rezoning. Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 8 of 10 Fall River Village II 4. Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Fall River Village II project. SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR DEVLEOPMENT PLAN: 1. I move to APPROVE the "Fall River Village II Development Plan" according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. move to APPROVE the "Fall River Village II Development Plan" according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by Staff.] 3. I move to CONTINUE the Development Plan application to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 4. I move to DENY the Development Plan application. SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PUD, PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP, AND REZONING: 1. I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to Town Board for the "Fall River Village II Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map, and Rezoning" according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. [I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to Town Board for the "Fall River Village II Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map, and Rezoning" according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by Staff.] 3. I move to CONTINUE the "Fall River Village II Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map, and Rezoning" application to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 4. I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the "Fall River Village II Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map, and Rezoning" application. \,1 Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Pr. Fall River Village II Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. General Site Plan 5. Final Plat 6. Community Center Height Renderings Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Condo Map, Development Plan, and Rezoning plans can be found at www.estes.orq/currentapplications. 11 Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 10 of 10 Fall River Village II Lscd, STATEMENT OF INTENT FALL RIVER VILLAGE II DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PRELIMI REZONE, AMENDED PLAT, AND PRELIMINARY CONDOMAP of Lots 1-7 and Outlot A, Fall River Village and Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition Revised 04-12-2017 PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed development is on Lots 1-7 and Outlot A, Fall River Village and Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition. The property is located south of Highway 34 Bypass off of Far View Drive on Sunny Acres Court, just north and above Performance Park and Fall River Village. The property address for the existing units are 260, 262 ,264, 265, 266 and 267 Sunny Acres Ct. OWNER: The owner is Fall River Village LLC, operated by Metropia, LLC, which is managed by Paul Pewterbaugh. Great Western Bank is a lienholder on the property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is a multi-family development whose primary purpose is to redevelop Lots 1-7 of Fall River Village P.U.D. as a multi-family lot with three duplex's, two triplex's and a community hall instead of the seven single-family lots that exist there today. In addition to redeveloping the seven Jots, we would like to incorporate Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Addition into Fall River Village P.U.D. so that Lot 5A can be a part of Fall River Village property and share in the costs and amenities. In order to do this Lot 5A will have to rezone from RM to CO since any PUD has to have an underlying zone of CO. Lot 5A currently has four units and is in the process of building two more. It recently received a building permit for the additional two units. In order to efficiently redevelop Lots 1-7, it is necessary to eliminate the lot lines and combine it with Outlot A and Lot 5A to make one larger lot. This will help minimize setback issues, allow us to reconfigure Sunny Acres Ct, and connect the upper lots with the lower Fall River Village. This would be done with an Amended Plat that will vacate the lot line easements and reconfigure new easements to fit the proposed development. Once the development is complete, the units would be condominiumized as the lower Fall River Village has been. It will likely be condominiumized as a separate property, Fall River Villages II, but still be a part of the Fall River Village HOA. ACCESS: Currently the Lots 1-7 and Lot 5A have a single access point that is off of Far View Dr. through Sunny Acres Ct. This project will enhance the access for emergency purposes by reconnecting this development with the lower Fall River Village. The second access will be accessible for emergency vehicles as well as provide a route for guests to go straight to the proposed units from lower Fall River Village instead of going out onto the street network. A traffic study was performed for the original Fall River Village P.U.D. and it stated that traffic can be efficiently accommodated on the existing roadway network and that mitigation measures are not recommended. We are adding five Page 1 44 units to the original P.U.D. design, however by opening the ability to travel within the facility, there will not be a significant impact on the surrounding streets compared to the potential of seven single ' family homes on Lots 1-7. The current access into the property is designed to he a gated community. We plan to remove the gated network and eliminate the center island to enhance flow through the entry. It is currently difficult for lire trucks to get through the entry and this will help that problem. We will also put a chain up to the lower road at the entry point to eliminate the congestion of drives at the entry. It will be a circuitous route through the property to get to lower Fall River Village, so that will discourage the general public from using it as a through road. OPEN SPACE: This project is part of the Fall River Village P.U.D which already dedicated open space. The area that was set aside for open space in the original Fall River Village PUD consists of Outlot B (along the river), and the multiple seating areas, pool and hot tubs located throughout the property. With this new PUD we are trying to protect the rock outcroppings on the southwest portion of the lot, the steep cliffs along the southeast portion of the lot and are providing a sidewalk/staircase through this development that will provide a safe walking route to the Community Hall. UTILITIES: This property is currently serviced by all the main utilities. The main lines however are not efficiently located for the proposed development. Some main lines will have to be relocated. The water line is fine, except for one fire hydrant relocate. Some of the electric/telephone/cable will have to be rerouted for the Community Hall to go where we propose it. The sewer main on Lots 5-7 will have to be lowered in order to make the drive connection from this project to lower Fall River Village. Grades for the connection force the sewer main to be buried deeper which is achievable, STORMWATER: This property is close to the river, so we are recommending no new detention with this project. That is consistent with the original Fall River Village P.U.D. which did not produce a stormwater report. Since the Fall River Village P.U.D was approved as seven single family homes on 1/4 - 1/2 acre lots, we aren't increasing the impact from a stormwater standpoint of what could have been achieved with the single family development. The single family lots would have likely built out with a 40%-50% impervious coverage ratio consistent with what we are proposing with this development. Therefore, we aren't increasing the projected impact to warrant requiring stormwater detention facilities. We are planning on encouraging shallow sheet flow over grassed buffer area to help filter the stormwater before it gets to lower Fall River Village. We also anticipate the majority of it to head to the southwest corner of Lot 1-7 and enter into the curb and gutter drainage system on the western portion of the existing infrastructure of lower Fall River Village. SCHEDULE: The units are planned to be built consecutively without any delay following the construction of the Community Hall. There is not an anticipated phasing plan to build them out. REZONING: Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres will need to be rezoned. A copy of the recent amended plat has been included for the review for that portion of the project. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM: Once this project is built out, it will be condomiumized. To facilitate the condominium process, it is easier to do the preliminary condominium with the development plan. We have modified the Fall Page 2 of 4 River Village II Development Plan as the Preliminary Condominium Map by adding LCE's and GCE's. PRELIMINARY PUD: We would like to use the Fall River Village 11 Development Plan as the Preliminary P.U.D as well. The development plan has been modified by adding the waiver requests that are pail of the PUD process. We have included a copy of the most recent condominium map of Fall River Village to see the complete buildout of Lot 8 and assist in the review of all the lots in the original Fall River Village P.U.D. PUD WAIVERS: All the development and district requirements are met with this submittal except for a few things. PUD regulations allow us to modify certain standards upon finding that the proposal incorporates creative site design and is an improvement over the existing site. Lots 1-7 were built to be single family homes, however that is not an appropriate use for this area of town. The comprehensive plan calls for denser housing downtown to encourage living and vacationing within walking distance of downtown. This project provides for that by building more units than originally planned. The PUD process is usefull with this site to incorporate the recreational facility as a mixed use development and encourage higher density in the downtown corridor. The recreational hall is the feature piece of the property and the larger units in Fall River Village H compliment the units in the lower Fall River Village. This type of development is what the Comprehensive Plan encourages to bring more people to the downtown corridor and encourage them to walk to town as well. In order to fit the units on the property a few waivers arc being requested. 1. Units 1-5 arc up to 5 feet to the 50 foot easement for Sunny Acres Court. This is needed to fit the units without pushing units 9-12 over the edge of the rocks. This is good for community and traffic calming by bringing people closer together. Wide streets with large buffers encourage speeding through these neighborhoods and with the units and parking close to the road, people will slow down and talk with their neighbors. The exterior parking spaces for Units 1-5 will also he into the easement. The Community Hall is also 4' from the 50' easement for Sunny Acres Court. 2. The Floor Area Ratio for Commercial Outlying is 25% and we are at 29.7%. This exceeds the zoning allowance by 4.7%, however we are developing this like an accommodation property which Floor Area Ratio does not apply. We would like to request a waiver from the Floor Area Ratio requirements. 3. On-street parking is not permitted in the code in the CO zone, but we have proposed parking along the drives on this property. This request is in lieu of a large parking lot and does help to provide traffic calming through the neighborhood. 4. Minimum curve radii for streets. The internal drive must be built to street standards and the minimum centerline radii is 100'. We have proposed a 50' radii on one section of the internal drive to enable the units to fit. This will meet the requirements of the Fire Department and will also help to slow traffic through the neighborhood. 5. The Community Hall is requesting a height waiver of 8' from the EVDC. The height limit was calculated using the formula in Figure 1-4 of the code, however the lot has a very steep grade and Sunny Acres Ct. was built with a lot of fill at the southern end which this building accesses from. This combination forces us to elevate the building to meet the grades at the road. Even though the Page 3 of 4 building is not exceptionally tall from finish floor, we are still 8' above the height limit. The exceptional grade on the portion of the property makes it hard to meet the height requirement, even if it were to be developed as a single family lot. 6. In order to connect the lower property with the upper property, the grade of the drive along the western side needs to be steeper than code . We have designed the grade of the road at 12% which is a request of 3% more than the standard 9% grade allowed in the EVDC. 7. A smaller setback of 10' for the North and East lines of former Lot 5A, Sunny Acres Addition is requested because the buildings already exist. The rezoning of the lot to CO from RM increases the zoning setbacks from 10' to 25'. This request is being made in order to keep the units from violating any setbacks with this change in zoning and subsequent combination with Lots 1-7 and Outlot A of the Fall River Village PUD. They were conforming prior to the rezone and we would like to keep them out of the setback. 8. A request to waive a Type "A" loading dock. The facility is a small building and the parking spaces are adequate to provide for any catering needs that the building will utilize. The size and needs of the space do not warrant any large trucks servicing the property. Typical vans will likely be the only vehicles to service the property and they can utilize the parking spaces for the short duration they will be on-site. Page 4 of 4 Submittal Date: ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Type of Application Condominium Map X Preliminary Map 3 Final Map 3 Supplemental Map Development Plan 3 Special Review Rezoning Petition 3 Preliminary Subdivision Plat r- Final Subdivision Plat 3 Minor Subdivision Plat V" Amended Plat General Information 3 Boundary Line Adjustment 3 ROW or Easement Vacation 3 Street Name Change 3 Time Extension Other: Please specify P P Project Name Project Description Project Address Legal Description Parcel ID # Site Information Lot Size Ft; P PQ2 Z.. --(Q1/.‘; -2 S F . /0*1 1 kri-o FiZ V l'aiD 1c9- /Lcito ev v Co( DI Al( Os.te 141(03 , pup t, 4o-1 Si..4001 Ae: ref> c ZS -Z -• ool c 3 z 5-20-w g 2 3 1;f0_ Grtss‘hrea of Disturbance in Acres 2 _cre Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Is a sewer lift station required? Existing Gas Service Xcel ft /4 F -a. A c co /41 it- Arco on 1/ Town r Well r None KTown r Well r None EPSD EPSD 3 Yes 3 Other r Other (specify) r Other (specify) r UTSD 3 UTSD X No 3 None 3 Septic r None 3 Septic Existing Zoning ig Vis CO zdf,s--/.5 pfrt Proposed Zoning A /1 CO Site Access (if not on public street) 5 /( 0.), Ejkivce-r% d Stt&A 4C-re.S e t: X Are there wetlands on the site? Yes r No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? Primary Contact Information Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Attachments g Application fee V Statement of intent le 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may Include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 rt 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Pork. CO 80517 Cornmun.ty Development Deportment Phone: 1970) 577-3721 r, Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2013.08.27 KT r Yes irg. N Name of Primary Contact Person Jc e C-IDC3(--> f Vi v' /10r-el. Jd c-/ 3 (=tee k6...s -fe: ri( Co 5.617 7- / r Owner r Applicant X Consultant/Engineer Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Fil,fue, LY Date 2 IT Date Contact Information Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax 141 p i.a,t11.ecri #11 j 7iD ja Aga je , iqq-1 Ave 511-1. Erc,oyyz .1>e I CcJ grez:5 Fa (( /7rve , 330_3 t",0. 7zo -33S- Email I0€ VA t° aif C vt't Revised 2013.08.27 KT 5a 444 e pc/ 7ier h u-1/43 A )_i4A o wt LL c- cX, W:f u I Lv+er V-0 ". 1-106/1 1/1,31 ,1-et pe 1'0 el /1°113 ick c'.--e-ta s -R,74;" C / ??Q) 93Eols - e frop,4 a /10,4a3 e- 444 e _5 0 e a} 6 r' f= APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: www.estes.oro/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninoApplicationFeeSchedule.odf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: em61,/ /Nen/. ZZL Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Applicant PLEA / 'E RI : APPLICANT CERTIFICATION II* I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. 0> In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). • acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http://www.estes.orq/ComDev/DevCode re. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. Po. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 110. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. 10. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. Pl. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT. Applicant PLEASE PRINT . agtivir 1/1/5 1J 0 /- ertle41 124 Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date 2-9 /7 Date 2- y Re ,ised 2013.08.27 KT Fall River village II - 100.xls rage 1 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip Patricia Finney 300 Far View Dr #14 Estes Park CO 80517 Fall River village LLC 3303 W 144th Ave #106 Broomfield CO 80023 Airbits, LLC 439 W Elkhorn Ave Estes Park CO 80517 Terry Little & Marcia Hammond 412 Jackson St Denver CO 80206 Stephen & Cathy White 1805 N Broad St Galesburg IL 61401 Gregory Raymer PO Box 49241 Denver CO 80249 Jerry Zahourek 4225 Fawn Trl Loveland CO 80537 Gerald & Linda Johnston 128 Old Creek Dr Monument CO 80132 Murphy's River Lodge, LLC 10047 Allison Ct Broomfield CO 80021 Clueless Wingnuts, LLC 6131 128th Ave NE Kirkland WA 98033 Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Jeff & Julie Boles 300 Far View Dr #D11 Estes Park CO 80517 Robert Johnson PO Box 2744 Estes Park CO 80517 Renee Schwark 13938 Lexington Dr Westminster CO 80023 Ronald & Edwina Hinkle 300 Far View Dr #16 Estes Park CO 80517 John & Sally Tessler 300 Far View Dr #B4 Estes Park CO 80517 Clarence & Mary Harris 9377 Wolfe St Littleton CO 80129 Jowayne Johnson & Roy Arnold PO Box 2744 Estes Park CO 80517 Leo & Linda Paik 9493 Saulsbury Ct Westminster CO 80021 William & Willemina Bean 1216 Andover Dr Wixom MI 48393 Robert & Jill Pries 1107 McIntosh Ave Broomfield CO 80020 Comanche Forks, LLC PO Box 270223 Ft. Collins CO 80527 Manuela Rivas-Marquez PO Box 4216 Estes Park CO 80517 Melissa Thompson 300 Far View Dr #B5 Estes Park CO 80517 ARCA., OR ' a t. • A for internal use by the makes no claim as to data contained hereon. This draft document was prepared Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town the accuracy or completeness of the 1 in = 108 ft 1111=M1=1 0 60 120 A Town of Estes Park Community Development ESTES ,PARK COLORADO Vicinity Map Fall River Village 11 (Preliminary PUD, Prelminary Condo Map, Rezone, Developement Plan) Created By: Audem Gonzales Feet Printed: 5/11/2017 Due to security concerns, The To do not post this document on the make it available to persons wn requests that you internet or otherwise unknown to you. 7fl R LOT 1 -7 & OUTLOT A EAU RIVER Y1LLACE 15 A IA:COA0RI011065) 5 3RD 10.15 FALL RIVER VILLAGE II DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 1, FALL RIVER VILLAGE II RESUBDIVISION A .'ORTION OF THE NW Y4 OF THE NW Y4. OF SECTION 25, T5N, R73W, OF THE 6TH P.M. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO LiGEND - Wm. • A00.9330.7.75•3 -r.oss sn - +14 M.16 41 • •• 05.400 41/060E3 , SPACES/RA I I PEP 3 ImPPTEEs 3 tES • 27 SPACES REOPED 76 SPACES - 50305 R 511 - 30 5:10213 - 12 SP41.2 . II 5MES - LA sPADEs • .3 W. (I VAX) . I IDEA CI Ps) AND,. AXESSIBIZ Csim.C5 MERL cREATEP How 0127.04200 PVC, WWII To If ADAM. L.2 SIATLSTICAL LICTLRMAT1014 ' MA= LOT SA SUNNY ACRES ?LI • SERER RI PLO RATER 6.44cra © GO Ltd STue/NNKER ,a2E HP 040(04 TRoompuEs a PALE EMI NCR Dep. • 605( 111 ...DERE From, LID• Ex [Dow TRAAATORE. • 6460 D. PRI.wr cup. t DAC Lm 00 MERE ROM, E1J ELLER. mampoRRER • fiI.S. 0400 NEW mmurr GARRET • 651-PTCP74 113 .E. DEcoac 4E0E51AL-RE1&01 • IA111,TER 9.421 GAF IRV ARE MEEHAVE SEP WARP SD. 61.4201 • EC. MOIR SIRI 011 RAM. WORM D. SE•ER 1001,30E • TRIER 6121 Ofr VNAE-0100[ ToTRAN1-406074 sumo" woo, ..NoNNE-Roem • SD. 1.11C-EXATING • RATER D1E-E53511TE4 OAS 11€ - DATING -ETC - ELECTRIC MIRED - E51511X1 PNTR amE-1.4 3 PIP 1.1n1•-4. • GA 121 - NEP -EIC 13ECTRIc/C0EMI DRIED - NEM S - SERI'( 1.176 ADM - - 1- RADA UK MERE _--_6 Cos WEE REEEEP ---• (Ti. - ELEGEM (4400) RIPE rENCE-123706 swot AN.3 pown. HEREE-DosTRE cuboi W. - - - - - UPPER OR ROTECH EXISTIRG ST caNrooR kelfkat 015 LNG 1' COMMA- 50111.4 PRP MEE COMM FROPERTT Epd - PAREICA PROPERTY LAD - 1311.0040 WIPP SFR r&Licatia .121D215NAZIOAN I ARRA - a (:,4,11)011 0.1,6. GADSS 5010D.1 ANA.. 4,041 s Cl. /ER E 0. o-l 7 'W S'S - 1' 04£1.1 5_0PC. 07.10 ODATT 2'100 AkkoSnor xi. MO 5 X P 10.1 TER 02025 • - 2.530 51 311.0541.1 0155.71 Rat., Lo. 3,1454./ 55E41(0.1 EAR.• •••• DA urns (1 ufin NAG. OAT' 01243-61. II .41S • 4 DM OFF MEET PARK SNOTS 2 • • -1 R.10, REDRAW. Amm 1014 DADS RECAPED OAF S7111E1 0216'11 PAC. RD, GOP% PACES PROMOES 6 PONT GRAIGSS 14•.31 SPACES PINFRECD 1.044P V.11711 elfGURIC NYCKAD SrACES. 0.1243E0 OSTO55 40 RDA-, DucES. KAY. If 5 PLIRSPAG MAHAN 0.10-5 CE 0,22.2 KiLrrt - 3 WHAM. V,11 IN ACCORD ARE 010 .10 4111312 C. 6 Mt CALt..-ATORE. PRO5OEC• 454.15 - 24,125 0000001,0 SEIRECTON OMAN DP RE, ROOF 1:4107 5,225 SF Rupp mErEARAD 1AR - GP • c+., TCIAL P03601(0 • HEADS TM 611 Sr • 0227 17540 0 /19...-A3 N.D./ .4' ea., .CCESS SINCE 1115 TS MATED 02 Pk ADDERVOCARDIA PARE RS FAR I R 14HKD 1. 01.041341 APPERROMS WHIM& ‘a• E. SO% [12_'451.2 49. .054 Pl. COY 5 11 711 / PEET. - 55 54 RAVAGE si-DariA PAC an 25 TC.12 CO Tramfe IS A • 0 31104004) A PP 1.6X5 PRO.1 PLEA . 50.82-1 SC 1 AD 014 Of LANO 4140(4 0-0/700 40.95 PRA IN PPDASET. PLAGE PDP5-0 E. • COD: ATMS . Re, 3131101 kaTk scy. sr 2. ARAAGE V.SPE 4.11.1 0, DIAT0 a1' to•foLifeS.E.331 J MIDGE SLOPE.,6004.S.3317/10, 72 75 50415 .A.4E00- IW s• F -11 ..+211 - IP 7-170M • 3.210 SA A1106 411 001511.6 10015/.11 II ' 5.4.30 0/0m121 WAWJM 5110.+41 0107110. PAM 155!00 P • 1.210 SE/ • 5.1 Urn -0 • RATE 0110550 MAAR PRO(. D., e DOS 4 1514 OFF SPELT PARAPA RODS 2 SRACEL/J..- • 6 LOOS WI OFF UREA PAPP., SENDS 367605 (2 01 MDR Or GRAZE Al 217) Gm. SPATES PARE. - R SRC, MSG SPACES PRORDED - IL PALI tokOCAP Sr.cE! 01010710 .1 101 ROODAP SPA:. PARC. - 1 TOS 5 aTak EADAT: won - 30' 144, 00516011 TD GOAD or ALNIS9.1 • ACCOPORATE 5,50 kki-JukkE 0.0.41 gonemEe NERO PRDPOSLO 705,4. 74.56.75 ALLEN. Efr6566 aunty. SCIIY. 1,1110.21[ 005.7. 44440 twat.r. UPPER 1500R- 1091 D ORM ROCK 0717 ST 101.11- 3.424 Sf E+13-104 5337 6145 51111>504 01.14- 3,106 Er PROPOSED 1•11.0.11A - 4,776 50 Toll. DRAM 1221411 (0747 06050)11 45071601 FA; 0 CD - ( .1 1014. FAR . 10,7127 ff / WAD; ' . 02, 1. 11003021 LlYttlig£ IMPORADAS COvORGE WINS. 1661.00.3 1.109 SI FAMES ORM. T1,021 SF GRAVEL OM, 11361 CPC Wall i/1401(0. 2.231 SA TOTAL 5FERI/o.r3 CO0sP.ADE 11.02. TOP. PLACENTAE 20.44C / 1. - 4905 PARADE LETATIN POD PRIAM. ,675 RPM 05 IDA. 2V PIMA ACCESS 6000200 NA PORN ASIRET PuElAC PERuA LEXPT ARO DIPEDIM , PIADE EASPOR El. AND 6.0110. SCRE. 5531 . R5. 2 SPACES/snirt • I PER TRREE 012R00IE01 1PE01(D NPR) ,5312-D ER - 52 sr,/ca ' • •e.) rut) •REATE• HOW (0110+250 • .41.0H1 TO BE TMKv 40 •S •.e. 5/3' PRPRHE ACCESS MEP. TO 509 *CI LOT I MD LOT 2-5 a PR AMENDED RAT a 95401 ACRES MO A PUlluC UnUrf. MR. NO RUUD. EAsoim D. PORODEXA 1110 •0610ELOS7 PEE 10 BE RAE:. Ci E5. 5LD.5.5 94459 Ur 2 WM, 0.0 2060 f -1 NOTE I. DELOWNER 514, BE RED.( PEE /3 P . IRE A 1. DA AND IBC 2 DITERAR U01411/63 0,A BE L01:43Lu 0- 411ACHED TO DIE 1.-131/13 AND vo.1 BE SECTION 7.6 Of +00 ESTES VALLEY 0.1E1 3 ALL REOVRED IRPROYEITENTS POLL BE SCGDDA 1.12 AND 1051, 0. PEP SECTOR 7.13, *AVERS. • Og PRDTRIADRID MDR 1 • ,1 70000 SID. 0. INMOST E. FENCES 0013 IHE HMS, EACTOSEIRES I CALLAS OF THE BI .4,003S. THE PPL/50-5, 001.1 WAR RAMIE E. APPROAIL OF 11.0 FLAN [BELIESVE 24. CRSAS AMENDED 7 CONTO5R5 HEREON AR EASED AREINE•111 1903 B. 41.. BALDINGS/UNIS 0r.1 1-1.4v0 A P.A. UNT NUMBER AND ADDRESS /ACING r•TE 9 DERE ARE NO AJR150ICTIDNA4. 01015N 10. WS LTE •5 0.1000,000 10 zos 5 0' SEOuNIT7-FE01174. ENENSENCr 145V51EMT THE PRO.E07 TS ANDAPATED IC DKR AND IS ANTICIPATED 7C BE 00127111,e0 in • 12. 11110 1100400.1.1" REENIRES 0CA4111101 BOLDING 005 13_ TPA DtvELONNE, RE324440E0 CCREV41 . 14. LIMITS OF DISToRBANEE 5.11:0_ YE DIE EXCAMEDN, CMADRG. CR CONST,AE T ON 1151103 APPROVED DI" 5'470 IS. SIOCAP5.;,,C, 5-06.1 NOT 200..:0 03.3152 6.009.1101. WORDED 111.40 PED PROCESS FDA PARE$01 RUPP ACCESS FAME. 20' 4151.1706 CO-RES Tor 40.11ws. 001400... MED RI CE FOR 0,015010 ACCE59511.7+ IN ACCORIANCE WITH ”0. KO. RED ENTRE POINTS OF THE NEW BUILDING. 1.1.3 AAD DEFLECTED DOWNWARD. COMPLANCE RREO 3. NT COI 15 MANNED. 2,IRLETE3 OR GUAIINVTIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVOC • EHE ARC 01010 EULIP0E51 ATTACHED TO THE 05+2146 115:11A A COVERED OR PANTED 10 IMPEL VISUAL DORFTREt TO THOS( 0110701311411T WHERIALS AND • , TAT THE TRASH COMPACTCP IODATED ON LOT • 11.10017 RIGHT puRsukr To mocir 1113 Of ITTLE ,.04 G•S CLAMMIER AND ARE SET ON THE NORTH .5T 3 surny pRE3 Tpro O3531+11041 4105.150 DADA. PLO PACcESS 107 A 5' 5EI1.55 TO PRIVME ACEIDS 004(3151 I (55194 ROLLO. CMG *RAIL CURB CPS ME RAE P111 THE DAMP • THE MOST OF THE BMW/5 DESIGNATING THE 4° 12.1 AS APPLICABLE_ ; OR rEATRS 01 THE EA LOCATED ON THIS SITE. 0_20101110 70 THE DEPARTMENT OF HIPIELA110 151,2, S FLOOD 140011152E RATE MAPS (551E1 I014A-1 0..1.0 100 CONSTRUCTION WRING 711E FAL1 Or 2017 41j,J (RASE. 0 1.1HE INIERNADONAL FIRE AND INTERNADCNAL 0.10 1 A ESTES PARK MANIOPAL CODE. ▪ Rid E.. THE FIELD PRIOR TD COMMENCEMENT OR CTRS RACTION BARRIER EDEMA CR 501E OTHER 75' PANATE AMOS FASTime 111 puouC PEOES7R4w LEPIER me DAN. EASEUM AAO RuncroC SM.; 004 co-Ps D. It DNA TO BE ALGROLD UP TO r ES. PAK W. A STAMM ROD PP AS PECESEARE REACH SEWER OF FENCE • AND PAWN &MC EPS. TPA/ 41 reDiCNED 1,5 DET HEATED LRAITS K OATURBANCE LOT • Su. kekES 20rED E-I SIRDEEDI UDC PLAtigtlir SQNSIMON_CEBTIk:1 O ff _ 00000.113 AHD ACCEPTED DT TRE :Ws J E3 2-NyaNC CONIIISSION ON TT. 11. 11 EX. OWE • PNVIRC AREA DADE POLO 215.5 t 267 AlSe3 CT IRE 44510510 co,554.00.1516 2.ED RA CADA. ADREAD. LOTS 10%4. SOT D. I 7 Is'OUISOT • AmENDED• PIP Or 19' ILAPIG _. FOAL PM 541.10 LOT 6.-15u01 ACRES SETBACK - - - - ---- - - - - . - . . ±- ,•-•E-- - /-- - - - - - - - - • - • MEP EASE.. AO' KRUG 1892•29/ 310.91. WIVE 107 LL .....---•-•,--•-- - 4-..../.. • ' --' EDI IL 1 ROTE DE PORTO5 OF FoRIAER57 map AS LOT 5. PEI MA MALRIL Pub Stu. ACRES RASH APR.. TM onviaRPOrt A Auspe+ MI PEA PLOD yell, SCE Of121.11 SPE PJA MR IWORMADON ERADING II 05900•101106 OCT DO., RoRSVER ALL suRFAcL s10000E1413 3.0 tnkTITE THEE 1111 MI kik iima0.4§4.0% 1.2.4 ARE 104(001)0 EXCEPT FOX %Mutt SERVES TO 164 k 341 60.4. AMR, Paw. AND EcEayass. NO 7.41.21-11 ARE RAG .WORD EREPT MR roe 0L4I0H2101 Of DE pop Orf OF SURD ACRES Cl SHELI 1 121 I 0.6000011 POT Of &CCP OM AMP CENTER RC-DA 20,1 ED CO APR I -2-2!1: coir_ILitinypanom 6 (Ft- VIC! ITV MAP SCALI f "= 1000' -Z 11,7 I ° Of • 75,0, PRO(. Nil 2015-11-25 VJ 1 12 z OWNER/DEVILOPIli FALL RIVER WAAGE LLC PRA PEWEE/SNAG. 3303 W. 111TH AVE. 511 106 BROOMFIELD. CO 110023 DICINEER/SL1RTEYOR: VAN HORN ENGNEENI140 SURvETANG 1043 MN CREED RD. ESTES PARK. CO 9.0517 (970) 586-9366 CONTACT PERSON. ACE sos1 ZONING; MATRA LOT 505. AMENDED P.. OE LOT 5 SUN. ACRES 11111 1,11.1511-.1E7 PROPOSED TO R12014E TO CC UM 1-7 lc 1301.01 A. TALL RIVER PURGE POD CO-GOI.ERGIAL 011TL1114 SCALE, I' - 30' SC 9D CRAW) Hi !WC CHECKED Br LAS SCALE 1-oao' COTE: 04-12-2017 PAN.. 0201640901 CRP EsT 1-1 I" ME Sat.= GONG01211W145 IX 20 PRNAM AND EMERGE 11 vciscLE ACCESS FASEBENS P12242 ASDcs110.4. 00070ANO OFLummE EAU / - / Faulm 45 00600 • ••••. FORBES Los s 10.1 vArr 4/FAIL,J EASFA AL*, 114120,1 LRE1 TnS 55624'021 52.30 {332154 14 3220 FOIND 15 REIM 21.1 PLASTIC GP 10.10.14 SUBDIVISION NOTES: 1. owNimsne ANO EASEMENT RESEARCH AND INFORMATION FOR THIS PLAT WAS DE7A1,03 I /0..0 ANC. GUARANTEE COLIIIMEFS TITLE COIMATWENT NUMBER 5C25106/171-5. OMED FEBRL1My 2. 5.7.75 THE d EAU. RASA VILLAGE P.V.D. AND THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY /GRES ADDILDN :0 . TOWN 0' ESTIS PANK.. 2 211 avotims FoR THIS SURVEY ME GRID LIEARINDS OF THE COLORADO STATE PL.1vE CA' 4 1170 115711. NORTH TONE ORM. NOrali AUFRIFAN DATUM 1983 111A0631 AS BETE-RAINED T'r S." 09"r_ 1' 3101 BEARINGS ARE RASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE sturPERLY LINE Or FORMER OCT EA 1 WS 1/802.515232. DENG MONLMENTED ON THE WEST ODE BY A OH REENIF WWII • RIASP.C. CA/ 44099 ALE 314 ME EAST SIDE BY A 1' PIPE 3 COSTING ACCESS EASEMENT. ORICANAU.Y DEDICATED I. BOCK 173E1 PAGE 279. REAI007000 12309 115 3 PAGE 523. AMENDED AT PECEWRON imoole4, LIODNE0 AT RECEPTION/12004077 I204 AVE FELOOAGEG 197,f THE ALLENDrD PLAT Or LOT 5 SUNNY *CRCS ADDITION SHALL SE RELOWEL •-3 SHOW: III Ha PLAT, HOWEVER 114E HAYS AND PROVGOONS SHALL BE HANTAINED 4 THERE WAS A GORE BETWEEN LOT 01, SUNNY ACRES AMMON AND THE EAST SID! 00 FOOL POO.. 114/5 UNE SELL BE VACATED HD T55 CORE MU. BE ABSORBED WTEN 7125 0/014000 • M 5. THE UNE& LIMIT FOR THIS SUEN£F 15 THE U.S.SURVEY FOOT. 6. NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MOST COMMENCE AM' LEGAL ACTION FASO CE0101 N THIS SURVEY W11104 THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DETECT, +4 HO Evi 7 014 ANY ACTION WSED UPON ANY DEFECT IN HIS SURVEY SE DO.VENCED MORE T14.1 TEN YEARS F v., THE CERTIFICATION /- - t • / t- a_ '111.1'2 422..k. 11. 0.11, I/S1000 ▪ NETS II' 1392C UTILITY EMEND. 601 0. EA, AMER BIWA MASI CO FALL ADOLIAPIALS. 510 33'72"1 17135.111. (SPSIVSSV Issa.or) P7. Ps +90.11 /NO 1v,,,%.717/ 3,1-•LL 44,54 ,API INEN - .07.1,- APF,SsiNS, 10 1:1 we: ,,A, AF, LAS 0051 (41 001 W g2f; 565411111 125.11' 0' I FOUND A, 10067 SEC 55-15N-PM 070,3 NW! 0. •p' PIFe LEC,END 00_00 MEASURED DIMENSIONS (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS 0 FOUND 3/01412.01WATION 0 AlJOUOT MONUMENTATION PROPEREY UNE NECHBORINC PROPERTY LIME NEW EASEmENT OR ExISTNIG EASEMENT TO REMA/N - ALIOUOT LNE/11E • - - FORMER LOT UNE TO NE VACATED - • -FORMER EASEMENT UNE TO BE VACATIO Nr pare 2,42. ALL .0'1/MPT Aer, _DRANNa VAP00151-P 4.0.0 Ards, ONE! 70 BE ',AMP EMIMEN LOT T ; ; 0/1101 m REARM 41 SO' PRIVATE ACCESS mac. (SEE NOTE 41) FOR LOTS 2, 1, AND 1 OF Smart AGRES 40041011 NO) A FA/WC LIRLSIS, DRAPPACS MO AMMO EADOM21 SEE NOTE 43 ICS 20 166.10 L/1.011. F,1EI1OB7 FORNER LOT 1 41123221 0011.07 A Lar SAWN ACRES - LOT 1 I PALL RISER MACE L / RESLECANSION FOL.) SOIL MTN 940.5 01 CONCRETE LOT 3 stmvy MAD - 1 • <\\ •••••. NES 20 PUBLIC Bump IDLSDADRT 004202 LOL \ / .' 41'1 4.1/ .d1/ / 4,/ MIACNED c1/012 0110 DA.002741 25' Formai or motor • TO EP". rows. to, NEW 25' Bumps 7.43Evma 11% \•9.. \ \IC. 23'740201 \ 4'71T E!49'F!'r 00, 001802 LOT -2 DINING EASEMENT ;4 • 4. 31/127/CRES'nrr „ SUreEDN'7 0 7 . 7 0 51:27125; 1 o PHNATE MEM 57'". 437 MRCP 02,0FP AGMS 'y N50~36'34NR 5"." 1.111::.52"'avw:ve 17'".. CON. Easogoo Un 'A LOTS 3 k WNW AGFCE SUEMPASONlY 1, A AN3 LOS Nu RE/CP BUSSE P UWE BRNATE LriorT Douro FOR 11:1_ LOT 4 RNM. NO14012.0431 4.-- 1 DPANDEPI.-- SOUDICRLY PRALL EASE/04 POP MC 44 BENDY OF LOIS 3 AND 4 I I it. - ALL PRIMAL LIAd 11 a 5 5: FOLIND 04 PEW ,/ 1711 0 Bugle CAA, LS 12.274 . Jr. ki . \ \ \ EcLud fp ROMP Er, IV PAX N ''\ MT. EASENCNT- \ 41\ 4.:47 '.' .... P .:mot CAA LS 56,11N ---,_i 'NA., suALL Hm. ....• . Arc% -4-F- ill 4, ALSO 43- 1.43875WE 7.11 401020 0 MOND NT DR Ka ACCEPE MRS IT PIPE MIN No EMI /17002M'S 21 p.).. (S07120.1 24.0E1 .6220321 211.50 4101•33151 2-15.01'.430141 052,: • PI ROMP .1,44Narne rAr STABBED Nos PLs =Dr .03,CASECI SAVONPrE 0.91 Cl 4:CLATED IANONCST 15 IK I TO Pb u0 unurr • EASOLIR TO BE WCATED Lor a. rut mu, 01.1011 PSI WES 0014001111BLIWS ZONED OW Ole PM ANDIXO FLAT or RACK 2 .EsT PAPP COWER 01-510 -MUM, I" PIPE MAO 142 1/14 240 24/23-150-R13N PLORPORN VP OM 56 MAR LS 00403 O.% NOON 6.• 06" mum/. Es£ BOLT Pi --0010105 AlLsm. AS COAALS tiV6.1 isimA NA II M ICBM coP Ls Mao swum •pc NNYWNEr loTar (.14.3545S 12/571 STATE DE COUNTY OF 1111 FOREGOING 440•RU1EN1 WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE he THIS --017 OF 20 BY aY (NAL/E) CREST ISC51CRIN DANK (TTLE} LONNIE A. SHELOOM, 000 1 P.L.5 #25074 VICINITY MAP SCALE f"101000 . FALL RIVER VILLAGE II RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1-7 AND OUTLOT A, FALL RIVER VILLAGE P. U. D. AND LOT 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION PORTION OF THE NW Y4 OF THE NW Y4 OF SECTION 25, T5N, R73W, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO CEBTIFICATIQN OF OWNERSHIP AND DR,OICATION; IMO. ALL V10 F/Y 1s2SE PRESENTS HIM THE uNDERSICNLO. SEND 1742 OWNERS OF THE TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED N 7X11 PART 01 TIN. NORINV41 70 OF ENE NORTHWEST TS Or SECTION 25. TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH. RANGE 73 wEr, LARIMEA CYLWITY. CCAINADO, BEING VOTE PARTC04ARor DESCRDED AS Quaffs, 10 wit LOTS 1-7 PAU OUR A Foal E•NER 0,4010E Pv.0. AND LOT 5A OF THE AAILNLICO PLAT OF 1.01 5. SONY/ ACRES MOWN TO 11-IE TO/mi Or EMS PARK COWRY OF LARER, STATE Or COLORADO CANTNNPID 3.80 AGES NOTE 00 LESS. NAVE BY WIESE INI15EN75 cAmSDO TVIE SANE TO BE SURVEYED AND 51710E+11ro 1•710 LOTS TO BE KNOWN AS THE ALIENDED PL•T OF LOTS 1-7 AND OLMS0 A FALL RNER VILAGE PU.0 AND LOT SA 0' THE Ammo PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES MINTON TO 111E /OWN OF ESTIDS, AND DO HERESY DEDIEN1E 061 coNvEy To AND FOR pRATATE USE FOREVER HEREAFTER 71.1 sTREETs As An LAX DLN Am) DESIGNATED ON THS PLAT. .40 Do 2150 DEINGATE EASEMENTS FOR INC INSTALL/DON AND IMMITENANCE OF utkalts AND FOR SpIASAACE AS MF IRO OUT AND DESIGNATED DR Das plfa, 4514000 OUR HANDS AND SEALs TH•S DA , OF 2017 SCALE_ I. 30 40 90 GREAT WESTERN 13414.4 ErITIE1 O DRAWN IL NECKED Enr: LAS 1"50' 04-11-2017 SHEET 1 OF 1 TRW. NO. 2018-11-25 DATE: NCNEE RESUBDIVISION AFC PASIAlre AvaL/C LIENHOLDER' S STATEMENT: TNE LINDERSIONED COES HEREEtt AGREE AND CONSENT TO 11413 PLATTING AND DOES ALSO C014SENT TO SHE DEW-000 Of PIE RIGHTS-OF-9w AND USELIENTS DEPICTED HEREON n404 THEIR MEN IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAM PLATING. PAUL PENTERBAUEN. ON BEHALF OF NWIROPM, LLC 6.14A(240 MENDER 11 FALL RIPER ...LLACE, LEO STATE OF COLORADO: f6S [WNW OE LAAMEN RiL FORECONS INSINJNENT WAS ACKNOW-EDGED BEFORE Ur T.10 - DAY of 20_ 01 PAUL PE.-LPRALGN. WINESS MY HAND AID WON. SEAL. MY caavSSON E16N410 041mE1 WITNESS Iry IIAN0 AND Ofr/CmL SEAL. YT C0•w15se044 ED:r RES NOTARY TUEVC TOWN ENG'INEER'S CERTIFICATE: APPROAD 114 MAN CAMERA OF COM PARS TM 001 O. SO'S. 771770 (17412050 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE: APPROvAL- tall• 107174 Or 11105 PARK CONNALway ofvELDPIALla DIRECTOR NOTICE OF APPROVAL: APPPIONAL OF 101$ H.4.44 DREAM A VESTED PROPERTY 010001 PURSUANT 10 ARTICLE ea OF TITLE 24, C.R.S AS NIENIXO. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: LON.E A spELOON. A OW' RE0I5TERE3 LAND 520.9111. 11 IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DC AMASS CERTI1T NAY THIS FALL MIR w_TACE N RESORDMS.1314 TRULY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE 01 NE CR LMAIS NT DIRECT SLIPERASION OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: May 16, 2017 RE: EVDC amendments for RM Building Height (2 Options), Building Height Measurement, and RM Building Design Planning Commission Objective: Review and recommend approval of amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding maximum building height standards. Code Amendment Objectives: (a) Simplify the way building height is calculated in the EVDC; (b) Increase maximum building height for Multi-family buildings in RM, according to one of two Code-language options, in one of two ways, aimed at increasing the supply of housing, particularly workforce housing; (c) Provide an option to incorporate building-design standards for new multi- family buildings in the RM District. Building Height Measurement (Exhibit A): Current EVDC standards for building height are an odd mix of simplicity and complexity. The simplicity lies in the fact that buildings in all zoning districts have the same maximum height: 30 feet. The complexity lies in the fact that "30 feet" can actually go up to "40 feet" on sloped lots (the great majority in Estes Valley. It is extraordinarily difficult to define the maximum building height under the required algebraic formula in EVDC §1.9.E.2. The use of this formula since 2001 has resulted in some idiosyncratic building heights in our community. Another concern about building-height measurement is that the base reference is "original grade". This term is not defined in EVDC. The Code does define "existing or natural grade" as follows: "...the surface of the ground or pavement at a stated location as it exists prior to development or disturbance." (EVDC §13.3.113) Possibly "original grade" is the same thing, but that is an assumption. In any case, we have a definition that is either non-existent or defective, inasmuch as "prior to development or disturbance" is a meaningless concept. Staff's proposed EVDC amendment would simplify calculation of height by using a simpler method to determine elevation at base, a simpler method to determine height, and a simple vertical connection between the two, as follows: • Base Plane: A horizontal plane at the mean average elevation between a building's lowest-elevation and highest-elevation point along the foundation or outer walls at finished grade ("finished grade" is discussed below) • Height Plane: Also a horizontal plane based on mean average; in this case, between the lowest edge of a roof (e.g., the lowest eave) and the highest point (e.g., highest ridge of a gabled or hipped roof), not counting minor taller features such as chimneys • Height measurement: A vertical plumb line connecting the base plane and height plane. Instead of the ambiguous "original" or "natural" grade, the base plane is now measured at finished grade. This is the ground surface after cutting and/or filling are finished, according to a slightly modified definition in current code. Concerns have been expressed about measuring from finished grade - specifically, whether a developer could pile up a massive amount of fill in order to put an XX-foot building on top of an artificial hill. Another EVDC section puts limits on that activity. 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. Regardless of the specific RM 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. Staff is requesting that the PC and governing bodies vote favorably on this amendment before addressing specific numerical height limits, so that we will have a common dialog and vocabulary. RM District height for Multi-Family Buildings (Exhibit B — two versions): As noted, two options are offered on how multi-family building height might be increased in RM District. May 16, 2017 EVPC Page 2 of 6 (written May 12, 2017) A few common elements between both options are noted here: • Staff is now recommending a lower height limit in RM: namely 38 feet. This figure will easily allow a three-story building with potential for variation in roof style. o It is highly unlikely that a four-story building will be done under this regulation. There is a possibility that a partially buried first floor could result in four floors total, but that is not a popular style and is difficult to build, especially where bedrock is near the surface (i.e., most of Estes Valley). o Additionally, the Building Codes require considerably greater expense to design and build four-floor buildings. Some reasons include greater ADA requirements (e.g., elevators) and more elaborate and expensive sprinkler requirements. • Both alternatives specify that the 38-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 38 feet. Concerns have been expressed that the Valley should not see a proliferation of 38-foot single-family houses. • Part of Footnote (4) is to be struck out in both versions. 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. • Per discussion in the April 18 Planning Commission study session, the lot coverage figure has been increased from maximum 50 percent to maximum 65 percent. The 65 percent value is a common one in other communities' multi- family development lot-coverage standards. We are also advised this was the lot- coverage figure in the Development Code that we had before the EVDC became effective in 2000. The logic as given during the April study session was sound and supports this increase when coupled with the height change, due in part to increased parking-lot coverage. (Staff has experienced considerable acid reflux over the current EVDC definition of "lot coverage", but that repair will be for another day; the definition is bad but not ruinous.) May 16, 2017 EVPC Page 3 of 6 (written May 12, 2017) Dimensional Standard Alternative (Exhibit B1): Under this option maximum building height in the RM District would increase upward to 38 feet from the present 30 feet. That's it. Pretty simple. The question has been raised: Is this sufficient to ensure that new housing units added to our inventory will go to workforce housing — an acknowledged and recognized need in the Valley? Staff would respond that this approach is less targeted than the incentive option discussed below, which would be aimed at requiring a workforce-qualification test for occupancy of the new units. However, we believe this option is viable for two other reasons: (a) The other option is more complicated. Our community — specifically through our elected officials — have expressed an interest in simplifying and shortening the Development Code. While this goal isn't intended to overrise all other considerations, it is important to think carefully about whether adding complexity supports a different goal enough to justify an override. (b) The incentive option would probably mean that a higher proportion of new units will be in the workforce category, but will also probably mean fewer units overall, due to the complexity of qualifying. A higher proportion of a smaller base number may be a net increase or a net decrease. It is impossible to tell without data gathering and analysis. Incentive-Based Alternative (Exhibit B2): This alternative would utilize the existing criteria for attainable and/or workforce housing as the basis for allowing multi-family buildings up to 38 feet in height. Incentives would specify restricting occupancy to households for whom at least one family member is employed within the Estes Park R-3 School District boundaries. Per discussion at the Planning Commission's March 21 study session, draft language for this option has two changes from earlier versions: (1) The incentives are now in Chapter 4 instead of Chapter 11 of EVDC, which is more acceptable legally if incentives apply just to RM [most of the language was copied and pasted from Ch. 11]; and (2) the incentive is restricted to workforce only, rather than workforce and/or income qualification. As with the density bonus already available under this section, a project's units would undergo annual review and approval 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. May 16, 2017 EVPC Page 4 of 6 (written May 12, 2017) The specific mechanism for this annual review, and the mechanism for initial qualification at the plan-review stage, is still being considered among Town staff and the Housing Authority. It is too early to say how this process would work. That aspect should not be of concern to the Planning Commission. The staff will find a way to make it work if an incentive-based amendment is adopted. The discussion will be relevant at the governing-body level, however, as budget and resource questions are in their province. Design Requirements for Multi-Family Buildings in RM District (Exhibit C): The design qualifications are basic and largely speak for themselves. Many of the requirements are good design practice, and most architecturally-designed and/or standardized multi-family plan sets can easily incorporate these features. Probably the most significant element is the third-story stepback requirement. This section states that, for stories that rise about 30 feet, the outer wall of any side that faces a public space (street, park, etc.) will have to be "stepped back" from the stories below by at least 10 feet. This measure would reduce the impact on the streetscape of taller buildings that overshadow the spaces at ground level, and allow more looks at the sky and mountains. Getting good looks is a prerequisite to scoring in basketball. It may be equally or more important in yielding a satisfactory visual and aesthetic experience for Estes Valley visitors and residents. It should be noted that adoption of Exhibit C does move in an opposite direction from simplifying and shortening our Code. Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of Exhibit A, and (with reservation regarding simplicity) Exhibit C. Regarding the two choices for Exhibit B: Candidly, staff prefers the Dimensional Standards alternative, Exhibit B-1, for the reasons outlined above. However, we would recommend that either alternative is an improvement over leaving the multi-family height at 30 feet in the RM District. It is abundantly clear from many perspectives that the Estes Valley has a severe and growing deficit in housing overall, and specifically in housing for our workforce. These Code amendments would make a dent in that problem, but they won't solve the problem all by themselves. Other EVDC amendments are need to foster an increase in housing supply, and measures outside the Development Code altogether will be needed. The current proposal is only a piece in a bigger puzzle. May 16, 2017 EVPC Page 5 of 6 (written May 12, 2017) Recommended Motions: (Three separate motions and three separate votes are appropriate to deal with the three different exhibits in this case:) 1. I move to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners APPROVE amending the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code. 2. I move to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners APPROVE amending the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in [EITHER] Exhibit B-1 [OR] Exhibit B-2, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code 3. I move to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners APPROVE amending the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit C, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: Ch. 1: Measurement; Ch. 13: Definitions] P.C. Draft: May 16, 2017 2. Exhibit B-1 [Chapter 4: Dimensional Standard Alternative]: P.C. Draft: May 16, 2017 3. Exhibit B-2 [Chapter 11: Incentive-Based Alternative]: P.C. Draft: May 16, 2017 4. Exhibit C: Design Standards in RM District May 16, 2017 EVPC Page 6 of 6 (written May 12, 2017) EXHIBIT A [Ch. 1: Measurement; Ch. 13: Definitions] P.C. Draft: May 16, 2017 § 1.9 - Rules of Measurement E. Height. 1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height &1769-1-1-14eetab1ished-by means the vertical distance measured from the mean average elevation of the finished grade ((lowest point elevation + highest point elevation) / 2): (1) To the highest point of the roof surface, including parapet, if a flat roof; (2) To the deck line of a mansard roof; or (3) To the mean height level between the lowest eave and highest ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof. 2. Line of Measurement. Height shall be measured along a vertical (plumb) line connecting the horizontal plane of roof height measurement to the horizontal plane of finished grade, as specified herein. FLL TENNAIN EXISTING NATURAL TERRAIN PRIOR TO GOMM NEIGHS LIMIT FOLLOWS PROFILE OF EXISTING NATURAL TERRAIN NO. PORTION Of WILDING MAY EXTEND ABOVE HEIGHT LOAD WEIGHT NWT FOLLOWS PROFILE 7' Of EX6111M3 NATURAL GRADE ••••••.... ••••••• rte EXISIING TERRAIN PR • 1 aptAttimo CUT IN TERRA/ FILL IN 7E1initt. EGUILDING HEIGHT EXISTING TERRAiN ximum height of ealu-lation-(see Figure 4-4)-,--Thi e - • • • • n-ooritaining-the c • e " e -reef-designinialled-f-Ider-elevatienand -94-a-ding plan with existing and-proposed contours. M„30+[ .5 O(a-b)1 where-: IsA„=--Ma*imum height in feetat-a-l-given-point above-ariginal-g-rade * • C 4=-Elevation at any given point 2,44eas-uremen-t-of-Max-infuu-rn steel u-p-te a maximum of fort M,=35' Me•40' 11,-371 •ik•3•4 X 2,4 Original ground surface 3. Exemptions from Height Standards. The following features shall be exempt from maximum building height: a. Residential- Chimneysto the extent required by the Uniform applicable Building Code(s); and b. Skylights, parapet walls, cornices without windows, communications antennas, Micro Wind Energy Conversion System (MWECS); and bc. 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 of the ctructurcafter cutting or filling / compacting and conforming to the proposed design. 0 ) Area (sq ft.) Width (ft.) Front Side Rear (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 (Ord. 15- 11 §1) Multi- family dwelling structure: 10 38 All other principal buildings: 30 EXHIBIT B-1 [Dimensional Standard Alternative] P.C. Draft: May 16, 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 Minimum Building/Structure Property Line Setbacks [2] [7] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Minimum Lot Standards [11 [4] (Ord. 25-07 §1) Max. Building Height (ft.) 181 Zoning Max. Net Density District (units/acre) 1 Min. Building Width (ft.) RM (Ord. 18-01 §14) Residential Uses: Max =band Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 /10,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [6] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: 1/2 Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 20 [5] (4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor aroa ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of sixty five percent (65%). 50%. (Ord. 25 07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an incrwsc in the addresses measurement of maximum height of buildings on slopoc. EXHIBIT B-2 rIncentive-Based Alternative' P.C. Draft: May 16, 2017 § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts D. Additional Zoning District Standards. 5. Incentives for Workforce Housing in the RM District: Building Height a. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide workforce housing in the RM (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District for persons working in the Estes Valley and their household members, by allowing an increase in the maximum building height (Table 4-2) for multi- family buildings in the RM District. b. Eligibility. All multi-family dwelling buildings as defined herein that are located in the RM Zoning District are eligible for workforce housing height bonus set forth in this this Section. c. "Workforce Housing Unit" Defined. For purposes of this Section and Code, "workforce housing unit" shall mean a housing unit in which at least one household member is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundaries. d. 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 an eligible multi-family dwelling building as workforce housing units shall make such building eligible for a maximum building height of thirty-eight (38) feet, subject to the Rules of Measurement in Sec. 1.9 of this Code. e. Public Sewers and Water Required. All multi-family developments in the RM Zoning District containing workforce housing units shall be served by public sewer service and public water service. f. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Workforce housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B). g. Deed Restriction Required. Workforce housing units developed pursuant to this Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the availability of the unit Minimum Zonin Max. Net g Density District (units/acre) Minimum Lot Standards [1] 1411 (Ord. 25-07 §1) Building/Structure Property Line Setbacks [2] 171 (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Max. Building Height (ft.) [8] Area (sq ft.) Width (ft.) Front Side ;Rear (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) for sale or rent to persons meeting the workforce guidelines and definition set forth in this Section and Code, for a period of time no less than fifty (50) 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 Min. Building Width (ft.) Residential Uses: Max 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 407000; 5,400 sq. ft./unit [6] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15- 11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 20 [5] RM (Ord. 18-01 §14) 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 (Ord. 15-11 §1 ) 10 301T 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 and a maximum lot coverage of sixty five percent (65%).50%. (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which addresses measurement of maximum height of buildings-en slopes. (9) Maximum height for multi-family buildings in the RM Zoning District shall be thirty-eight (38) feet, for developments that comply with the provisions of Sec. 4.3.D.5 of this Code. n EXHIBIT C [Ch. 4: Design Standards for RM Multi-Family buildings] P.C. Draft (A): May 16, 2017 § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts D. Additional Zoning District Standards. 5. Multi-family Residential Development Standards Site Design a. The minimum separation between multi-family buildings, including accessory buildings, on the same lot or parcel is fifteen (15) feet. b. Individual buildings within a multi-family development shall be oriented to the following: i. Common open space, such as interior courtyards or on-site natural areas or features; ii. Perimeter streets; iii. Other residential buildings; or iv. Through-access drives. c. Buildings shall be oriented or arranged in a manner to enclose common open spaces such as gardens, courtyards, recreation or play areas, that shall contain a minimum of three of these features: i. Seasonable planting areas; ii. Trees; iii. Pedestrian-scaled lighting; iv. Gazebos or other decorative shelters; v. Seating; vi. Play structures for children, or vii. Natural features or areas. Building Design a. Floors rising above thirty (30') in height shall be stepped back ten (10) horizontal feet from the building's foundation or vertical wall at grade for building elevations that are adjacent to a dedicated public street, dedicated public trail, or dedicated public open space. A maximum of sixty (60) percent of the overall façade width may encroach in this "stepback". a. The maximum length of any multi-family building shall be 200 feet or six townhomes units, whichever is less. b. Multi-family buildings with a façade length of greater than thirty (30) linear feet shall incorporate a variety of different wall planes and roof planes and shall feature a minimum of two of the following design elements in the design of the front façade: i. Bay windows ii. Covered porches or balconies; iii. Structural offsets of a minimum of four feet from the principal plane of the façade; iv. Accent materials such as brick, stone, or stucco with banding highlights; or v. Window grills and shutters. c. Side and rear facades should maintain the architectural design, articulation, level of detail, and materials consistent with the front facade. d. Second and third floor massing and articulation shall relate to ground floor. e. At least fifty (50) percent of all ground-floor units shall be provided with a minimum 6' x 10' patio directly accessible from the unit. At least fifty (50) percent of all units above ground-floor level shall be provided with a minimum 4' x 10' balcony directly accessible from the unit. f. Rear-loaded units shall be the first choice when facing public streets while front-loaded units should be used when development faces a side or rear property line. q. Windows and garage doors should be "punched" in from the exterior building wall or should be defined by well-designed trim. The trim material should contrast with wall materials. EST Karen Thompson ‹kthompson@estes.org> esearch on Expanding Height Limit 1 message jbhull@aol.com <jbhuil@aol.com> Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:40 AM To: bob@bobleavitt.com, rhunt@estes.org, kthompson@estes.org, russestesplanningcommission@gmail.com, jbhull@aol.com, sdwtulok@aol.com, mgmoon@aol.com, dougklink@gmail.com, steve@estesvalley.net, ronaldfnonis@gmail.com Hello All, I understand we will be hearing new proposed code language on raising the height limit throughout the Valley to 38 feet with no 10% increase granted by staff. I'm still against this-- right now with the 30 foot limit, staff can grant a %10 increase to make the limit 33 feet. I still do not believe there's anything a developer can accomplish in a 3 story building at 38 feet that cannot be accomplished in a 3 story building at 33 feet. I decided to make a quick tour around Estes Park to look at existing 3 story buildings that fit the present height limitation. I learned a great deal and invite you to do site visits to the addresses I'll list below: First, I had to ignore commercial buildings, such as motels, all the way from what used to be the Holiday Inn and the Alpenzel. Then I divided the 3 story buildings I saw into private dwellings and condo complexes. The private dwellings are all over-- on my own road-Stonegate- there's 1710; then on Devil's Gulch, my quick drive by exposed three-- 1882, 1527; and also 567 Little Beaver Drive off Dry Gulch. Then, take a look at Charles Heights and Hallet Heights, and Coyote Run in the Reserve. Lastly, 2231 Arapahoe. I know there are a ton more. But, I knew we'd be most interested in the condo complexes-- Wow! I saw a bunch and this was a pretty fast tour. 1) Grand Estates Timbers of Estes off Highway 38-- 1235 & 1237 2) North Lake Condos across from Ace Hardware-- this was the ONLY one that wasn't particularly attractive and had a flat roof 3) Mountain Creek Condos in front of and to the left of the Stanley Hotel 4) Of course, the Aspire Residences in front of and to the right of the Stanley Hotel 5) On Graves Avenue- 3 apartment buildings-2 green and 1 grey 6) 600 Moccasin Drive- 3 buildings 7) Peaks Condos at 200 Riverside and 160 Riverside 8) Riverside Condos 9) The Condos immediately to the right of Mary's Lake Lodge. My point is that if these attractive condo complexes fit the present height limitation of 30 feet + %10= 33 feet, why can't new ones fit as well?? Many of these are built on hillsides, which seems to be what probably will be available for new development as well. Betty I TOWN or ESTES PART Staff Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II Date: May 16, 2017 RE: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC §3.2, §3.5, §4.3, §4.4 and §13.3 (Special Review Uses) Planning Commission Objective: Review and recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.2, §3.5, §4.3, §4.4 and §13.3 (Special Review Uses): amendments to the Special Review Use regulations regarding the Procedures for Approval, Standards for Review, and Permitted Uses Table. Code Amendment Objective: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following: • Removes language in Standards for Review referring to "mitigate to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts" and defines more clearly the review criteria associated with this type of review. • Provides the reviewing bodies a list of specific review criteria to which the applicant shall provide a narrative addressing each criteria as it relates to the project. • Separates Special Review into two categories; S1 and S2, each with their own review process (i.e. S1: Board approval or S2: PC recommendation and Board approval). • Shortens the review and approval process for many Special Review Uses found in the Permitted Use Table for Residential and Nonresidential uses by designating them as either S1 or S2. Proposal: Amend EVDC Sections 3.2, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4 and 13.3 as stated in Exhibit A ["PC Draft"], dated May 16, 2017, attached. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit A to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: This text amendment is a follow-up to Planning Commission and Town Board's direction to amend the Special Review process for Special Review Uses to make the review process and review criteria more clear. Throughout 2016, a high profiled application for Special Review was reviewed by both Planning Commission and Town Board. Both PC and TB continued this item for further review based off the vague criteria currently found in Code, "mitigate to the maximum extend feasible, potential adverse impacts". This statement in Code allowed for any and all potential impacts to be explored by the reviewing Board, staff and the public. This essentially prolonged the process due to new potential impacts being introduced at every public hearing. Although each potential impact was important to discuss, the process would have been a lot shorter if the impacts were all introduced at the first public hearing. The application opened up a great discussion on Special Review and what information should be required during review. After this project was denied staff met with Planning Commission during Study Sessions to fine tune a new Special Review process. The main outcomes of those Study Sessions are listed in the Code Amendment Objectives of this staff report. This Code Amendment is a culmination of PC Study Session discussions and Staff's interpretation of PC, TB, and BOCC goals for this Code Amendment. Staff's understanding is that the Planning Commission wanted a set list of standards/criteria the applicant was responsible for addressing with submittal of the application so the commission could make a more informed decision. Staff's understanding is that Town Board wanted a more defined process for Special Review to allow citizens, developers and staff to understand more easily. This includes creating an S1 and S2 process, both requiring applicant narratives addressing new review criteria and each with their own review/approval process. The BOCC and County Attorney's office wished to be sure EVDC was aligned with proper legal criteria and procedures for quasi-judicial reviews and approvals. One element of the Planning Commission Study Sessions staff has not been included in this proposed Code Amendment is fine tuning the review criteria even more in Chapter 5. It was proposed that staff would add Use specific criteria to Chapter 5 of the EVDC for every Special Review Use (i.e. Religious Assemblies on Arterials would require S1 review while Religious Assemblies on Local Streets would require S2 review). While a great idea, this additional criteria would substantially increase the EVDC in regards to words and complexity. This directly goes against Town Board's goal of making the Code simpler by fundamentally reducing the number and complexity of regulations. Staff is not proposing adding Estes Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 5 May 16, 2017 additional regulations in Chapter 5, Use Regulations of the EVDC and will address site specific concerns/issues through the S1 or S2 process. S1 Uses could in principle go to either Planning Commission alone, or the governing body alone. Either option in Code would save approximately one month in the review timeline at minimum, resulting in a smoother and more streamlined process for lower-impact Special Review proposals. Staff recommends the judicial governing body approve S1 Reviews, because under quasi-judicial procedures, the Planning Commission cannot give final approval to quasi-judicial proposals. This would prevent determination of matters such as compatibility, harmony, and similar discretionary criteria. Planning Commission would retain recommending capability on such matters under S2 Review procedures. The amendment is intended to align with the successful approach Larimer County has had in place for their Special Reviews. Staff Findings of Fact: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments — Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review "All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:" 1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;" Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. 2. "The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;" Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Estes Valley Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 May 16, 2017 3. "The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved." Staff Finding: Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment in principle. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Creates a more defined process for reviewing Special Review Uses. • Removes vague criteria statements that lead to wider discussions and inhibit making a decision. • Shortens the review process for several Special Review Uses Disadvantages: • None Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Level of Public Interest: High: Proposing Code Amendments aimed at simplifying Code and making it easier to use by various groups Low: This particular Code amendment Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because... (state reason(s) for continuance - findings). Estes Valley Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 May 16, 2017 DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Attachments: i. Exhibit A: Special Review (May 16, 2017). Estes Valley Planning Commission Page 5 of 5 May 16, 2017 EXHIBIT A [May 16, 2017 — Planning Commission Draft, Special Review] § 3.2 — STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE F. Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Application/ Pre-Application Staff Review EVPC Board Completeness Conference & Report Action Action Certification _ . M A A A A A M A A A A N/A A V A M A A A V A A N/A A M A A A A - M A A A A I M V M V A F A- --- — A A-SR 1 N/A BOA A-SR 111/L% A-SR A-SR APP A A N/A APP A Code Amendments- Text/Map Preliminary Subdivision Final Subdivision PUD-Preliminary Plan r— PUD-Final Plan Special Review Uses Sf Special Review Use S2 Variances (Ord. 18-01 #5 Minor Modifications Development Plan Review Use Classification (Ord. 8 05 #1) Separate Lot 1 Determinations (Ord. 8- V A A N/A APP 05 #1) Temporary Use Permits V A A N A N/A Minor Subdivision(Ord. M A A A A 18-01 #5) Location and Extent M A A A APP Review (Ord. 21-10 §1) Conditional Use Permit M A A A APP (Ord. 21-10 §1) Annexations (Ord. 18-01 #5) M A A N/A A "V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable "APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to Text) § 3.5 - SPECIAL REVIEW USES A. Procedures for Approval of Special Review Uses. Applications for approval of a special review use shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter. Uses that require a Special Review and are subject to the regulations of this section are stated in the use tables Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts and Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Special Review Uses shall be reviewed through an SI or S2 procedure. Those uses that have a wider public interest or impact shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. Both review procedures provide an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts, to allow the use but impose mitigation measure to address identified concerns. or to deny the use if findings establish that concerns cannot be resolved. Approval of a Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning district and shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site. Approval is subject to such modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be deemed appropriate by the Decision Making Body. B. Standards for Review. All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code. and the following requifernent: The application for the proposed special review-use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential-a€1-verse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities-and- &, and the environment Applications for S1 or S2 Special Review shall provide a narrative that describes how the proposed use fulfills the applicable requirements and standards for the use. In order to minimize adverse impacts of the proposed use, an approval of Special Review Use may be conditioned based upon information provided in the narrative and staff findings. For purposes of the Special Review, the narrative shall describe the following, as applicable: 1. The proposed use and its operations; 2. Traffic generation; 3. Existing zoning compatibility; 4. Neighborhood compatibility; 5. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping, and surfacing; 6. Effect on off-site parking; 7. Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design; 8. Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur; 9. Noxious odors; 10. Exterior lighting; 11. Effects on air and water quality; 12. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as; a. Glare. This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding; b. Noise; and c. Dust 13. Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities; 14. Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and maintenance; and 15. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources, cultural resources, or other significant natural resources. C. Lapse. 1. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval of special review shall automatically render the decision null and void, unless a longer period is approved by the decision-making body as a condition of approval. 2. If a legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approving such special review use shall automatically lapse and be null and void., unless a longer period is approved by the decision-making body as a condition of approval. 3. Prior to the end of the t-h-Fee-year lapse period set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the owner or authorized agent of the property receiving special review use approval may seek an extension of the three year lapse period for an additional two (2) years by petitioning either the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners for an extension of two (2) years. Said petition shall be filed prior to the expiration of the three year lapse period and shall set forth reasons why the project will be commenced within the requested two-year period. The decision on any extension shall be at the sole discretion of the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners. No additional extension of the additional two-year lapse period shall be granted, except in connection with a new Special Review application and review. (Ord. 07-14 §2) (Ord. 07-14 §2, 2/25/14) Number of Parking Spaces 10 - 20 Construction of Gross Floor Area 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. 3-10 3-10 dwellings, guest units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8- 05 #1) 11 or more 11 or more dwellings, guest units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05 #1) P § 3.8 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW A. Purpose. The purpose of the development plan review process is to ensure compliance with the zoning standards and provisions of this Code, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Applicability. All development set forth in Table 3-3 below shall be required to submit a development plan for review pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Section. See also §7.1.B, which requires development plans for all new development on land with slopes steeper than thirty percent (30%) or on land containing ridgeline protection areas. No development, excavation, site preparation or construction activity, including tree/vegetation removal or grading, shall occur on property subject to this Section until a development plan has been approved. Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements Staff Review 4-I EVPC Review All Nonresidential Development, Except Accommodations Development, in any Zoning District (Ord . 8-05 #1) Determining Factor 21 or more More than 10,000 sq. ft. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Major alterations that also entail alteration to the] number of parking spaces, the configuration of parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage or lighting on the premises (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. More than 10,000 sq. ft. (Ord. 8-05 #1) All Residential or Accommodations Development (Ord. 8-05 #1) Number of New Dwellings, Guest Units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05 #1) Major alterations that also entail alteration to the number of parking spaces, the configuration of parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage or lighting on the premises (Ord 18-01 #7; Ord. 8- 05 #1) Note to Table 3-3: [1} All Special Review Uses shall be subje64-te-Pl-ari-n-in-g--Gommies-i-an-and-Beand review and -approval-of develo-prnent-plans (Ord. 8-05 #1) (Ord. 18-01 #6, 7; Ord. 8-05 #1) C. Development Plan Approval Procedures. Applications for development plan and Special Review development plan approval shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter, except for the following modifications: Step 3: Staff Review and Report. 1. All development plans subject to staff review shall be reviewed by Staff, who shall take final action by either approving, approving with conditions or denying the application. Staff action on a development plan shall not be final and appealable until the Applicant complies with or accepts ail conditions of approval. Step 4: EVPC Review and Action. 2. All development plans subject to EVPC review, as shown in Table 3-3 above, shall be reviewed by the EVPC, who shall take final action by either approving, approving with conditions or denying the application. D. Standards for Review. The Staff and EVPG recommending and decision-making entities shall review development plan applications and all submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the following standards: 1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans. Single-famil dwelling Two-family dwelling Multi-family dwelling Household Living Group Living Facility, Large Group Living Facility, Small Mobile horn park ----- Senior care facility Large group living facilitie § 4.3 - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-2 RM 1 Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS In R-1 'I:, 13 P P - - P - P P P applies — — — — — — P P (Ord. — — — — P §5.1K ( — — S t — — — — 52 S2 S2 1 E — i — 52 S2 S2 t P P P P PP P P , §4.3.D.4 (Ord. 18-01 13) 15-11 §1) Ord. 02-10 §1) 5.11 5.11 5.11 INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES Day Care Center (Ord. 6-06 §1) 52 S2 S2 52 .52 S2 52 52 §5.1F I P S2 P P P P RM P P P Utility, Minor "T" Utility, Major - P P S1 RE P P P E-1 S1 P P P P P P P P P P -r--- S1 S1 P P R P 52 Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) Trail/Trail Head Use Classification Specific Use RE-1 Family Home Day Care, Large (Ord. 6-06 §1) Government Facilities Hospital Park and Recreation Facilities Park and Ride Facilities Religious Assembly P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review §5.1.0 (Ord. 19-11 §1) P All other Government Facilities E P R- 1 51 R-2 Si P §5.1F; As accessory to a principal residential use only §3.13, Location & Extent Review §3.13, Location & Extent Review Si P S2 P Public Safety Facilities Si P §3.13, Location & Extent Review §3.13, Location & Extent Review §3.13, Location & Extent Review; Use shall not include office, repair, storage or production facilities Use Classification Specific Use RE-1. RE E-1 E R R- 1 R-2 RM Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) §3.13, Location & Schools 52 52 Extent Review (Ord. 19-11 §1) Continuing Care S2 52 52 52 §5.1I Retirement Facility Senior Institutional Living Congregate 52 52 S2 52 §5.1.1 Housing Skilled Nursing — S2 §5.1.I Facility Transportation §3.13, Location & Facility Without Facility Extent Review Repairs P Si Low-Intensity Accommodations ACCOMMODATION USES -1- P P Home §5.1B §5.1B (Ord. 02-10 §1) Bed and Breakfast Inn I Vacation COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES Attached and concealed (stealth) antennas Antenna towers, microcells P/S1 P/51 r-- Wireless Telecommunication Facilities P §5.1T P/51 P/51 P/51 P/51 §5.11- r- RECREATION USES Golf Course P S2 52 S2 §5.1C ACCESSORY USES: SEE §5.2 'ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES." TEMPORARY USES; SEE §5.2, "TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES." § 4.4 - NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional "P" = Permitted by Right Regulations "Si or S2" = Permitted by Special Use Classification Specific Use Review (Apply in All "—" = Prohibited Districts Unless Otherwise A- r Stated) A CD CO CH I-2 RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS P P P P P P P P r P Single-family dwelling Two-family dwelling Multi-family dwelling •In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building having frontage on Elkhorn Avenue •In 0, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building having frontage on Elkhorn Avenue In A-1, no more than 4 dwelling units per multi- family structure In CD, such use shall not be Household Living(Ord. 15-11 §1) located on the ground floor of a building having frontage on Elkhorn Avenue Mobile home park r §5.1.K Additional Regulations Use Classification Specific Use A A CD CO 0 CH 1-1 (Apply in All 1 Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) Group Living Treatment Facility P P §5.1.1 Facility, Large T §5.1.1 Group Living In CD, such use shall not be located on the Facility, Small P P P P - - ground floor of a building having frontage on Elkhorn Avenue INSTITUTIONAL CIVIC & PUBLIC USES -1- Civic, Social, or Fraternal Membership Clubs, Lodges, or Associations Cultural Institutions Day Care Center(Ord. 6-06 §1) P — P S2 S1 P (Ord 19-11 §1) P P P P Use Classification CH 1-1 0 CO CD Specific Use Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) A- A 1 T Si S1 Si Si §5.1.H In CD, such use shall not be located on Elkhorn Avenue Emergency Health Care Si Si §5.1.F §5.2.6.2.d Home Occupation As accessory to a principal residential use only Family Home Day Care, Large (Ord. 6- 06 §1) P Public Safety Facilities In CD, such use shall not be located on Elkhorn Avenue; §3, 13, Location & Extent Review P Government Facilities Trail/Trail Head P §3.13, Location & Extent Review -r S1 S1 §5.1.L; All structures shall be located at least 200 feet away from a residential zone district boundary; §3.13, Location & Extent Review Utility, Major §3.13, Location & Extent Review Utility, Minor pt P Pi P — P P P P P P P P P P Use Classification Government Offices Maintenance and Service Facilities Park and Recreation Facilities Park and Ride Facilities Religious Assembly (Ord. 19-11 §1) Schools(Ord 1941 §1) §3.13, Location & Extent Review Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) §3.13, Location & Extent Review §5.1.L §3.13, Location & Extent Review §3.13, Location & Extent Review §5.1.0 §3.13, Location & Extent Review —1-P P All Other Government Facilities Specific Use P P A- A 1 P P CD P CO P 0 CH P i P P 1-1 P 1 1 retirement facility Continuing care — — S1 Senior Institutional Living Congregate housing — — 7 1 Skilled nursing facility —7 — — §5.1.1 §5.1.1 §5.1.I §3.13, Location & Extent Review P P P Transportation Facility Without Repairs CD CO A- 1 A Use Classification Specific Use CH 1-1 Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) 0 ACCOMMODATION USES Bed and breakfast inns P §5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue Hotel, Small Low-Intensity Accom- modations In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. Vacation Home P §5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. (Ord. 02- 10 §1) Resort lodge/cabins, low- intensity (Ord. 19-10 §1) High-Intensity Accommodations Use Classification Use A CD CO 0 CH 1-1 I Di: ( In lo gro bui P — P — — — )tel vehicle round (cabins P S2 P I — — — P — — — — — — — — T — - — — - §5.1 USE 101 gro buil t Specific Hoste Hotel/M Recreational park/ camp Resort lodge Additional egulations Apply in All tricts Unless Otherwise Stated) CD, such use hall not be ated on the und floor of a Iding fronting n Elkhorn Avenue. J. In CD, such shall not be ated on the und floor of a I ding fronting n Elkhorn Avenue. §7.15 §5.1.P COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES 7 — — 51 Animal Boarding Animal Grooming — — — P — P — — — P P Adult Businesses Animal Sales/Services §5.1.A In CD, such use: • Permitted as only; • Shall not exceed two (2) animals at any time; and • Shall not include animal n accessory use 1 boarding at any time. (Ord. 06-15, § 1, Exh. A) P P — Use Classification r Artist Studio Bank or Other Financial Institution f Building Materials/ Services Business Services Animal Hospital Animal Retail Sales Animal Shows/Sales — — — P Veterinary Office P Specific Use A 0 CH 1-1 P P P—T In CD, no drive- through service P — — shall have access from Elkhorn Avenue §5.1.L A 1 - CD CO P P p T p §5.1.L Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) Catering Service Commercial Laundry Construction Storage Yard T P — P P P §5.1.D; §5.1.L -------- Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) Use Classification Specific Use A A CD 1 CO 0 CH — P P P P — Bar tavern 1-1 P §5.1.G P P — P P Brewpub Microbrewery/ micro- distillery/ microwinery P — P P P Eating/Drinking Establishments - P — P P P P P Restaurant §5.1.G In the A district: • Permitted as accessory to an accommodations use only (Ord. 13- 14 §1) §5.1.G In the A district: • Permitted as accessory to an accommodations use only (Ord. 13- 14 §1) §5.1.G Tasting/tap room P P P P P §5.1.G In the A district: • Permitted as accessory to an accommodations use only (Ord. 13- 14 §1) PP P T_____, P P §5.1.G and §5.1.M — P With outdoor seating or7 P — food service With drive-through -r- P P service §5.1.G A A 1 CD CO 0 CH P 1-1 P --P P — P — S1 S1 h d --P P — P P ----- — — — — — — ._ P ___ P — P ____ ___ P P PPP — — — — — P P P Use Classification Food/Beverage Sales Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) §5.1.E In CD, no drive- through service shall have access from Elkhorn Avenue §5.1.E and §5.1.0 §5.1.E and §5.1.M In CD, no drive- through service shall have access from Elkhorn Avenue §5.1.L In CD, no drive- through service shall have access from Elkhorn Avenue In CD, no drive- through service shall have access from Elkhorn Avenue In CD, such use shall not be Funeral or Interment Services Laboratory Specific Use Convenience stores Convenience store wit fuel sales Convenience store wit outdoor seating or foo service Grocery store Liquor store All other CO --—P—P 0 CH 1-1 P I Elk R ( Dis ( ) Specific Use A A - 1 CD P 7 — — P 1 P — — — r-7- — — S1 _. P --P P P P §§5 (Or In t •p acc accc us • L locat sann( a acco P— P P — — — p P tail establishments, large --Si P — — — §5.1 dri servi ac Elk Use Classification Maintenance/ Repair Service Office Outdoor Sales Personal Services Plant Nurseries Retail R Establishments orated on horn Avenue dditional egulations Apply in All tricts Unless therwise Stated) §5.1.L .1.L and 7.13 d. 10-00 §2) he A district: ermitted as essory to an mmodations e only; and use shall be ed within the structure as permitted mmodations use. §5.1.L .L; In CD, no e-through ce shall have cess from orn Avenue Self-Service Mini- Storage Use Classification All other retail Specific Use A A- 1 CD P CO 0 P CH P 1-1 Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) §5.1.L; In the CH and I-1 districts: •Limited to sales of products manufactured or produced on the subject premises; and •No more than P 15% of the principal building(s)' gross floor area shall be devoted to retail sales. In CD, no drive- through service shall have access from Elkhorn Avenue If such use contains more than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, it shall be subject to Special Review -- P/S1 P/S1 Specific Use Car wash Vehicle Services, Limited Quick lubrication services Service station Use Classification Vehicle/ Equipment Sales & Services Automobile rentals Commercial parking facility Limited equipment rentals Vehicle/ equipment repair Vehicle/ equipment sales and rentals Vehicle storage Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) §5.1.Q §5.1.Q §5.1.Q; §5.1.L In A, only as part of a hotel or motel use In CD, such use shall not be permitted to locate on Elkhorn Avenue §5.1.R §5.1.L §5.1.R; §5.1.L A A 1 CD CO 0 CH 1-1 _T- - P — P 7 P — — — P — P P -- — P P PI T P — — P — P — — — P P P — — T _ — — — P — P P 7 -I — P — 1- P P 7 — — — S1 — S1 S1 — — P S1 ____ Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Use Classification Antenna towers, other Attached & concealed (stealth) antennas Antenna towers, P/1 P/ microcells S1 S1 Antenna towers, temporary Specific Use A A- 1 1-1 P 7 P/ Pi 1 Pi S1 S1 S1 P S1 P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) §5.1.T The antenna shall be sited so that it does not rise more than 10 feet above the height of the structure to which it is attached §5.1.T Antenna tower height shall not exceed 30 feet. §5.1.T §5.1.T in the A, A-1, and CD districts, antenna tower height shall not exceed 30 feet and antenna towers shall only be sited at public utility substations or in high-tension power line easements CO 0 CH P/ S1 Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) RECREATION USES — — P P P — — -1---- P - P r -- — — — 52 — — — 51 - S2 — — — — 2 — -f-- — — -T S2 — S2 51 — — — — — — 51 — — — I Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Indoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Outdoor Entertainment Event, Major Private- Membership Recreational Facility or Club §5.1.0 §5.1.0 §5.LC §5.1.0 §5.1.0 §5.1.0 §5.1.0 §5.1.0 Use Classification Specific Use A- A CD 1 CO 0 CH I-1 Limited All other Amusement parks Miniature golf All other Indoor Facility Outdoor Facility Riding academies, live stables, roping or equestrian arenas INDUSTRIAL USES CD rinery — — — 1.- S1 P 2S 1 - -1 - -1 - — - P — P P/S1 ment — — —PPPP —P -1 -FT— — — — — 1- — S1 11 — — 7 _ _ _ Si _ - - P/S1 Use Classification Specific Use Brewery/distillery/ Custom General Industrial servic Industry Limited Research & develo Gravel Mining Recycling Facility Bulk Storage General Warehousing and Storage Limited A A- 1 CO 0 CH I-1 Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) 5.1.L (Ord. 13-14 §1) §5.1.L §5.1.1 §5.1.L §5.1.1; • In CH, uses containing more than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area hall be subject to special review §5.1.L §5.1.L; §5.1.5 §5.1.L; §5.1.S §5.1.L; §5.1.5 • In CO, not permitted on lots abutting an arterial street or highway • In CH, uses containing more than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be subject to special review Use Classification Specific Use A Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) A- 1 CD CO 0 CH I-1 Small scale P P §5.1.5 Wholesale Sales & Distribution S1 P j §5.1.5 All other wholesale sales/ distribution OTHER SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED USES SEE §5.1.N, "PROHIBITED USES." ACCESSORY USES SEE §5.2, "ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES." TEMPORARY USES SEE §5.3, "TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES." § 13.3 - DEFINTIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: 222. Special Review Use shall mean a use permitted in a zoning district subject to discretionary review and approval by the EVPC Decision Making Body. There are two types of Special Review Uses, Si and S2. S1 applications are reviewed and approved by the judicial body. Planning Commission reviews and provides a recommendation for S2 applications. S2 applications are reviewed and approved by the judicial body. Special review uses are typically uses that may have unique or widely varying operating characteristics, may have potential operational or other land use impacts on adjacent properties, or may have unusual site development demands. 1 ( AIp TOWN OF FLSTES P COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Robin Becker Planner I Date: May 16, 2017 RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC §4.3.C.3 Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot of Development (Density/ Dimensional Standards) Planning Commission Objective: Review and Recommendation on proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §4.3.C.3 (Density/ Dimensional Standards): amendment to the Maximum Number of Principal Uses Per Lot regulations regarding the removal of the word uses and substituting it with structure in all districts except RM zoning district. Code Amendment Objectives: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following: • Eliminate the word uses and replace it with structures, as legally allowable structures in the Estes Valley Development Code. • Provide a clear interpretation of what is allowed in residential zoning districts in regard to how many houses can be allowed on one lot in the Estes Valley Zoning Code. • Align our Estes Valley Development Code with the Water Division Standards in Public Utilities to avoid conflicting departmental allowances. Proposal: Amend EVDC section §4.3.C.3 as stated in Exhibit A r'PC Draft"), dated May 16, 2017, attached. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit A to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: This text amendment is in response to a growing need for a clearer and succinct definition of how many structures are allowed per lot in residential zoning districts. Both public and private entities have become confused with section §4.3.C.3 of EVDC because it does not align with Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. This table provides information on what is permitted in each zoning district, minimum lot standards and property setbacks. For example if an individual is looking to develop in the Zoning District E-Estate they are allowed to have up to two units per acre. Table 4-2 uses the term unit not the term uses per acre. This causes confusion when looking into §4.3.C.3 which states that only one principal use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. Unit implies structure which causes confusion. Multiple structures may fall under the category of one principal use. For example single family use may include multiple principle structures under our current wording. This could cause foreseeable problems in residential zoning districts wishing for single family homes and instead resulting in multiple structures on lots. In longstanding planning and zoning practice across the U.S., these types of density and dimensional tables would align and support each other. It is unknown how this disconnect occurred but it would be beneficial to all in the community to correct this hiccup in the code. This misinterpretation of the Code also causes confusion with Public Utilities. Currently the Town of Estes Park Water Division's design standards, signed and approved by the Town Administrator, allow only one water tap per single family residential lot regardless of lot size. If a lot is allowed to have multiple structures per lot this can cause considerable conflict between The Community Development Department, Building and Public Utilities. It is staff's recommendation that striking the word use and replacing it with structure would allow for a zoning code that supports, aligns and is easy to understand to all. Staff Findings of Fact: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments — Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review "All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:" Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4 1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;" Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. 2. "The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;" Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 3. "The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved." Staff Finding: Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment in principle. Advantages: • Removes a loophole in current Code that could allow, inadvertently or otherwise a misinterpretation of allowable uses and or structures on lots in residential zoning districts. • Provides clear linkage between Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Water Division Design Standards. Disadvantages: • A few property owners who wish to build more than one structure on their lot will find it necessary to subdivide their property in order to do so. Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Level of Public Interest High: Addressing housing structure on lots in the Estes Valley, what is and is not allowed Low: This particular Code Amendment Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly schedules Planning Commission meeting because (state reason (s) for continuance —findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that ...(state reasons for denial). Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: Special Review (May 16, 2017). Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A [May 16, 2017 — Planning Commission Draft] CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS §4.3.C.3 C. Density/Dimensional Standards. 1.Density Calculation. (See also Chapter 1, §1.9.C.) a. Net land area. Net land area shall be determined by subtracting from the gross land area the following: (1) Eighty percent (80%) of lands located in the 100-year floodplain; (2) Eighty percent (80%) of lands located above the elevation serviceable by the Town of Estes Park water system; (3) All lands within private streets or dedicated public rights-of-way; and (4) All lands subject to a ground lease that, because of the lease terms, would not be available for development of the proposed land use(s) on the subject property. b. Net density. Net density shall be calculated by dividing the net land area by the minimum lot area or land area required for each unit. c. When applying a density standard to a parcel's net land area, all resulting fractions shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number. d. The number of dwelling or accommodations units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density established for a zoning district (See Table 4-2 below) is not a guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development standards. 2. Table of Density and Dimensional Standards by Zoning District. Table 4-2 below lists the density and dimensional standards that apply within the residential zoning districts. These are "base" standards and are not guarantees that stated minimums or maximums can be achieved on every site. Other regulations of this Code or site-specific conditions may further limit development on a specific site. 3. Maximum Number of Principal Us-es Structure-Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel. Except in the RM zoning district, only one (1) principal use structure shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. C) TOWN OF FS ES P Staff Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Robin Becker Planner I Date: May 16, 2017 RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC §13.2.C.34 Noncommercial Parks. Planning Commission Objective: Review and Recommendation on proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §13.2.C.34 (Definitions): amendment to the definition and term Noncommercial Parks regarding the removal of the word Noncommercial. Code Amendment Objectives: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following: • Eliminate the word Noncommercial in the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities. • Provide a clear interpretation of what is allowed under the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities. Proposal: Amend EVDC section §13.2.C.34 as stated in Exhibit A ["PC Draft], dated May 16, 2017, attached. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit A to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: This text amendment is in response for a need to provide a clearer definition for Park and Recreation Facilities in the EVDC. The definition currently for Park and Recreation Facilities is defined as; Noncommercial parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves. This definition is particularly confusing and problematic because it implies there are commercial parks to be accounted for in the EVDC area. There are no designated commercial parks in the EVDC jurisdiction. This term, while confusing, is outdated and unnecessary for the needs of a Park and Recreation Facilities definition. It is unknown how this definition was created but it would be beneficial to all in the community to correct this problem in the Code. A strict interpretation of the current definition would preclude typical contemporary park activities that are normal and expected such as picnic shelter rentals and concessions. The recommended change will rectify this problem. Staff Findings of Fact: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments — Standards for Review). §3.3.0 Code Amendments, Standards for Review "All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:" 1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;" Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. 2. "The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;" Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 3. "The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved." Staff Finding: Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment in principle. Advantages: • Removes a confusing term in the definition section of the EVDC. Disadvantages: • None Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code(EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Level of Public Interest High: None Low: This particular Code Amendment Sample Motions: Approval I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code. Continuance I move to Continue this agenda item to the next regularly schedules Planning Commission meeting because (state reason (s) for continuance-findings). Denial I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that (state reasons for denial). Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: Special Review (May 16, 2017) Planning Commission, May 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A [May 16, 2017 — Planning Commission Draft] CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS §13.2.C.34 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. NO416Ortilllersia I_ Pparks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. E