Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-08-16
Prepared: August 3, 2016 * Revised: STUDY SESSION AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:15 a.m. Room 202, Town Hall 11:15 Lunch Chair Hull 11:20 Review of Minutes (5) Chair Hull 11:25 Review of EVDC Special Review criteria (30) Planner Gonzales 11:55 Housing Study Update (20) Director Hunt 12:15 Amendment to EVDC regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (45) Director Hunt & Senior Planner Chilcott 1:00 Habitat for Humanity Development Plan (10 minutes or less) Planner McCool 1:10 Adjourn to meeting Chair Hull Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 11:00 a.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. Prepared: July 27, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION August 16, 2016 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes of July 19, 2016 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-04, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY & SALUD CLINIC; Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, The Neighborhood Subdivision; 995 Dry Gulch Road & 1950 Red Tail Hawk Drive; Owner: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, inc. & Plan de Salud del Valle, Inc. Applicant: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. Request: Development of two single-family dwellings on Lots 1A & 1B, and a redesign of the parking area for the adjacent Salud Clinic. Staff: Carrie McCool 5, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Director Hunt & Senior Planner Chilcott 6. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. 1337 Clara Drive (Temple Residence) variance continued to September 13, 2016 2. 650 Community Drive (Estes Valley Community Center) variance approved August 2, 2016 B. Estes Park Town Board 1. Mountain Meadow Annexation approved August 9, 2016 2. Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Special Review approved July 26, 2016 3. Habitat for Humanity Minor Subdivision approved July 26, 2016; 4. Habitat for Humanity Fee Waiver Request approved July 26, 2016 5. Habitat for Humanity Rezoning approved conditional to approval of Development Plan 6. Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Plat approved July 26, 2016 7. Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request approved July 26, 2016 C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. Vacation Home Task Force Update D. Community Development Update 1. Downtown Neighborhood Plan update 2. Floodplain Mapping Update E. Other 7. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Carrie McCool, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson, and Town Trustee Walker Absent: None Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately eight people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Hull welcomed Director Hunt, who comes to Estes Park from Laramie, Wyoming, where he served the City as the Community Development Director. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden/Town resident suggested the Commissioners consider making sure a developer has all funds available to take a project to completion prior to approving the projects. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, June 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL 650 COMMUNITY DRIVE; ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATION & EXTENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-06 & MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT Tom Carosello/Executive Director of the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District (EVRPD) presented the application. The owner's representative, Chuck Jordan, was in attendance, along with Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Engineer David Bangs. He stated this project comes about as the result of a ballot item passed in November of 2015. The development review is for an approximate 65,000 square foot multi-generational community center on approximately 6.49 acres. The site is being conveyed to the EVRPD from the Estes Park School District. Since the election, consultants and architects were hired, and they have been in collaboration with Town and School District staff on designing the facility. The original square-foot cost of the center was approximately $290. The current costs are $412 per square foot, which has forced the EVRPD to put limitations on the original designs. The EVRPD will be staying within their budget to construct the proposed community center. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The site is located on the Estes Park Schools campus, surrounded by Stanley Park. The entire site is 43.5 areas. The applicant would like to create two lots to accommodate the proposed community center and the existing school building site. Proposed Lot 1 would accommodate the existing schools (37.86 acres), and Lot 2 would accommodate the Community Center (6.49 acres). Access to the site is from Manford Avenue and Community Drive. This is a Location and Extent Development Plan review, which gives the Commissioners the location and scope of the development plan. Key review criteria is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Additionally, a Minor Subdivision Plat is requested to create two parcels of record from one existing parcel. Staff and the applicant have worked closely together to work through issues. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. All agency comments have been addressed by the applicant and can be taken care of during the building permit process. Planner McCool stated there are three key issues: • Maximum lot coverage, where 71.7% is proposed, and the maximum allowed is 65%. The applicant is requesting a minor modification from the EVDC to allow the 71.7%. The Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVDC) has the authority to grant a minor modification to allow the proposed increase in lot coverage percentage. The Commission must find that the modification advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC, or relieve some practical difficulty in developing the site. Staff finds that allowing the 6.7% over the allowable limit would relieve difficulties and promote a more environmentally sustainable project. Planner McCool stated there were many design challenges, including but not limited to incorporating the existing aquatic facility into the design of the structure. • Building site, orientation, and materials requirements, where the applicant is requesting a minor modification to allow the main entrance of the community center front Manford Avenue. The EVDC requires the main entrance of all buildings in the CO—Commercial Outlying zone district be oriented to the front property line and to the maximum extent feasible long, flat or blank walls facing the street should be avoided. The front property line is along Community Drive, and the applicant prefers the main entrance front Manford Avenue. The applicant has proposed enhanced treatment to the building along Community Drive which would result in less visual impact (building materials, facade changes, windows, etc.). The existing aquatic center does not front Community Drive. • Screening and minimizing visual impact of rooftop mechanical equipment. The applicant mentioned design changes throughout the review process, and the final design for the rooftop mechanical equipment and screening of such has not been finalized. The applicant requested to defer that submittal to a later date to be determined. Therefore, staff has included a condition of approval for the rooftop screening. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-wide policies, including community design, growth management, mobility and circulation, as well as economics. Planner McCool discussed the subdivision design standards. The EVDC states sidewalks on both sides of the street may be required if it is determined there are significant pedestrian uses, unless there are unusual topographical conditions. Sidewalks in this area get heavy use, as the schools are located nearby. It was important to look at code requirements and design challenges and how the applicant has addressed those challenges. The Commissioners can determine if sidewalks are required on both sides. The application has proposed sidewalks along Community Drive, but not on Manford Avenue. There are crosswalks directing pedestrian traffic to the north side of Manford Avenue, where sidewalks already exist. Planner McCool stated the drainage structure is proposed for the northwest corner of the site along Community Drive, which limits space for a sidewalk on Manford Avenue. The applicant is requesting more internal parking lot configurations to provide pedestrian access. Again, the design challenges of incorporating the existing aquatic center make it unfeasible to construct a sidewalk along Manford. Planner McCool stated adequate public services and facilities are available to serve the development. Approval of the minor subdivision would not be detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other properties in the neighborhood, nor in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the EVDC. Planner McCool stated staff is recommending approval of the Location and Extent Development Plan, with the condition regarding the rooftop screening of mechanical equipment. Staff is requesting the condition be met within 30 days of the Planning Commission decision. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Moon was concerned about the sidewalk issue. As a member of the Police Auxiliary Unit, he assists students crossing the streets and is concerned for their safety. He stated a better effort should have been made to relocate the detention pond in order to create sidewalks on Manford Avenue. Applicant and Staff Discussion David Bangs/applicant engineer stated there are three main connection points to the existing public infrastructure: (1) on the west side of the proposed community center that crosses at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Community Drive, where an upgraded crosswalk will be constructed; (2) at the northwest corner of the site which crosses Manford Avenue to existing sidewalk on the north side, heading west; (3) to the east, existing connections with the schools will be improved along the north side of Manford Avenue. The applicant feels these measures are adequate to getting pedestrians to existing sidewalks. There is no sidewalk proposed along the south side of Manford Avenue. The improved crosswalk at Graves Avenue and Community Drive will make the crosswalks line up perpendicular with the intersection, rather than the current angled design. Vehicular congestion will be greatly reduced with the reconfiguration of vehicle access routes. Mr. Bangs stated it would not be practical to relocate the drainage structure as there is a large vault in that area containing the mechanical equipment for the school's sprinkler systems. Commissioner Hills stated the peak traffic time for the community center will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall between 5:30 and 9 a.m., which is the same time students will be arriving to the schools. Many residents visit the existing health clubs during these early morning hours. She, too, was concerned about student safety as it related to sidewalks and traffic. Mr. Bangs stated the traffic study conducted by Delich Associates was valid and credible. Commissioner Klink stated the EVDC requires sidewalks and trails in places where there is very little pedestrian traffic, and now they are being asked to waive the standard for sidewalks in a very high traffic area. Chuck Jordan/project architect explained the school district has been a part of the design process, and did not request a sidewalk be placed on the south side of Manford Avenue. Commissioner Moon stated the situation at Graves and Community Drive would be much better, but thought asking students to cross an intersection twice is not acceptable when the addition of a sidewalk would eliminate one of the crossings. Other Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: concern that the ballot stated the proposed community center could be used as an evacuation center during emergencies, but would be deficient in that area with the current plans to have only a caterer's kitchen; while a commercial kitchen is not part of the current plan, there are commercial kitchens located within the schools; impervious coverage is less than originally planned because the footprint has been slightly reduced, and some landscape islands in the parking lots have been redesigned to increase the amount of parking available; the development review pertains to the footprint of the building and the minor subdivision plat, not the specific uses of the proposed building. Mr. Bangs requested to reserve the right to provide closing comments, if needed. Public Comment Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the project does not meet the goals of the comprehensive Plan or the needs of the community. What was presented to the community prior to the vote for the bond is quite different than what is being proposed. A community center should be more than a recreation center. The senior center services that were proposed earlier have been reduced. She attended many meetings regarding this community center, and the current proposal is nothing like what the people voted for. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Hills reiterated her concern regarding the vehicle traffic early in the morning, and the safety concern for students. She was in favor of requiring sidewalks along Manford Avenue. It was moved (White) to continue the application to allow the applicant time to work on the traffic and sidewalk issues. The motion did not receive a second. Director Carosello stated the sidewalk could be worked in to the design without continuing the meeting and delaying the EVPC decision. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Town Attorney White stated conditions could be placed regarding sidewalks and parking. The applicant is under a very fast track and is up against some very tight deadlines. If the review of the application is continued there is a very good chance the project would die. Staff Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development, if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval. 3. If revised to comply with the recommended condition of approval, the applications will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 4. The requested Minor Modification to Maximum Lot Coverage requirements in §4.4, Table 4-5 of the EVDC relieves practical difficulties in developing the site. 5. The requested Minor Modification to the Building Orientation requirement in §4.4D, Additional Zoning District Standards of the EVDC relieves practical difficulties in developing the site and results in less visual impact while ensuring the character of the area is maintained. 6. Approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. 7. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the Location and Extent Development Plan and the Recommending Body for the Minor Subdivision Plat application. 8. Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Minor Subdivision Plat application. Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall submit an amended Elevation Plan that identifies the final location of rooftop mechanical equipment and screening pursuant to EVDC §7.13 within thirty (30) days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The applicant shall install sidewalks on the south side of Manford Avenue from the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Avenue at the east end, to the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Avenue at the west end of the property. It was moved and seconded (Moon/Schneider) to recommend approval with the findings and condition recommended by staff, with the addition of Condition #2 by the Commission and the motion passed 6-1 with Chair Hull voting against. Commissioner comments included: most traffic will be between 5:30 and 9 a.m.; adding the sidewalk would reduce the number of crossings required from the middle and high schools from three to one; eliminating multiple crossings would improve student safety. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING CONCURRENT REVIEW — TIMING OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVIEW Senior Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated in 2014 the Town Board and County Commission amended the EVDC to require that in all cases, variance approvals must be the last entitlement approval obtained. Specifically, the code states "The Community Development Director shall require that BOA review occur after final action on related development applications by the Decision-Making Body..." This amendment was put in place in direct response to a specific development application. At that time, Trustees directed staff to revisit the code amendment during the next 18-24 months. In that time, Staff has found the code amendment to have more disadvantages than advantages. Specifically, the requirement creates longer review times for non-complex or non-controversial projects. For complex projects, there is additional financial burden on the applicant for engineering and design expenses that could be reduced if the BOA review occurred earlier on in the review process. Senior Planner Chilcott stated staff recommends the current code be revised to allow the applicant to request a particular processing schedule for their application, and forthe Community Development Director to have the authority to review and approved said schedule. This would provide more flexibility for the Director in regards to scheduling application reviews. This direction was brought forward at the direction Interim Director Karen Cumbo. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to both the Town Board and County Commission. Staff and Commission Discussion There was discussion about whether certain application processes could be circumvented if this code amendment passed. There was additional discussion about the definition of "concurrent". It was stated there are considerable costs involved in the design of projects, and if the BOA is the last of the review processes and the variance is denied, the applicant would have spent a significant amount on the project without a positive outcome. If the BOA could be one of first to review the project, those expenses could be minimized. Other comments included: this would be putting the code back the way it was; there is no problem with giving authority to the Community Development Director, but would like to see criteria that defines when the Community Development Director makes the decision for which process. This explanation of authority could be through a written policy. Director Hunt suggested having a known quantity for the applicant, e.g. a standard process with a calendar that allows the public, staff, and Board members to know if an application is filed on a certain date and is complete, it will reach certain milestones on certain dates. He would like to make sure that is transparent for the public and applicants. A calendar could be provided to Commissioners for review. A situation where this process would be relevant is when a potential buyer has a contract on a property, and the ability to have the variance heard at the beginning of the process would assist in determining whether or not the property could be developed as planned. Commissioner Klink suggested removing the text "whenever possible" from the proposed code language to add clarity to the amendment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public Comment Johanna Darden/town resident stated the reason the BOA was asked to make their decision after the Planning Commission was for a very good reason, when the proposed performing arts center height variance was being determined. She was uncomfortable with having the BOA being the first decision-making body on a major project. All the facts should be considered on the project. She suggested not making a recommendation on this item today to allow time for additional thought on timing. She stated projects in the Estes Valley tend to be pushed through very fast. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to the Town Board and County Commission as presented by staff, with the removal of the text "whenever possible" in addition to the other proposed text deletions and the motion passed unanimously. 5. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Planner Chilcott reported the Maxwell Inn and Newberg Residence variances were approved July 12, 2016 B. Estes Park Town Board 1. Planner Chilcott reported the Annexation Request for Mountain Meadow Subdivision was continued to August 9, 2016 to allow staff and the applicant to work out an agreement for phasing the infrastructure improvements. C. Larimer County Board of Commissioners 1. Commissioner White stated the Planning Commissioners received a letter from Town Administrator Lancaster on July 1, 2016 regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). It was brought to the attention of the Larimer County Board of Commissioners that workforce housing was needed due to the anticipated closing of Highway 34 between Loveland and Estes Park. Commissioner Donnelly and Commissioner Johnson did not support pursuing the topic of ADUs at this time. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated there is hope to meet with the County Commissioners to discuss ADUs and workforce housing in regards to the highway closure. There has not been any formal discussion about proposed code amendments. Administrator Lancaster provided advance information to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner White stated she was concerned about the County Commissioner's comments regarding the Housing Summit and ADUs and processes. ATA Machalek stated at some point, there will be a public meeting regarding these items, and they will be noticed so the public is aware of them. Town Board Liaison Ron Norris thanked Commissioner White for bringing up the issue. This is a case where some concurrent review and communication would be prudent, and recommended ATA Machalek provide some background information to Town Trustees in his week-end report to help the Trustees get up to speed on this issue. RECORD OF rnOCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall D. Senior Planner Chilcott reported staff is continuing to work on an agreement with Winter and Associates to perform the Downtown Plan. Staff received a revised scope and budget late last week and will determine how to move forward. E. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz reported she is now the Floodplain Manager for the Town of Estes Park. Regarding floodplain mapping, we are waiting for peer reviews of the hydrology study to be completed. As of today, no dates have changed. There was brief discussion about how mapping is related to bridge replacement. Ms. Kurtz stated the map creators will base their maps on existing conditions. Any projects taking place after those initial mapping studies can be addressed as needed. Changes can also be made after floodplain maps are formally adopted. The state has control over the mapping process. If approved projects are completed after the mapping is done, changes can be made to the maps to incorporate the changes. Town Attorney White stated the Environmental Assessment for the Loop project included the area from Riverside Drive downstream to Highway 36. This area may be further studied for possible channel widening. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:53 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary SPECIAL REVIEW EXAMPLES IN OTHER COMMUNITIES City of Greeley. Colorado Uses by Special Review — Uses by special review (designated by "S" in the Table of Principal Land Uses) possess characteristics .that require a public hearing to determine if the uses have the potential to adversely affect other land uses, transportation systems, public facilities or the like in the surrounding neighborhood. Decisions on use by special review requests shall be made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may require conditions of approval necessary to eliminate, or mitigate to an acceptable level, any potentially adverse effects of the proposed use by special review. (See the illustration below for a description of the use by special review process.) 18.20.070 - Use by special review criteria. (a) Uses by special review are independent uses or accessory to principal uses which can be conducted in a manner that is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or detrimental to the character of the surrounding area, but can be of such a nature as to require public review. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate use by special review requests, along with the criteria and requirements in Subsections (b) and (c) and design review standards in Chapter 18.46: (1) The proposed use shall be consistent with the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; (2) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use shall be compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity. Reasonable conditions may be placed on uses by special review to protect the public health, safety and welfare by mitigating impacts to achieve compatibility and complementary design, especially where a nonresidential use is located adjacent to a residential use; (3) The site shall be physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed land use; (4) The proposed land use shall not adversely affect traffic flow or parking in the neighborhood; and (5) The location of other approved uses by special review in the neighborhood shall be determined so that a concentration and/or cumulative effect of such uses can be evaluated. (b) Use by special review applications shall also be reviewed to ensure that all of the applicable development standards of Chapter 18.38, Zoning District Development Standards, have been met, as well as any applicable overlay district provisions. (c) In addition to those criteria and requirements listed in Subsections (a) and (b), special review applications shall meet all applicable General Performance Standards found in Chapter 18,40, Parking Standards in Chapter 18.42, Landscaping and Buffering Standards in Chapter 18.44, all applicable Design Review Performance Standards in Chapter 18.46 and if applicable, Overlay Districts in Chapter 18.34, Areas of Ecological Significance in Chapter 18.48, Accessory and Temporary Uses, Hillside Standards in Chapter 18.50 and Structures and Buildings in Chapter 18.52. (d) Applications for use by special review for oil and gas operations shall also be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.56, Oil and Gas Operations 18.20.100 - Revocation of permit. (a) Use by special review approval may be revoked by the Planning Commission upon a finding of any one (1) or more of the following grounds: (1) That the use by special review was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud; or (2) That one (1) or more of the conditions upon which such approval was granted is not currently met. (b) The Planning Commission snail hold a public hearing to consider revocation of the use by special review permit. Notice of the hearing shall be given in accordance with Chapter 18.18, Notice. The applicant or property owner to whom the use by special review has been issued shall be notified of the hearing and shall have an opportunity to present information regarding the use by special review at the hearing. The Commission may take action to revoke the use by special review approval after conducting the public hearing. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the Commission's decision. Such decision shall be considered final, unless appealed under the provisions of Chapter 18.24, Appeals. (Ord. 65, 2002 §1; Ord. 27, 1998 §1) City of Boulder. Colorado 4-600 Uses Permitted by Special Review and Limited Impact Special Review A land use designated as a special use in a zoning district is one that — because of its inherent nature, extent and external effects — may be allowed to establish if subject to Special Review to assure the use is located, designed, and operated in harmony with neighboring development and the surrounding area and does not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. The purpose of the review process is to determine the compatibility of the use with the site and surrounding land and uses and the adequacy of services. Public review is necessary because the effect of a special use on the surrounding environment cannot be determined adequately in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. During the review process, the county considers location, design, configuration, intensity, and impacts by comparing the proposal to the code criteria, intergovernmental agreements, established hazard areas, parcel specific conditions, site context and any other applicable regulations to assure that the use can operate in a sustainable way with minimal danger or impact to the users, the natural environment, or the developed environment. A. A use permitted by Special Review may be established in a zoning district only upon approval of the Board, after review by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and mitigation measures. B. A use permitted through Limited Impact Special Review may be established in a zoning district only upon approval of the Board subject to conditions and mitigation measures. 4-601 Review Criteria A. A use will be permitted by Special Review or Limited Impact Special Review only if the Board finds that the proposed use meets the following criteria as applicable: 1. Except as otherwise noted, the use will comply with the minimum zoning requirements of the zoning district in which the use is to be established, and will also comply with all other applicable requirements; 2. The use will be compatible with the surrounding area. In determining compatibility, the Board should consider the location of structures and other improvements on the site; the size, height and massing of the structures; the number and arrangement of structures; the design of structures and other site features; the proposed removal or addition of vegetation; the extent of site disturbance, including, but not limited to, any grading and changes to natural topography; and the nature and intensity of the activities that will take place on the site. In determining the surrounding area, the Board should consider the unique location and environment of the proposed use; assess the relevant area that the use is expected to impact; and take note of important features in the area including, but not limited to, scenic vistas, historic townsites and rural communities, mountainous terrain, agricultural lands and activities, sensitive environmental areas, and the characteristics of nearby development and neighborhoods; 3. The use will be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; 4. The use will not result in an over-intensive use of land or excessive depletion of natural resources. In evaluating the intensity of the use, the Board should consider the extent of the proposed development in relation to parcel size and the natural landscape/topography; the area of impermeable surface; the amount of blasting, grading, or other alteration of the natural topography; the elimination or disruption of agricultural lands; the effect on significant natural areas and environmental resources; the disturbance of plant and animal habitat, and wildlife migration corridors; the relationship of the proposed development to natural hazards; and available mitigation measures such as the preservation of open lands, the addition or restoration of natural features and screening, the reduction or rearrangement of structures and land disturbance, and the use of sustainable construction techniques, resource use, and transportation management; 5. The use will not have a material adverse effect on community capital improvement programs; 6. The use will not require a level of community facilities and services greater than that which is available; 7. The use will support a multimodal transportation system and not result in significant negative impacts to the transportation system or traffic hazards; 8. The use will not cause significant air, odor, water, or noise pollution; 9. The use will be adequately buffered or screened to mitigate any undue visual impacts of the use; 10. The use will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Boulder County; and 11. The use will establish an appropriate balance between current and future economic, environmental, and societal needs by minimizing the consumption and inefficient use of energy, materiais, minerais, water, land, and other finite resources. 12. The use will not result in unreasonable risk of harm to people or property — both onsite and in the surrounding area from natural hazards. Development or activity associated with the use must avoid natural hazards, including those on the subject property and those originating off-site with a reasonable likelihood of affecting the subject property. Natural hazards include, without limitation, expansive soils or claystone, subsiding soils, soil creep areas, or questionable soils where the safe-sustaining power of the soils is in doubt; landslides, mudslides, mudfalls, debris fans, unstable slopes, and rockfalls; flash flooding corridors, alluvial fans, floodways, floodplains, and flood-prone areas; and avalanche corridors; all as identified in the Comprehensive Plan Geologic Hazard and Constraint Areas Map or through the Special Review or Limited Impact Special Review process using the best available information. Best available information includes, without limitation, updated topographic or geologic data, Colorado Geologic Survey landslide or earth/debris flow data, interim floodplain mapping data, and creek planning studies. B. If the proposed use is approved or conditionally approved, the Board may impose such conditions and safeguards to insure compliance with the requirements, standards, and conditions of this Section 4-600. Where development or activity associated with the proposed use cannot completely avoid one or more natural hazard, whether because no other site on the subject property can be reasonably designated or developed for the use or because the proposed site is the best location due to the need to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts under other applicable review criteria, the use may be conditionally approved only if one or more measures will satisfactorily mitigate all significant natural hazard risk posed by the proposed use to the subject property and to the surrounding area. The violation of any condition, safeguard, or commitment of record shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of the Special Review approval by the Board, after a public hearing held in accordance with provisions of Paragraph 3-205(C). C. An application for a use by Special Review shall include a development agreement which must be submitted and approved by the Board. 4-138 Boulder County Land Use Code • April 2, 2015 Article 4 • 4-602 Special Provisions D. Where appropriate, in order to enable the proposed use to meet the standards set forth in (A) above, the Board may require the dedication of a perpetual conservation easement upon so much of the site as may be determined necessary to mitigate impacts of special uses. STATE CHILD CARE REGULATIONS A family child care home is required to be licensed when care is provided to two or more unrelated children at any one time. A child care center is required to be licensed when 5 or more children are in care at any one time. A child care license is not required for: • A special school or class in which more than 75 percent of the time that children are present is spent in religious instruction. Religious instruction is defined to include such developmentally appropriate children's activities as worship, singing religious songs, listening to religious stories, learning and practicing religious cultural activities, and participating in religious celebrations. Colorado law and state regulations do not exclude child care programs from licensing just because traditional religious values or philosophy are an integral part of the child care program. Religious institutions that operate child care programs are required to be licensed. • A special school or class operated for a single skill-building purpose. • A child care center operated in connection with a church, shopping center, or business where children are cared for during short periods of time, not to exceed three hours in any twenty-four hour period of time, while parents or persons in charge of such children, or employees of the church, shopping center, or business whose children are being cared for at such location are attending church services at such location, shopping, patronizing or working on the premises of the business. This facility must be operated on the premises of the church, business, or shopping center. Only children of parents or guardians who are attending a church activity or patronizing the business or shopping center or working at the church, shopping center or business can be cared for in the center. • Occasional care of children with or without compensation, which means the offering of child care infrequently and irregularly that has no apparent pattern. • A family care home in which less than 24-hour care is given for only one child or two or more children who are siblings from the same family household at any one time. • A child care facility that is approved, certified, or licensed by any other state department or agency, or by a federal government department or agency, which has standards for operation of the facility and inspects or monitors the facility. • The medical care of children in nursing homes. • Guest child care facilities — Public Services short-term child care facilities as defined at Sections 26-6-102(5) and 26-6-103.5, C.R.S CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 12 CCR 2509-8 Social Services Rules "Verbal abuse" means abusive behavior involving the use of language that is demeaning and is intended to insult, manipulate, ridicule, or offend. Harmful acts and the use of harsh or coarse language often characterize it. "Volunteer" means a person who performs a service willingly and without pay. "Written medication order" means a document for a specific medication for a specific child signed by the child's health care provider. This must be a person with prescriptive authority. The order shall include the child's name, medication, dose, time, route, and for how long the medicine is to be given. Orders for children over two years of age can only be valid for a period of up to one year, but may only be for a very brief duration of time as well. Children over two may need written medication orders more frequently since the dosage of the medication will change with the child's weight. Written orders may also include information on the reason the medication is being given, potential side effects and any special instructions for administration. 7.767.22 Types of Family Child Care Homes [Rev. eft. 6/1/12) All Family Child Care Home licenses, except infant/toddler, are issued with an age range for children from birth to eighteen (18) years of age. This allows for the care of older children with special needs. Each individual provider will determine the age range of children that he/she will enroll in the provider's child care home. The providers own birth, adopted, step or foster children twelve (12) years of age and older do not count in the provider's license capacity. The capacity for a Family Child Care Home (generally referred to within these rules as "the home") is determined by the amount of indoor and outdoor space designated for child care, as well as the following factors. A. A "Family Child Care Home" (FCCH) is a type of family care home that provides less than twenty- four (24) hour care at any time for two (2) or more children that are unrelated to each other or the provider, and are cared for in the provider's place of residence. B. In a regular (FCCH) home, care may be provided for six (6) children from birth to eighteen (18) years of age with no more than two (2) children under two (2) years of age. 1. Care also may be provided for no more than two (2) additional children of school age attending full-day school. School-age children include children six (6) years of age and older who are enrolled in the first grade or above. A child enrolled in a kindergarten program is not considered a school-age child until the child begins attending kindergarten a year before they enter first grade. 2, Residents of the home under twelve (12) years of age who are on the premises and all children on the premises for supervision are counted against the approved capacity, except where specifically indicated otherwise. Residents of the home include, but are not limited to, birth, adopted, step or foster children of the provider. C. A three (3) under two (2) license is a type of license that allows a provider to care for six (6) children from birth to eighteen (18) years of age with no more than three (3) children under two (2) years of age, with no more than two (2) of the three (3) children under twelve (12) months; the capacity includes the provider's own children under twelve (12) years of age. This license type may be approved with the following conditions: 1. The licensee has held a permanent license to operate a family child care home for at least two (2) years in Colorado immediately prior to the issuance of the license that would authorize the care of three (3) children under two (2) years of age; and, 111 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 12 CCR 2509-8 Social Services Rules 2. The licensee has completed the State Department approved Expanding Quality Infant/Toddler course of training; and, 3. in the past two years, the licensee has had no substantiated complaints with a severity level of one (1) to three (3), consistent or willful substantiated rule violations of ratio, supervision, safety, or injury to a child observed during any licensing visit, or adverse licensing action. 4. Care of additional children of school age is not authorized; and, 5. Licensees issued a three (3) children under two (2) years of age license are approved for both the three (3) under two (2) and the regular license capacities and may switch between the two (2) capacities without notifying the State Department as long as they are in compliance with all licensing rules. D. An infant/toddler license is a type of family care home that provides less than twenty-four (24) hour care only for children who are between birth and three (3) years old. This license type may be approved with the following conditions: 1. if there is one (1) provider, there may be a maximum of four (4) children, with no more than two (2) of the four (4) children under twelve (12) months of age, including the provider's own children. The provider's own children, under the age of twelve (12), count in the capacity of four (4). 2. If there are two (2) equally qualified providers, as specified in Section 7.707.31, B, 3, caring for children at all times when children are present, there may be a maximum of eight (8) children between birth and three (3) years old, and no more than four (4) of those children can be between birth and one (1) year old, including both providers' own children. 3. The provider has completed the State Department approved Expanding Quality Infant/Toddler (EQ VT) course of training. 4. A provider that has also been licensed as a regular and three (3) under two (2) provider in the past, and is approved for an infant/toddler license, has the flexibility to provide care on any given day for the ages and capacities of a regular or three under two license without written approval of the State Department, as long as the provider is in compliance with all applicable rules at all times. E. A large child care home is a family child care home that provides care for seven (7) to twelve (12) children. 1. Child care may be provided to children from birth to eighteen (18) years of age. The provider needs an assistant when the ninth child arrives at the facility. 2. Care may be provided to no more than two (2) children under two (2) years of age. F The Experienced Child Care Provider 1. An Experienced Child Care Provider (ECCP) home is a licensed child care home where care is approved for no more than nine (9) children of different age combinations depending upon which option the home is operating. 2. The requirements for an Experienced Child Care Provider are: 112 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 12 CCR 2509-8 Social Services Rules a. Have been a licensed family child care home provider in Colorado for at least the last six (6) consecutive years; equal experience operating as a licensed military family child care home is acceptable; and, b. Have completed ninety (90) clock hours of training within the preceding six (6) years, including the State Department approved infant/toddler course. The ninety (90) hours of training does not include licensing training universal precautions, First Aid and CPR, and medication administration training; and, c. Have had no adverse licensing action; d. Have had no adverse action taken against the provider's license in the preceding two (2) years; and, e. Comply with local zoning restrictions. 3. Applying for the Experienced Provider License At least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the proposed date of operation as an experienced provider, the applicant must submit to the State Department a completed and signed experienced provider application form, which: a. Affirms compliance with all the rules for family child care home providers and experienced providers; and, b. Affirms that the 90 clock hours of training have been completed; and, c. Includes an agreement to waive the right to appeal rules related to capacity and space requirements; and, d. Affirms the provider understands that the experienced provider's license will immediately revert to a regular license if capacities are exceeded at any time. 4. ECCP Options Table The following chart describes the various options available to the experienced family child care home. Providers may change options without notifying the State Department, as long as the home is in compliance with one option at any one time and all licensing rules. Experienced Child Care Provider License All options include providers own children under twelve (12) years of age. Number of Children Total Children in Care at a Given Time Birth Up to School Age Additional School-Age Number of Children Under 2 Allowed (Of Those Under 2) Number Under 12 Months Allowed Option 1 9 7 2 2 2 Option 2 9 8 1 2 2 Option 3 9 5 4 2 2 Option 4 9 6 3 3 2 Option 5 4 4 0 4 2 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 12 CCR 2509-8 Social Services Rules 7.702 RULES REGULATING CHILD CARE CENTERS (LESS THAN 24-HOUR CARE) [Rev. eff. 2/1/161 All child care centers must comply with the current "General Rules for Child Care Facilities" 7,701; "Rules Regulating Child Care Centers (Less Than 24-Hour Care)" 7.702; "Rules Regulating Special Activities" 7.719; "Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Child Care Centers in the State of Colorado" 25-1.5-101(1)(h), C.R.S.; and the USDA CACFP Part 266.20(1,5). 7.702.1 DEFINITIONS [Rev eft. VII 6.1 A. Child care centers, less than 24-hour care (referred to as "centers"), provide comprehensive care for children when the parents or guardians are employed or otherwise unavailable to care for the children. Child care centers may operate twenty four (24) hours a day, but the children are cared for at the center fewer than twenty four (24) hours a day. B. Child care centers, less than 24-hour programs of care, include the following types of facilities: 1. A "large child care center" provides care for 16 or more children between the ages of 2 112 and 18 years. 2. A "small child care center" provides care for 5 through 15 children between the ages of 2 and 18 years. 3. An "infant program" provides care for children between the ages of 6 weeks and 18 months. 4. A "toddler program" provides care for children between the ages of 12 months (when walking independently or with a health care provider's statement indicating developmental appropriateness of plaoarnent in a toddler program) and 36 monthg. 5. "Preschool" is a part-day child care program for 5 or more children between the ages of 2 1/2 and 7 years. 6. "Kindergarten" provides a program for children the year before they enter the first grade. 7. "Full day program" enrolls children for five (5) or more hours per day. 8. "Part day program" enrolls children for a maximum of up to five (5) hours per day. Individual children shall not attend more than one (1) five (5) hour session per day. 9. A "drop-in child care center provides occasional care for 40 or fewer children between the ages of 12 months and 13 years of age for short periods of time not to exceed six (6) hours in any 24-hour period of time or fifteen (15) hours in any seven (7) day period of time. 10. "Staff': all references to staff or staff positions includes paid staff and equally qualified volunteers under Section 7.702.44, E. 7.702.2 ADMINISTRATION [Rev. eff. 2/1/16] (See also "Administration" at 7.701.5, General Rules for Child Care Facilities) A. The governing body must appoint a director who will be responsible to the governing body and who will be delegated the authority and responsibility for the operation of the center according to its defined purpose and policies. 28 Habitat for Humanity and Plan De Salud Del Valley Development Plan 2016-04 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: August 16, 2016, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue. APPLICANT REQUEST: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley and Plan De Salud Del Valley (Salud Clinic) are requesting approval of a Development Plan to accommodate additional parking for the Salud Clinic and two (2) single-family dwellings within the Neighborhood Subdivision. STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicants' testimony, public comment, and Town staff's findings and recommendations. LOCATION: 995 Dry Gulch Road and 1950 Red Tail Hawk Drive. OWNER/APPLICANT: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. Plan De Salud Del Valley, Inc. CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Primary Contact: Amy Plummer, Van Horn Engineering STAFF CONTACT: Carrie McCool, Planner REPORT SUMMARY: The Neighborhood Subdivision, which is almost completely built out, was originally platted and approved in 2005 with the intent that housing would be developed to accommodate local affordable housing needs of the community. The Salud Clinic, located at the intersection of Dry Gulch Road and Red Tail Hawk Drive (existing Lot 2) is in need of additional parking to accommodate increased demand for affordable health care services by local residents. Lot 1 is currently vacant. Access to the proposed single family lots lA and 113 would be accommodated via a shared driveway accessed from Gray Hawk Court. ';she Salud Clinic is proposing a second access off of Red Tail Hawk Drive to serve the new parking lot just west of the existing Salud alnic access. Enhancements to the site include the construction of a pubiic skiewalk along Red T& Hawk Drive, and the addition of landscaping along that street frontage. The applicant has received conditional Town Board approval of two requests: 1) replat portions of Lot 1 of the Neighborhood Subdivision to build two affordable single-family residences and a 29-space parking lot to meet the increased needs of the Salud Clinic as they expand their services to the community, and 2) rezone that portion of Lot 1 (for proposed Lots 1A and 1B) from 0 (Office) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) for Habitat for Humanity housing resulting in two ow-income families provided the opportunity to work with labor of volunteers and partner families to build efficient modest-sized homes, and qualify for no-profit loans to purchase the habitat houses over time. The rezoning approval is contingent upon approval of a development plan by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. it is through this development plan application, the applicant proposes to build two affordable single- family residences for Habitat for Humanity housing and provide 29 parking spaces in addition to the 49 current spaces at the Salud Clinic. Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and finds the application wEl comply with applicable reguiations once the conditions of approval are addressed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application, subject to conditions described in the staff report. CONTENTS: SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE. 3 REVIEW PROCESS: 4 REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 4 STAFF REVIEW: 5 STAFF FINDINGS 8 RECOMMENDATION 9 Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 2 of 10 Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Development Plan SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: The subject property is currently accessed directly from Red Tail Hawk Drive, just west of the intersection with Dry Gulch Road. The site borders multi-family residential uses along the north (Good Samaritan Subdivision) and south (Vista Ridge Condominiums), single-family uses to the west and rural estate land uses to the east. Other parcels zoned 0 (Office) are in the area but not adjacent to these parcels. Parcel Numbers: 25202-12-001; 25202-12-002 Lot Area: 1.820 acres (gross) Existing Land Use: OfficeNacant Proposed Land Uses: Office/Residential Current Zoning Designation: 0 Office Proposed Zoning Designation: 0 Office and R-1 Single-family Residential Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 50% Proposed: 56% Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands No Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat No Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 3 of 10 Habitat for HumanitylSalud Clinic Development Plan .FiEVEW PETncirSa: On July 26, 2016, the Estes Park Board of Trustees approved a Code Amendment request to rezone that porjon of Lot 1 (for proposed Lots 1A and 1B) for Habitat for Humanity housing Ca71.0,n773L72(:- apaz7? sT)Lrwcartj Development Plan by the Estes /,',YrzeiT,10 Cztanffw5107:). As such, this application package includes: Development Plan (§3.8): A Development Plans shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and demonstrate consistency with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommending Body: Town Staff Decision-Making Body: Estes Valley Planning Comm!ssicn REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The following memos are included as cart of this staff report: ▪ Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated May 2, 2016; ▪ Town a Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016; and • Town o Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated March 7, 2016. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Town staff mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet of the property directly notifying these owners of the public hearings. The Town has received written comments from people who oppose the project due to the following concerns: • Reduction in property values • Single family residential use the property o Drainage concerns • Lots are too small for two homes and a carport with a shared driveway o Use of low quality building materials by Habitat for Humanity o Small size and steepness of residential lots o Safety of potential residents and their children — Not a safe location to build homes that house children o Lack of adequate parking for existing homeowners — Increased congestion in the area • Visual appearance of low income housing Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 4 of 9 4 Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Development Plan • Lighting impacts from additional parking along Red Tail Hawk Drive The Town has also received letters of support of the project. All written public comments received for this application package have been posted on the town's website at vvww.estes.oro/currentapplications and will be summarized in the staff presentation. STAFF REVIEW: The following staff review evaluates all aspects of the proposed development plan to ensure compliance with the zoning standards and provisions of the EVDC, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: ZONING DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4 of the EVDC (§4.3 and §4.4) Use, Density and Dimensional Standards Use Two uses are proposed: Office (Existing Salud Clinic and associated parking) and Single-Family Residential (two Habitat for Humanity homes). Both uses are Permitted by Right in their respective zone districts of 0 (Office) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential). Lot Coverage Lot coverage represents those parts of the site that are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption of stormwater (e.g. buildings, sidewalk streets). The Development Plan depicts less than 50% lot coverage for Lots 1A and 1B, which complies with the maximum standard of 50% for residential development. In regards to the non-residential component of the proposal, the Development Plan proposes 56% lot coverage for Lot 2A (includes the Salud building, existing and proposed parking lots), which exceeds the maximum standard of 50% for non-residential uses. However, the current lot coverage for Lot 2 is 62%. Therefore, this proposed development is increasing compliance with this standard. The applicant has requested a waiver from this standard. Considering the minor modification from the standard would advance the goals and purposes of this Code, not exceed the maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) deviation from the zone district standards, result in less visual impact of parking adjacent to Red Tail Hawk Drive and relieve practical difficulties in developing the site, the EVPC has the authority to approve 56% coverage for this project approval. Minimum Lot Size As proposed, Lot 1A will be 7,306 square feet and Lot 1B will be 7,535 square feet. With the zoning amendment to change proposed Lots IA and 1J Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 5 of 10 Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Development Plan 1B from 0 (Office) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential), both lots would comply with the minimum single family residential lot size requirement of 5,000 square feet. The proposed, Lot 2A will increase in size to 43,219 square feet which is well over the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement in the 0 (Office) zone district. Setbacks This proposal provides platted building envelopes tor the residential structures on Lots 1A and 1B, which meet all setback requirements set forth in the R-1 zone district. The Salud Clinic is not proposing any development changes that require evaluation of setbacks aside from the landscape buffer standards discussed in the Landscaping and Buffers section of this report. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 7 of the EVDC Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (EVDC §7.2) The grading plan demonstrates compliance with general grading standards such as limits on raising/lower natural grade and design of stormwater basins. The existing slope presents challenges when planning the site layout. The applicant made efforts to avoid steep slopes to the most extent feasible. Due to topography, the development plan does require retaining walls on some portions of the site, particularly along the shared driveway for Lots 1A and 1B as proposed. Landscaping and Buffers (§7.5) Perimeter landscaping is required and proposed on the north side of the parking lot along Red Tail Hawk Drive. The applicants have been advised and agreed to ensure plantings do not interfere with existing utilities on site. As such, a note has been included on the Preliminary Resubdivision Plan/Development Plan to keep trees at least 5-feet from utility lines. The site has areas of steep topography that provides natural screening between the existing parking area for the Salud Clinic on Lot 2 along the east side of Lot 1B as proposed. Due to the proposed zone district boundary that occurs along the southerly side of the proposed Salud parking lot, a landscaped buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per every 100 feet is required between a commercial district and a residential district. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan that depicts additional buffering; however, it is solely on the residential Lot 1B. Staff recommends the dedication of a landscape easement on Lot 1B to ensure the installation and maintenance of the required landscape buffering be the responsibility of the owners of Lot 2A. A condition of approval is provided for the Commissions' consideration. Exterior Lighting (EVDC §7.9) The new parking lot area on proposed Lot 2A, consists of four (4) new parking lot light poles that are consistent with the existing parking lot Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 6 of 10 Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Development Plan lighting at the Salud Clinic. Although a note is included on the Development Plan stating that "new light posts will comply with the EVDC," the note should be revised to state that all lighting shall comply with the EVDC lighting requirements to ensure that measures to reduce impacts on the adjacent residential uses to the south will be maintained. Staff has provided a condition of approval for the Commissions' consideration. Off-Street Parking and Loading (EVDC §7.11) The Salud Clinic has 49 parking spaces on their existing site. The applicant has submitted a Parking Study that justifies the need for additional parking which stems from documented use of the existing parking lot as well as projected patient and staff parking needs as services are expanded. The Public Works Department noted driveway distance concerns from the proposed access at Red Tail Hawk Drive to the Salud Clinic driveway. The applicant has adequately addressed the Public Works Departments concern by revising the plans to ensure there is at least 150-foot spacing between the driveways. There were also concerns about the distance between the access for proposed Lots 1A and 1B. The revised plans depict 74-feet between the proposed access at Gray Hawk Court to the intersection of Crabapple Lane. As such, the driveway distance spacing concerns from Public Works has been adequately addressed. Adequate Public Facilities (EVDC §7.12) Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. The design for public facilities will be finalized with construction plans. Sewer Private lateral sewer mains will be extended to serve this development. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District did not have notable concerns with the proposal. Water and Electric Service Adequate water and electric service are available to serve the site. There were no concerns expressed by the Estes Park Utilities Department. Drainage. The applicant submitted a Stormwater Management memo prepared by a registered Engineer with respect to proposed drainage and coordination with the original drainage report for the Neighborhood Subdivision dated July, 2005. A Drainage Plan is required in order to demonstrate compliance with the 2005 report as well as to evaluate the new drainage infrastructure, sizing of proposed swales and inlets, confirm that developed runoff will not negatively impact the Salud Parking lot and that g Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 7 of 10 Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Development Plan historical drainage patterns will be maintained. Staff has provided a recommended condition of approval accordingly. Fire Protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District reviewed the submitted materials describing the proposed project and expressed no concerns regarding the plans. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter Six of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan includes Community- Wide Policies that address issues such as land use, community design, scenic and environmental quality and economics. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies, including: • 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. • 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. • 5.10 Establish a linkage between new development and the provision of affordable housing. • 2.2 Locate and design buildings to fit the land. STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 3. The minor modification to exceed the maximum lot coverage standard from 50% to 56% on Lot 2A would advance the goals and purposes of this Code, not exceed the maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) deviation from the zone district standards, result in less visual impact of parking adjacent to Red Tail Hawk Drive and relieve practical difficulties in developing the site. 4. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 5. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the proposed Development Plan. g Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 8 of 10 Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Development Plan RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Development Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated May 2, 2016; b. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016; c. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo March 7, 2016. 2. Prior to recordation, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the 2005 report shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to recordation of the Development Plan, all landscaping shall demonstrate compliance with Section 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers, including the required landscaped buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per every 100 feet of the northern portion of Lot 1B shall be included in a landscape easement wherein installation and maintenance of the required landscaping shall be the responsibility of the owners of Lot 2A. 4. Prior to Development Plan approval, the lighting note #7 on sheet 1 shall be revised to state that "All lighting shall comply with the EVDC lighting requirements." SAMPLE MOTIONS: 1. I find that the application meets the review cntena, and move to APPROVE of Development Plan with the following conditions: a) Compliance with the following affected agency comments: i. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated May 2, 2016; ii. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016; iii. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo March 7, 2016. b) Prior to recordation, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the 2005 report shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. c) Prior to recordation of the Development Plan, all landscaping shall demonstrate compliance with Section 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers, including the required landscaped buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per every 100 feet of the northern portion of Lot 113 shall be included in a landscape easement wherein installation and maintenance of the required landscaping shall be the responsibility of the owners of Lot 2A. g Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 9 of 10 Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Development Plan d) Prior to Development Plan approval, the lighting note #7 on sheet 1 shall be revised to state that "All lighting shall comply with the EVDC lighting requirements." 2. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the Development Plan with no conditions. 3. I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the Development Plan. 4. I find that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the applications per the criteria above and move to recommend CONTINUANCE of the Development Plan approval request to the next regularly scheduled meeting. ENCLOSURES: 1. Statement of Intent and Application 2. Preliminary Resubdivision Plan/Development Plan and Rezoning Plan sheet 3. Landscape Plan dated June 14, 2016 4. Upper Thompson Sanitation District comments dated May 2, 2016 5. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016 6. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo March 7, 2016 7. Estes Park Salud Center Parking Needs Letter dated April 27, 2016 Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 16, 2016 Page 10 of 10 Habitat for Humanity/Salmi Clinic Development Plan P.O. Box 588 • Wei Pad; CO80517 Ph: 970-588-4544 • Fat 970-588-1049 www.u1storg May 2, 2016 Carrie McCool, Planner Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Habitat for Humanity Rezoning, Subdivision Lots 1 & 2 Block 3 The Neighborhood Subdivision 995 Dry Gulch Dear Carne: The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. Private lateral sewers shall be constructed in accordance with Appendix B- Lateral Sewer Specifications of the District's Rules and Regulations. Please include information regarding the private lateral sewer with the sewer system extension submittal for lots IA and 1B. Respectfully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Environmental Protection Through Wastewater Collection and Treatment TOWN OF ESTES PARIc, Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Steve Rusch Date: 5/26/2016 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: FINAL REVIEW - Lot 1, Blk 3, The Neighborhood - 995 Dry Gulch Rd - Proposed Mularz Subdivision (Habitat for Humanity) The Utilities Department has the following Final Review comments for the above application: The above application is accepted but not approved as construction drawings for line installation or issuance of any building permits. Please show all proposed and existing utilities on all drawings during all phases of the review process. Water Division: Water service lines must be separately tapped off of the main with individual shut off valves located within the individual lots. No shared services are allowed. Please show this in detail on the Construction Drawings. It has been determined that this property is already included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict. No further action is required for this. A Water Main Extension may be required for service, including Fire Protection. This infrastructure must be installed; testing performed/passed and accepted by the Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Any project phasing of the infrastructure must be submitted with the construction drawings for approval prior to construction. Phased infrastructure must be completed and accepted prior to issuance of any building permits within the phase. Construction Drawings are required and must be submitted for review, approval and signatures by the Utilities Director or his designated representative. No installation of any project infrastructure is allowed until the Construction Drawings have been signed. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. Along with the submission of the construction drawings TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum provide the contact information of the firm or person acting as Utility Construction Manager for the project. Construction drawings must include: • Plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts, show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. • Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) indicating tap locations and sizes, water meter locations and sizes, and buildings served by each. All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. All domestic water service lines are required to have a pressure reducing valve installed at the point of entry to the building. Applicant must contact the Water Division (970)577-3625 to discuss additional plumbing requirements. All water lines are required to have a minimum of 10 ft. horizontal separation from both sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Additionally, water lines are required to have a minimum 4 ft. horizontal separation from all other utilities. All commercial properties, fire suppression lines, multi-family dwellings and irrigation are required to have backflow prevention devices installed on the water service lines, contact Steve Rusch at 577-3625 or sruschaestes.orq with any questions regarding the backflow devices or requirements. A Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) including meter sizing, meter locations, tap locations and addresses served by each must be submitted to the Water Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Engineering must contact the Water Division at 577-3625 for details regarding final tap and service line sizing prior to any construction. If any structure is required to have a Fire Suppression System, a detailed drawing must be turned in to the Water Division noting: • Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) • Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system, pipe size based on NFPA Table 10.10.2.1.3, Fire flow produced at a maximum velocity of 10ftIsec. TOWN OF ESTES PARTc_ Inter-Office Memorandum Pipe Size Flow Rate 2" 100 gpm 4" 390 gpm 6" 880 gpm 8" 1560 gpm 10" 2440 gpm 12" 3520 gpm Spill control method must be shown for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur. Fire suppression lines require both a chlorination and pressure test, conducted by a representative of the Water Division prior to acceptance. Any Fire suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service line and must be noted as such on the Development Plan and the Subdivision Plat. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole responsibility of the property owner. Fire suppression lines require a state certified fire line installer and must have the appropriate forms completed and submitted to the Estes Valley Fire Marshall. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009 Edition), the International Building Code (2009 Edition) and Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Water Division. Light and Power Division: Show all electric primary and secondary on all phases of drawings. • Please schedule a required meet at site with Joe Lockhart, Line Superintendent at (970)577-3613. • All trenching and conduit will be performed and installed by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. This will be invoiced to the developer. a EV TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum • Light and Power requires one '1%" orange PVC spare conduit from the junction box/transformer into the building at Light and Power's expense. • Utility pedestals must be spaced at a minimum of one foot apart. • Transformers cannot be placed more than 250 feet from the building being serviced. • All new meter cans must have a bypass • All infrastructures must be paid in advance to the Town of Estes Park. No Building permits will be approved by Light & Power until such time. • All new construction must be underground. • Service line trenching & conduit (between the meter and the building) to be provided and installed by developer to Town specifications. • All other material will be purchased from & installed by the Town of Estes Park. ▪ All Town of Estes Park Light and Power lines, (Primary/Secondary) must have a 20 ft. utility easement. This easement can be shared by water, phone and cable. • Water must be at least 4ft from electric. • All services must be on the owner's property or be within a designated easement. • The size of the service must be shown on the electrical drawings. • All existing lines must be shown on the electrical drawings. • Transformers/junction boxes must be in an easement, or if possible on the property line. • All primary lines must be 4ft deep with red warning tape at 2ft. • All subdivision must be designed by an electrical engineer. • All pipes must be schedule 40 gray PVC pipe, if there are more than 4 pipes in a trench then all conduit must be put into a pipe rack. There must be 2-2inch and 2-4inch conduits in a primary trench. • Town must have ownership of all road crossings. • On underground electric services, it will be the electrician's responsibility to dig them into the transformers or pedestals. • The electrician will need to schedule with L&P to unlock and open transformers or pedestals. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum ▪ All temporary and permanent electric services will be connected by Light & Power within 5 business days after the state electrical inspection & fees are paid. • Permanent meter sockets must be permanently marked with address or unit number. • All spare conduits will be provided by Light and Power and to be installed by the developer at their cost. Light and Power will not reimburse contractor or developer for conduit obtained elsewhere. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. Memo To: Community Development TOWN OF ESTES PARIc, Li :314 KS- /',/re) v6c:"., From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Director of Public Works Date: March 7, 2016 RE: Mularz — Completeness Review Public Works offers the following comments and conditions on the National Park Village Development Plan application as submitted. Comments and Conditions are applicable for plans received on February 24th, 2016. Transportation: 1. Condition: Driveway distance from the proposed access at Red Tail Hawk Drive to the Salud Clinic driveway access needs to be provided. This may need a code waiver request. 2. Condition: Driveway distance from the proposed access at Gray Hawk Court to the intersection with Crabapple Lane needs to be provided. This may need a code waiver request. Drainage & Grading: 1. Condition: A drainage memo will need to be provided. This should come from a licensed engineer. Compliance with the 2005 report should be demonstrated. 2. Condition: New drainage infrastructure proposed with this development will need to be evaluated and sized. Proposed swales and inlets will need to be sized. 3. Comment: Developed runoff should not negatively impact the Salud parking lot. Historical drainage patterns should be maintained. Family Health Centers 1I 3 k1INts7RATIIT OFFICE:, 203 South Itolliv ASYnut horl i 1110.1n, il:t) Sub.?! t9.11. yy2 6.101 IAN 131131 992 1311 www.saludahnis.urg. HEALTH CENTERS BRIGHTON 1860 Egbert Street Brighton, CO 60601 (3031655-4900 Fax (303) 659.9306 COMMERCE ary 6255 Quebec Parkway Commerce City, CO 80022 (303) 286-8900 Fax (303) 286-8260 ESTES PARK 1950 Red Tall Hawk Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586.9230 Fax 1970) 586-0292 FORT COLLINS 1635 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 1970) 494-4040 Fax 1970) 494-4076 FORT LUPTON 1115 Second Street Fort Lupton, CO 60621 (383) 857-2771 Fax 1720) 322-9434 FORT MORGAN 729 E. Railroad Avenue Fort Morgan, CO 80701 (970) 867-0300 Fax (970) 867-7607 FREDERICK 5995 Iris Parkway Frederick, CO 80530 (303) 833.2050 Fax (303) 933-9183 LONGMONT 220 E. Rogers Road Longinont, CO 80501 (303) 776-3250 Fax (303) 682-9269 STERLING 1410 S. 7th Avenue Sterling, CO 80751 1970) 526-2589 Fax (970) 526-0244 Salmi Family Health Centers Accredited by the Mint Commission ..agnStass.. April 27, 2016 Attn: Town of Estes Park Community Development Staff Subj: Estes Park Salud Center Parking Needs This is a request for a waiver of the Town's 50% maximum coverage of a lot by impervious surfaces, The transfer of property from Habitat to Salud and the subsequent development of this property by Salud for additional Salud parking will result in impervious coverage of the expanded Salud lot greater than 50%. This is a request to waive this 50% requirement. Attached please find an analysis of the current parking spaces available for Salud staff and patients (and Summit Stone) at the Salud Family Health Center on Red Tail Hawk Drive. In summary, there are as few as thirteen spaces available to patients of Salud and Summit Stone on those days when snow must cleared from the parking lot and moved to "out-of-the way" parking spaces. This thirteen spaces must accommodate the patients of ten providers at Salud and Summit Stone (as weil as voiunteer Salud providers) each with overlapping schedules. With number of providers, there can easily be more that thirteen patients receiving services or waiting to receive services at any one time. Additionally, Estes Park Salud is expanding its services via a $750,000 grant and will be offering radiology services including X-ray and ultra- sound. This will result in an increase in patient traffic for the radiology services. The proposed parking lot (via the purchase of land from Habitat and its subsequent development as additional parking for Salud and Summit Stone) is needed to accommodate the current patient traffic as well as the anticipated increases in staff and patient traffic. Please contact Stephanie Whitfield, Business Manager for any additional clarification a swhitfieldPsaludclinic.ore Thanks you for your consideration. Eileen M. Fla lefty, FNP Center Director Estes Park Salud Family Health Centers OCCUPIED SPACES Current Seces t - 49 Less all Staff Spaces i 29 Summit i4 NET SPACES Salud Current Staff - :20 Salud Students 2 • i 3 20 20 spaces available for patients of 3 medial providers, 3 dental providers, 4 behavioral health providers and Radiology plus pharmacy 'pickups et cetera • 27 37 37 spaces for patients of 3 medial providers, 3 dental providers, 4 behavioral health providers and Radiology plus pharmacy pickups et cetera Salud staff increase 1 MA, 1 student dentist, 1 Radiologist Less loss of 7 spaces due to snowplowing Less loss of 3 spaces due to construction Additional Spaces with purchase 7 13 13 spaces available In winter for patients of 3 medical providers, 3 dental providers, 4 Behavioral Health Providers and Radiology plus pharmacy pickups et cetera 3 1E1 10-Mar-16 .SALUD PARKING STATEMENT OF INTENT Resubdivision, Rezoning and Development Plan of '1 1 Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of -- The Neighborhood Subdivision Located in the NW 1/4 of Section 20-5-72, Town of Estes Park, Colora o Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley Inc. (H4H) owns Lot 1, Block 3 of The Neighborhood Subdivision with an area of 0.827 acres and Plan de Salud Del Valley Inc. (Salud) owns Lot 2, Block 3 with an area of 0.992 acres. Lots 1 and 2 are situated west of Dry Gulch Road, south of Red Tail Hawk Drive, northeast of the intersection of Gray Hawk Court and Crabapple Lane, and north of Vista Ridge Condominiums (zoned RM). Houses with R-1 zoning lie to the west, and across Red Tail Hawk Drive to the north lies a platted open area and property having RM- Multi Family Zoning. H4H wishes to rezone the upper (southern) portion of Lot 1 from 0- Office to R-1 Residential and subdivide that area into 2 residential lots for the purpose of constructing two single-family, affordable houses. (Lot 1A proposed area = 7306 square feet and 1B proposed area = 7535 square feet). Salud is purchasing the lower (northern) portion of Lot 1 in order to expand the size of their parking area. This property will be combined with Salad's Lot 2 (Lot 2A proposed area --- 64,397 square feet). Lot 1 has a drop in elevation from its southwest corner to its northeast corner of 26 feet. The lower (northern) portion of the lot is relatively level and can accommodate additional parking spaces for the existing Salud Clinic. The upper (southern) portion of the lot is also relatively level and can accommodate two houses of typical H4H size. The steep portions of Lot 1 are being added to Lot 2 (removed from the residential lots) in order to comply with EVDC section7.1.A.2.a which states that residential lots must be a minimum area of 5000 sf in the R-1 zoning plus 1000 additional sf for each percentage point by which average slope exceeds 12%. A proposed shared drive will serve both upper lots. Building envelopes for the residential lots will assure that the buildings fall within the non-steep portions of the property and also honor the required setbacks along the streets. A private access easement and driveway agreement will be created to serve the proposed driveway. Per EVDC Appendix D.III.B.8.c., the distance between a street intersection and a proposed driveway must be at least 30 feet. The distance between the intersection of Gray Hawk Court and Crabapple Lane and the proposed driveway opening onto Gray Hawk Court is approximately 70 feet. There are no hazard areas identified by the Estes Valley Development Code that impact these properties. No utility main lines will need to be extended. Existing and proposed utilities are located as shown on the preliminary plat and development plan: Buried electric, communication, gas and water main lines run along the southern property line, an 8" diameter sanitary sewer main line is easily accessed on the downhill northern side of the property, and an 18" diameter CPP storm sewer pipe runs along the westerly and northerly lines of the property. An easement is being created to allow the sewer service lines and any drainage to run from the H413 lots across the proposed Lot 2A. A storm water management plan was prepared for the Neighborhood Subdivision in July of 2005. Per this plan the 18" culvert described above was installed to drain to Dry Gulch. Drainage plans for this subdivision will include directing storm water runoff along the surface swales shown on the preliminary plat and then capturing the flow in a type C inlet which will direct the runoff into the existing culvert. Buffering landscaping is required between the proposed Salud parking area and the adjacent residential lots as well as along the street. Existing disturbed surfaces and un-vegetated steep slopes will be stabilized, seeded and landscaped. This project requests a waiver from the requirement that the type of trees that must be planted along the southerly side of the proposed Salud parking lot be coniferous. Winter shading is a concern in keeping the parking area clear of snow and ice. Another waiver request is to allow the edge of the proposed Salud parking lot to be a minimum of 3.5 feet from the northerly line of proposed Lot 1B. Some of the required landscaping can be planted on proposed lot I B in the wide, shallow drainage swale. The property is within the Town of Estes Park and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley has completed affordable houses selling for prices that cannot be reached by the purchase of market rate land in the Estes Valley. The rezoning of property and the incentives for affordable housing in the Estes Valley Development Code are critical to the continued construction of affordable housing in the Estes Valley. As an additional request, Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. and Plan de Salud Del Valley Inc. ask that the review fees for this development be waived. Both are non-profit organizations dedicated to serving this community, and the effort of building affordable housing and limiting health care costs for low income families necessitates finding ways to reduce the costs of development. 04-16-2016 ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Submittal Date: /t C1 -7 7 c L.4 •-•-• 7- 7 71- • Create 2 SF res. Lots on southerly portion of Lot 1, combine northerly portion of Lot 1 with Lot 2 995 Dry Gulch Roacy 950 Red Tail Hawk Dr. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, The Neighborhood Subdivision Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use southerly portion of Lot 1: SF res„ northerly portion of Lot 1&Lot 2: Salud medical offices .!r froject Name Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, The Neighborhood Subdivision 1Project Description .1Projeol. Address IlLegal Description 44 ri r Development Plan Special Review Rezoning Petition Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat 3 Amended Plat r Boundary Line Adjustment 3 ROW or Easement Vacation I" Street Name Change 3 Time Extension 3 Other: Please specify Condominium Ma0h)A,..'-1- • Preliminary iryikq 3 Final Map /P1/ 3 Supplemer,ll Tap • '!Parcel ID # 25202-12-001 and 25202-12-002 2"""ri'•- " Lot Size 0,827 and 0.992 Acres Area of Disturbance in Acres Lot 1: vacant and Lot 2: office 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. 3 Application fee F Statement of intent ry 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 3 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan K" Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format mailed to planning©estes,org L'i-e•-rii M12.4,4t.c, 3 Well r None 3 Well r None Existing Water Service g Town Proposed Water Service F Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD is a sewer lift station required? r Yes Existing Gas Service IX Xcel r Other Existing Zoning Lot 1 and Lot 2: 0-office Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes r Other (specify) r Other (specify) • UTSD UTBD fji No 3 None fti No Septic r None Septic Proposed Zoning southerly Lot 1:R-1, remaining: 0-office Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted Complete? Name of Primary Contact Person Amy Plummer 1043 Fish Creek Road Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person Is r Owner r .plicent J Consults i • ineer Town of Estes Park ..s; P.O. Sox 1200 4. 170 MacGregor Avenue 4. Estes Pork. CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: 1970) 577-3721 4. fox. (9701588.0249 4, www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopmen1 Revised 2013.0827 ict / Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: . Record Owner APIA Date ./‘ Date 1111.1.111111111.1111Wir - Record Ovmerle) Lot 1: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley Inc., Lot 2: Plan de Salud Del Valle Inc. Mailing Address P.O. Box 2745, Eats Park, CO 80517 203 S. Rollie Ave., Ft. Lupton, CO 80821 Phone Cell Phone Steve Murphree: 970-481-5422 Bruce Brown: Fax Email smurphivetgestes.net bbrown1357@gmall_com Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Van Horn Engineering - Amy Plummer Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone Amy: 970-744-1792 Fax Email arnyvhettgairbits.com APPLICATION FEES For development within the Betas 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 ywyw.estes.org/CornDev/Schedules&FeesManninoAcelicationFeeSchedule.cdf 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: y Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: V; 1.47414P‘4 .‘/4111/F4 /‘A/ Revised 2013.08.27 KT -.777.12‘ • • • _,•• Record Owner(s) Lot 1: Habitat for Humanity of Esles Valley Inc„ Lot 2: Plan de Safud Del Valle Inc. Mailing Address P.O. Box 2745, Eats Park, CO 80517 203 S. Rollie Ave., Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Phone Cell Phone Steve Murphree: 970-481-5422 Bruce Brown: Fax Vet att.TUr Applicant eL5 1—• Email bbrown1357@gmail.com Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Van Horn Engineering - Amy Plummer Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone Amy: 970-744-1792 Fax Email amyvhe(gairbils.com APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inzido and outsido Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: www.estes.oraiCornDeviSchedules&Fees1PlannincjApplicationFeaSchedule.p di 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: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: (-)Fiir „ ( '"1"4"4/1*-i".R )i]) Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: 3 Record Owner Applicant ‘1,)e;72 Date x Date •17,1 Revised 2013.0827 KT Record Owner(s) Lot 1: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley Inc., Lot 2: Plan de Salud Del Valle Inc. Mailing Address P.O. Box 2745, Ests Park, CO 80517 203 S. Rollie Ave., Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Phone Cell Phone Steve Murphree: 970.481-5422 Bruce Brown: Fax Email steve@estesvalley.net bbrown1357@gmall.com 1 Consultant/Engineer Van Horn Engineering - Amy Plummer Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone Amy: 970-744-1792 Fax Email amyvheilairbits.com 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/PlanninsiAraiAationFeeSchedule.odf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Applicant same as engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 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: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT.' fria.4 Applicant PLEASE PRINT.' Signatures: Record Owner if Applicant I dr elfafilik) -A/- Date Revised 2013.08.27 KT Names: )4 Record Owner PLEASE PRihm Applicant PLEASE PRIAM Signatures: )(Record Owner App re,z zrz,l7y5 Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION t- 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). I 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: htto://www estes.ora/ComDev/DexCode h 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> 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. 10- I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► 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. 0- I acknowledge that I have received the Estee 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 applicafion that has become null and void. Revised 2013.0E1.27 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION t> 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. 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). 10. I 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: htto://www.estes.oro/ComDev/DevCode 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. 10. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. I> The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. O. 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. b. 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: Aide 1 /1/•1-41e -kS Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner • Prr s Applicant ,c1r (see th./Date Date 4.`" -.21- Revised 2013.08.27 KT HabitatForHumanity-TheNeighborhoodResubRezoneDP2016-04.xIs Page 1 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip ANTHOFER WAYNE LOUIS/CYNTHIA KELLEY 1921 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 ASH MELANIE RODDAM 1769 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 BALDIVIA VERONA L MONTGOMERY JEREMY S 885 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 BARNETT PATRICIA J REVOCABLE TRUST 518 RIVERROCK CIR ESTES PARK CO 80517 BELL CAROLYN L 1903 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 BERG DENNIS/PHYLLIS 1751 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 BROJC1N OFELIA/S1MA 1947 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 BROWN VANCE EDWARD/CARRIE SUZANNE 875 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 BUCK BARBARA R BOYER 1945 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 BUDENSIEK RICHARD LASTHER S 5775 W 29TH ST 808 GREELEY CO 80634 CONKLING JOHN G/LISA A 407 ROCKVALLEY DR SW CEDAR RAPIDS 52404 CONWAY DEBORAH L 1749 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 CORIELL TRISTAN T/GABRIELLA T 1790 GRAY HAWK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 COTTEN KATHLEEN N 1923 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 CROSSROADS MINISTRY OF E5TES PARK INC PO BOX 3616 ESTES PARK CO 80517 DALEY JULIA A 1880 GRAY HAWK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 DAY SUSAN A 1763 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 DIXON JAMES RICHARD BRENDA ANN 876 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 DOMENICO PALMINA 11007 MEADE CT WESTMINSTER CO 80031 DOUGHERTY MARION D 873 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 DRY GULCH LLLP 170 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 DYER RICK A/CORINNE 0 1745 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 ELKV1EW LLC 837 PANORAMA CIR ESTES PARK CO 80517 ERTL KARL R/PAMELAJ 1773 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 ESTES INVESTORS LLC PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY/THE 1901 PTARMIGAN TRL ESTES PARK CO 80517 GUZZETTA JULIE ROSE 1747 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF ESTES VALLEY INC PO BOX 2745 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HAINES THEODORA A 1943 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 HANSEN ERIC/SUE 1885 GRAY HAWK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 HARRISON JENNIFER L PO BOX 3737 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HAUGER JONATHAN 5/ANDREA 1341 KORAL CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 HEDGEPATH NANCY JEAN 1933 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 HENDERSON VICTORIA LYN 877 CRABAPPLE LN E5TES PARK CO 80517 HOLCOMB ROBERT A/JOYCE E 1875 GRAY HAWK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 HUNT-DOWNEY ELAINE 874 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 JACKSON SUSAN LYNN 889 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 JAMES JERRY 5/NANCY H REVOCABLE TRUST 1827 CHELSEA DR EDMOND OK 73013 JENSEN CATHERINE ELIZABETH PO BOX 2531 ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON RICHARD E 861 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 KANTER WILLIAM ANDREW 1820 GRAY HAWK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 KILGORE CAROLYN E PO BOX 4288 ESTES PARK CO 80517 KLETT JULIE L 1941 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 Ha bitatForHumanity-TheNeighi.._ ...,0c1ResubliezoneDP2016-04As KNOLTON BARRY RAYMOND/CAROLINE JOAN 1.741 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 KONARSICI WILLIAM S MARTIN REBECCA S 1935 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 LEBERER CHARLENE 1510 YORK ST UN IT 204 DENVER CO 80206 UBBY ANDREW D/CHLOE R 1815 GRAY HAWK CF ESTES PARK CO 80517 UCKFETT DONALD H/GLORIA A 410 FALL RIVER LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 LIKEN JOHN C/DENISE K 6865 ALGONQUIN DR JOHNSTOWN CO 80534 LINNIG CAROL T 1937 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 LLOYD BROOKS ANNE 863 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 LORENZ PEGGY SUE 879 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 LOVEALL HERBERT A/BRENDA L 867 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 MCCARTHY TOM PO BOX 1708 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MESSAL ARTHUR A 1767 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 MONTELBANO G THOMAS 1901 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 MORALES CARLOS ROJAS MURILLO MARICRUZ ORTIZ 1835 GRAY HAWK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 NEVILL PATSY J PO BOX 2272 ESTES PARK CO 80517 NGOV PETER H/LIM ENG 884 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 NIKOLAS RONALD P ANN M 891 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 OLSCHLAGER J ENNA 523 2ND AVE UNIT 4 LYONS CO 80540 OLSEN JON L 1907 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 PAWNEE MEADOWS LLC 1.885 SKETCH BOX LN UNIT 6 ESTES PARK CO 80517 PLAN DE SALUD DEL VALLE INC 203 5 ROLLIE AVE FORT LUPTON CO 80621 REGAIADO-KUCHARYSON VELIA 887 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 RUTZ DAVID G/CATHERINEJ DOUGHERTY 8766 ANGELINE CT LINCOLN NE 68526 SCRAGGS MAURICE 1765 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 SHAKYA PRATEEK/ICHCH HA PO BOX 2345 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SHEPHERD OF THE MOUNTAINS LUTHERAN CHURCH PO BOX 4399 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SOHOCKI DENNIS D/DENA L 9475 WILLIAMS ST DENVER CO 80209 STOCKUM GEORGE E JR/BONNIE S 4033 W 15TH STREET LN GREELEY CO 80634 STONER DALE A JR TOPLISS HOLLY C 56 RAVEN RD TIJERAS NM 87059 TAPIA PAULO SERFIO BERNAL 882 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 TAPIA ROSA BERNAL DE SANCHEZ JESUS TAPIA 1743 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 THOMSON ROSA W 864 CRABAPPLE IN ESTES PARK CO 80517 THUT JOHN P/NANCY 1929 WILDFIRE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 TYLER DEBORAH A 880 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 VAN WESTEN MATT KUBALA JADWIGA 1775 GRAY HAWK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 VANDRIE KARLA 869 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 WOOD JAMES M/CASSANDRA F 1245 ABERDEEN DR BROOMFIELD CO 80020 WURGAFTJENNIVER RENAE 881 CRABAPPLE LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 YAKUTAT LAND CORPORATION 911 KIM BARK ST LONGMONT CO 80501 ege 2 ZONING: RIA-MULTIFAMILY OUTLOT A s — SUBDIVISION 1 LOT 3 GOOD SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION SCALE: 20' 20 40 60 1mi =IR 411MIRM 1111NR PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR EASEMENT BOUNDARY BUILDING ENVELOPE ELECTRIC UNE SEWER LINE WATER LINE STORM SEWER LINE El ,maDRREAcii:OGNL CP EXISTING PONDEROSA TREE NOTES: — SS 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING t 15µA RED TAIL HAWK DRIVE (pavaa Rib curb and gutter) SIGHT DISTANCE OVER 700' SIGHT DISTANCE OVER MT S S 0(895,ourvo (99 58') 15' DRAINAGE AND 0711615 EASEMENT PER THE NE/G1430R11001) PO*,10 —J c LOT 22, BLOCK 2 \ =J TINS NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING R-1 RESIDENio, • •InstALC CONCRETE PAN, • 54'4811 .160.97' .4/ 111 / • SS '7 ALL ir CULVERT PATH NEIGHBORN AND UT 1000117LAT D 15' HIKE/131 EASEMENT PER SALUD LINIC EASEMENT AND--2A, 18 ' DONCE FOOTPRINT ENT PER PLAT 7567 e WATER N 89'52.52• F14 FO LH I E-FTY- EASE-M EN T 60' ROW Ao FOUND j4 RESAR WITH I' 71 89'55'34' W 111).25' „CA! ,”5 N 89'59'14' 110,44), WRY F., Pa FO —7 / LOT 8, BLOCK I THE NEIGHBORHOOD ris. ZONING R-1 RESIDENTIAL FOUND /4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP 12760 0.00 INSTALL 5 WOE • -77- TRANS IR' Tj I SA D , `2.1,17 SF ‘1•& , 0.486 ACRES ,..21F- 24NEF • -,- . „, NEV a, ,t,.„.6, . 4.. 18.0' EKI LING'' • ' • I • • 1 „... :REMOVE LIGHT POST LOT 64,397 EXISTING 3 STORY BLOCK BUILDING e A • PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASD4ENT FOR LOTS 10. AND ID /7679- OR DRFATER ELF EMENt PER r'14.7 \ ' 1 'r I \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15.0' FOND 04 REBAR WI ALUMINUM N /39'52'52- W 107.87' ,CAP j28263,,/,:,,,-.4.,,(N89-55.59-110 (107.62), 4 OM must EASEMENT PER THE REMAINDER OF SLOPE EASEMENT FOR ESTES PARK HOUSING ALITHOROY, REC. NO 2002047417 (THE NORTHERLY HALF OF ORIGINAL EASEMENT IS NOW WITHIN 6161.0-0E-WAyI H89'54'4814 464.07' GT~G STORM SEWER uNEss pe- ---TrITST ORRRA.E EAREmLIT IwE R pER • CX4STII4G,11r-',CPP TGLCRE4743oirtio1016 I 'STING ASPHALT PAVED PA/841G LOT , PROPOSED 1...MPOLIT FOR Ali , ASPHALT PAVED PARKING LOT 29 SPACES/ 9240 SF • • d • • Air *STALL TYPE C INLET, SURROUND '44TH STRA61-8NEE5— (1717171 IT FORMER LOT 2 43,219 SF . 0.992 ACRES • . ZONED OFFICE • Cr-L EXISTING ASPHALT PAVED PARK155 LOT 47 SPACES AND 2 HANDCAP/VAN SPACES PE ISOIDA I5 CHILI 17 LAL0719 PER THE WtH16010013 PLAT "StaVGIVAV 65 891 89'56'29. — 'NATM \//,'/ / \A IA, j k ki AllNigTAkr 66.7' ROW Lp\--X)2( ° Ni C \ \ 6 ACRES VI\AY ESU33IVISION PLAN/ DEVELOPVENT AND 3EZONING OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 3 OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOWN OF ESTES PARK A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, T5N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M. LA LEGEND EXISTING I' CONTOUR EXISTMG 5' CONTOUR LIGHT POLE ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL • WATER VALVE ▪ EIRE HYDRANT O MANHOLE O FOUND MONUMENTATION • SET 14 REM? WITH PLASTIC CAP 126974 00.0D MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS- SHOWN ONLY WHEN DIFFERS FROM MEASURED 0K I) REAPPCS ARE RASED ON TIM ASSUMPTION THAI DIE MOWN PRCPERTY LINE KNE(N LO1 1 AND LOT 2. OLDD, 3 Or ME NomooPmoOD 9/9114904 AS SUDAN ON DOS PLAT .1410 BUNG MONUMENTED CPI 71.E 502114119.7 (NO Dr A 94 MAR RIO A I 1/2' .1.1114441.10I CAP AND ON THE N04111 END DT A II RERAN MTH A I' PLASTIC CAP /15 150 KOS 11 00121712-E. 2) HP01A1 FOR 111.111.4077 AND ESTER YMIEY SALUD FOUNDATION SHALL Ex monwsila FOR ODSTS CC ALL MILT' MISTNIA110115. GOMM, OWE CONSTRUCTION, LANDSCAPING AM RE-VEGETANDIL 3) ALL INSTURRED MOPES Paz BE mAG(TALTD PER DOC REV., 7.2.C. STAPUTANON 07 sLOPSs GREATER THAN 255 Wu cosso CF A EMANNATIDN OF EROSION 101ATNot TN3PCS MO Ea, 1700Tom PlAI4 LIPPERALS, 4) PROPOSED PARTING LOT LANDSCAPING RILL INCLUDE (5) TREES MO (16) S.RmirS Nom RED rAp. HAWN 0091 (3) TREES AM (17) 9111.02 ALONG THE NOME,. PROPERTY UNE ED- Lot M. APO (G) TREES 02) SPMRS ALONG THE MOTHERLY 60 oF Dir EASTERLY UN( Of LOT TR. VOITIOAL SEPARATION OCCURS ALONG DM REST CA THE PERIMETER Cl 180 PR0OSE0 PARKING LOT. TREES PALL NOT BE PLANTED 1111104 5' Of UTTUTY LANES. 5) NO uTILar MAN LINES IN/ RE (ATENDED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A DUIDINO PERMIT FOR LOT IA AND LOT 18. THE DESIGN OF RATER AND ELECTRIC SERREE UNE CONNECTIONS TO THE Dosivc mAINS MUST BE COORDINATED WITH THE TURN OF ESTES PARK LITILITI(S DEPARTMENT 0 577-3625. 1) NO MIS OF IRSSURISNICE HAVE KEN sPEDEED 104IS RAE ENTIRE LOT HAS ALREADT DEER 12471119120. 7) NOR 11.111 POSTS Wu. COML. AHH THE MO 111) ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAN 1011 MST COINIENCE ANY MAL .110.1 USED UPON PM DEFECT IN DVS smvnr worm OWE 11AR5 OF THE DOE TOu Tmsr 0SCO,911 SUCH DEFECT. NI NO DENT 1191 ANY ACTION BASED 1905 ANT DEFECT IN THIS SUMO BC COMMENCED MOTE Hum TEN TENTS TROIA 1116 CERLIFICATICN WI SHORN HEREON PROJECT INFORMATION TART F moss AREA LOT 136,022 SS - 0.521 ACRES LOT 2 43,219 S.F. 0.982 ACREs Tow - 1.520 ACRES LOS IA 7305 st. (0.164 ACRES) LOT 16 7035 S.F. (0.173 %MN 101 2.A. 64,397 s r (1478 ACRES) 2 UNITS ON .341 ACRES TOTAL PROPOSED DWELL440 UNITS 1 WW1 PER 7421) SS NET DENSITY OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOTS. 1 ures PER 5000 SF ALLOWED DEN51Y THE R-I ZONING DISTRICT LIARNUM LOT COVERAGE IN 0 ZON1610 500 ERRING LOT COVERAGE ON LOT 2 620 PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE ON LOT 2A . 560 PROPOSED COT MANAGE ACROSS All OF BLOCK 5. 500 8111.244011 ON SITE NOT w MY ROMA. 1750IG539 AREA NOT Id ANY IMPPED GEOL000 HAZARD WA Nat IN ANT mono Room HAZARD AREA WATERR, TOWN Or EVILS PARK SEWER: UPPER TNOMPSON SAN. DIST, ELECTRIC TOWN OF ESTES PARR ZONMG. 0. REZONE LOTS IA AND TB TO R-1 FADING HEIGHT: NOT TO EXCEED 30' SETBACKS: FRONT- IS, REAR- IS' SCE- 10' IN R-I OM= SIDE- 15' 114 0 LOT 1: LOT 2: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PLAN DE SALUD DEL VALVE INC OF ESTES VALLEY MC 253 ROLL( AVE P 0. 900 2745 FORT UJI7TON CO 8062/ ESTES PARK. CU 80517 VICINITY MAP 1” = 1200' PROPOSED LOT MEAS. PLANT SCHEDULE A ARLS RR ROI AILCILORRS PIROLLON P.R.L.P5 ILAw 41.1.0 410 Onill NORM ULM, rmtv W46 T.Raif MU 1020.10 lEPRORGILD, PUJI4l0 OR ROM IN fp WRIER IMORROOLOA ROM RR RI. 10 IR 06560.0 ILIrt TORO MOO VATIOR RISI 06141.04 ,[141,22713 witn-re. FORRISER OILRENT Or IVLIRCIL PARLTIOSL OTT I ,:uri calla+ NAME i BOTANICAL NArE SITE DCD0 CAVORT TREES II?.-p641.,sie REV REVUE LOCUST GLEDITSLA mougros WRVS •SKTINV 11$•-rcAL.,a.s GLI GLEDEPRE LRCM IA CCRIDAVIA 114E/34554NE. 510-r CAL ere er, SPRNS ENCW DRAB MALL* 'WRING SMCLP ORRIALL-11.0 ONO. ML RARE. 6,66664664 RIANNIXOF N.1071P4 om.K..aemlb 071311010.16 TREES co 141,154B 6 CO,COLOR FR ANION CCWOLOR moo CELLDISKOR 4 NB AUSTRNN PIE PIUS LIBRA AT DIE A A mink= &RUBS 4 ML 011.74355 AMIPER AlIPERMACIA5C9114113 1300E515M Si!' 5 GAL CCHIAPER PJ FPRZER ANIPER ADVERB [Areas TEITZERIAFIA. 5 CAL CCHTAIHER DURAL° AMPER NJ 7/4PE1.6 BASRA 15/11.41.0. 5 DAL COICAMER DECO. 0.16 814:11155 POTENDLLA 0010 DROP. GP GOLD DROP PONERTILLA 5 OIL CONAINER DOB DEW CASINO BOW EIJOEITIOIS 7044165 •CCITAGIA. 5 SAL COBARER ikeotaAt SAGE RSA PERIERIW.41. ARIIPLICFOLIA 5 6AL COITAIRR GRSS6Efi FICRETAN ERCVE 7-3 Vac ROMAN RAO JOE - 4 951 WEEP FE6CLE 3-4 N. 2014ING. RLA-MULTIFAMILY OUTLOT A GOOD §A617kR1TAN---- SUBDIVISION SEE RATCRED NATIVE SEED 1134 AREAS LOT 3 S GOOD SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE LEGEND S 0 0 604414 046 tenses c„-q-APERcuE TwEN DECIDLICUS 61.32335 DEC1Du016 TREES 0 RED TAIL I-14,1JJK NATIVE SEED 111% Li) (Paved with curb old gutter) PLANT NOTES 'INSTALL CONCRETE PAN ALL PLANTED AREAS SHALL DE Ark IV 3 AL 5444 CV CCMPOST PER LOCO A 4 IL 3 ALL 593113 BEDS 4 03r4vEL AREAS SMALL RECEIVE SEED BARRER FABRIC - OVERLAP SEARS A MIMI C. s., 3 ALL TREES IN SEEDED AREAS SHALL NAVE 9,13.0 RING Cf 3.-4. CODDLE MICH AND WEED BARRER FABRC 4. ALL WILDE SLEDS WALL RECE1vE A 4. LATER of BAR< ilex. AID WED 545114R FABRIC 5. AREAS DEISIGNATED A5 NATIVE ORASSES, 6114041 BE WWI 15, THE PEED 1434 INDICATED ON na PLAN, YLJEDULE SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE CULTIVATED LIGHTI.T. 94111 SEEDED 14 TWO D/RECTIC951 AND 11434 CRIMPED LP STRAW CONIRACTOR 101"0,1115 EROSION 4 GERMINATION. RE5EEDS6 AS HEEDED TO MAIN 411 EVEN COVERAGE OF GRADS. 6 ALL 514113.165 4 TREE AREAS TO BE DRIP mearaea PROVIDED SROP DRAWINGS HAS ARDACISC•16 ARPW7VAL 1 ALL LANDSCAPNO TO carr9.3 ant EvIDC 131. 'ECU LAvDEC4.P3G gs0pREmEnu5 a MANTENANCE OF LANDSCAPNG SMALL COMPLY IV, EVDC 191 S (N89'54'481W) FOUND 94 ROAR WITH 1' PLASTIC CAP 915767 E EASEMENT FO ESTES HOUSING AUTHO rrr REC. •CO2047417 1950 Redtaif Hawk (99.581 S —7 LOT El, BLOCK 1 THE NEICHBORHOOD ZONING: R-1 RESIDENTIAL / Il LSTN* ASPHALT PAVED PARKING 101 ( NSTALL 18' CULVERT PROPOSED NNZOUT FOR AN 0.486 ACRES BI ..-2p1„/ , AS PHALT PAVED 'PARKING LOT LR 29 SPACES/ 9249... SF Qi APPED CONIFEROUS SI-IIRLI135 AND TREES ESETWEEN RESIDENTIAL I COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LINE 172' OF CURS AND SUTTER ..2.E40VE LIGHT POST LOT 2A 64,397 SF 1.478 ACRES CLINIC INSTALL TYPE c ku. SURROUND WITH STRAW BALES TW heck Architects, pc Architecture. Planning and Interiors 170 S. St. Vrain Ave. PO Box 57 Estes Park CO 00517 (9701 586.3913 phone 19701 586.4211 fax 1:;JRILENILY 209 0- OFFICE, EzONE TO R-1 • AVERAGE SLOPE: 14.40 7535 SF .173 ACRE CONCEPTUAL FOOTPRINT SUM 1111,a BLOCK 3 THE NEIGHBORHOOD LANDSCAPING PLAN IN6-197116- 111E 480501 FSSC NA BEEP 1011141. PIRO MARRO 1 A 7 6 \ 0.16:ACRES 1 AVERAGE SE, CONCEPTu LOP 13 ,x FOOTPRINT 191 L1 , EXISTING ASPHAL PAVED PARKING LOT 47 SPACES AND 2 HANDICAP/VAN SPACES LOT 22, BLOCK 2 \ THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING: R-1 RESIDENTIAL *7567 nra., RLRRAL L - N w 110.25' OKR. APRIL 28, 2016 IL - ±7567 II IQ_NGf&VLI.SZ Jnyr414.ILY 4' WATER 3131 I PL..,-,' DM 101510 94 HEW / —70525.:542; ' ,.. I. - --.....„,, ETC 69 .22 CAP 923283 W/ ALUMINUM • . . :_.„ ----'"- '''.• raw...4-M ": V 68.891 ", 07..-70;1:; 5 6 1 I 2 N 115t4C4 ' 0.1-4.1•4".."'..."- F21 _7_ -, /'—.--------*c:=\1-- E \ '.: \o NZ" , ----"---75- --='!"--i---- - - -- .. / ...- , , rt. ..- % f\ / / ZONING: ....t.....------ 0 ..........Wasi i " - a lir _ _ / TT X111 r X114& / / / i RN-MULTIFAMILY 0 ....;---- 8-x8- 1111460,4- ti,,s, -«:•--A...— /9-' 1 \' sOrkw- AD- rp°,,,`IttgEw FL LND 9 ROAR Yam 1" N 89'57.5.2" W 07.67 (N133'55.53-41) ( 07.62') PLASTIC CAP 99485 (N 439'39.14. W 1I 0941 FO FO REEIAR W CAP 99455 A JUNE 14, 2010> RIAMILMININ.LALOMILS. FO FO UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING VISTA FINE CONDOMINIUMS 0•6;;C Rm-worAphivr eNk ► PLAN NORTH VISTA I C CONN N{UNIS // LANDSCAPING PLAN Rm. ILLUR APRRLORA R. SCALE: 1" = 20'-O" TOWN OF ESTES PARK Staff Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •p; Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Date: August 16, 2016 (Public Hearing Date) Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: Long Term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Planning: Commission Objective: Review of a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Code Amendment Objective: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to increase the supply of workforce housing in the Estes Valley, specifically the supply of rental housing. During the August 9, 2016 Town Board Study Session housing discussion, Trustees directed staff to draft code amendments removing the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size and the 800 square foot minimum for an ADU. Trustees also directed staff to draft a mechanism that could enable this ADU code amendment to be effective within town limits, if the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners elects not to approve the amendments. These amendments are included in the package of amendments for Planning Commission review. Present Situation: The Estes Valley Development Code currently regulates new accessory dwelling units in accordance with certain limited situations. ADUs: • Cannot be rented, short-term, i.e., for stays of less than 30 days, or long-term, i.e., for stays of for more than 30 days; • Can be no larger than 800 square feet, or 33% of the habitable size of the principal dwelling unit; and • Must be on lots with 1.33 times the minimum lot area of the zoning district, e.g., in the Rural Estate RE-1 district, the minimum lot size is 10 acres, so at least 13.33 acres is required for an ADU. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and always located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. it does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed in some cases. While current regulations prevent both sort-term and long-term rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment is one of several possible code amendments that may be considered by the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners to address the workforce housing shortage. A primary goal within the Town Board's strategic plan is to serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for ail segments of the community. The Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment is available at www.esteshousina.orq. Public Process: • On Aug. 1, a news release informing the public of the code amendment was posted on the Town website, shared via the Town Facebook webpage and delivered to the Estes Park Trail Gazette and Estes Park News for publication. o Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. They wii: also be included in the Estes Valley Plannhg Commission meeting packet at wvvw.estes.oro/boardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. • Public oulbwdarit oari bt submitted to achilcottpestes.org. Public comineilt be posted online, and provided to Panning Commission, Town Board and County Commission for consideration. • Public comment can also be provided daring be Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission public hearings. • The public will have the opportunity to provide input hirougrhout the public process, which is anticipated to last approximately three-months. Meetings and public hearings are tentative!v scheduled as follows: Date Review/ Decision-Making Bodies Meeting Type Purpose Aug. 16 Planning Commission Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D and forward recommendation to Town Board and County Commission Sept. 19 County Commission Work Session Project Update Sept. 27 Town Board Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D and consider adoption Oct. 17 County Commission Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D and consider adoption Revision #2 Page 2 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Public Hearing Legal Notice Requirements The legal notice requirements for the Estes Valley Planning Commission public hearing have been satisfied. The legal notice for the public hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 29, 2016. Prior ADU code amendment proposals and Accessory Kitchen Code Amendment Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission have considered several previous proposals to revise the ADU regulations; however, prior ADU code amendment proposals were broader in scope, e.g., the amendments addressed unit type (attached, detached, and integrated) in addition to the ability to rent long-term, minimum lot size, and unit type. With the prior proposals there was both opposition and support for rental of ADUs. For all practical purposes accessory kitchens allow accessory dwelling units by another name. However, there has been very limited use of the accessory kitchen regulations. Staff assumes this is because few people are either aware of, or understand, the regulation. There now appears to be much more vocal and broad based public support for addressing the housing needs of our workforce due to the current housing crisis that has resulted in community-wide negative impacts. Staff would suggest the option of a "sunset" provision in this code amendment. Sunset provisions serve to make a code section expire on a given date, so that unless further action is taken, meanwhile, the section is effectively temporary. The option always exists to amend the code further to remove the sunset provision (i.e., make the amendment permanent), or to extend the sunset date. It is understood that ADUs have been a topic of great public interest. One possible advantage of a sunset provision is to allow the community and the decision-makers time and opportunity to see the amendment in action, and perceive what may be working well and what may not. It also provides effective notice to landlords that lease arrangements beyond the sunset date may be problematic. Administration Administration of ADU code provisions is proposed to remain on a code compliance complaint basis. Other options that could be considered if the amendment were to be permanent include developing a permit process for ADU long-term rentals. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section 5.2.6.2.a Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as per the elements discussed above.as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Revision #2 Page 3 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Staff Findings: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D. 0.3.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. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment describes those changes in depth and quantifies the worsening of the housing problem since last measured in 2007, the peak of the economic period prior to the recession (refer to page 11 of the Housing Needs Assessment). 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. A development plan is not required. The code amendment aligns with both the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan housing policies and the 2016 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment recommendations. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan established housing policies for the Estes Valley. The comprehensive plan states, "The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community." "Policies include: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Revision #2 Page 4 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements." 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: The proposed code amendment was discussed with providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services. Providers expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment. If a new accessory dwelling unit is proposed on a property with a well or an on- site wastewater treatment system, review and approval of the Larimer County Health Department will be required during building permit review. The Health Department has the authority to determine if the connection to public water or sewer will be required. Also, the Colorado Division of Water Resources may not allow accessory dwelling units to be served by a well. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Is another step towards addressing the workforce housing shortage in the Estes Valley, one of the community's most pressing problems. • There appears to be a broad base of public support for addressing the workforce housing shortage, including support from employers in need of workers, local residents that are homeless or part of the hidden homeless, and commuters that would prefer to live in the Valley if rental housing were available. • From Oct. 2016 through June 2017, travel on Highway 34 travel in the Big Thompson Canyon will be limited. Employees commuting to the Estes Valley will need to use US 36 and CO 66 to travel to the Estes Valley (CDOT, 2016). The entire corridor rebuild is anticipated to last three years from construction start. During this time there will be additional travel delays. In addition to addressing the long-term workforce housing shortage, this code amendment could help some commuters relocate to the Estes Valley in the medium-term. Revision #2 Page 5 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 • Removal of the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size removes a potentially unnecessary regulation and allows for more equal regulation of ADUs across zoning districts. • Removal of the 800 square foot size limit for accessory dwelling units removes a potentially unnecessary regulation. • Pre-existing accessory dwelling units that comply with the ADU code requirements could be rented. • The proposed sunset provision in the regulation means the amendment will automatically expire, unless renewed through a public process with public hearings. This provides for the opportunity to evaluate how the amendment is working and whether is it appropriate to retain the code amendment. Disadvantages: • Allowing rental of ADUs is likely to produce a fairly limited number of units at first, as compared to development of new workforce housing; however, as noted in the Needs Assessment "some strategies may only produce a few units, but in combination with other efforts are key for a diversified inventory of workforce housing that meet a wide spectrum of needs." • The proposed code amendment will not result in one unified set of ADU regulations, i.e., the amendment does not fully reconcile conflicts between the ADU and Accessory Kitchen regulations, at this time. • Numerous reasons to not allow long-term rental of ADUs have been provided by the public. Reasons include, but are not limited to: Rental will result in an increase in land use nuisances (noise, parking, lighting, and more), and change the character of neighborhoods. Concern has also been raised that ADUs will be rented as vacation rentals and the Town and County either cannot, or will not, enforce the short-term rental prohibition of ADUs. Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. Revision #2 Page 6 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following questions. • Should long-term rental of accessory dwelling units be allowed to help address the Estes Valley's workforce housing shortage? • Should the ADU long-term rental provision sunset? If so, when? • Should the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size be removed? • Should the 800 square foot size limit be removed? • Should the code language be adopted as proposed? The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss and comment on the issue of the amendment being effective in Town if the County does not approve the amendment and may forward their collective position on this issue to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Level of Public Interest: High: Addressing housing shortage in the Estes Valley High: Code amendment The level of public interest in this code amendment is anticipated to be high. Proposed ADU code amendments have been discussed in depth, at and length, over a five-year period from 2008 — 2012, with a significant amount of public comment in support and opposition. The end result was that no amendments to ADU regulations were adopted; however, in 2010 accessory kitchen regulations were added to the code. 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 and proposed sunset clause as presented in Exhibit A, and with the findings 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). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment and proposed sunset clause to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reason(s) for denial). Revision #2 Page 7 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 ttachirnents: 1. Exhibit A, Draft Estes Valley Code Amendment and Sunset Clause 2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Housing Policies and Housing Action Plan, 1996 3. Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment, 2016 Not printed for Planning Commission packets, refer to www.esteshousinq.orq for document 4. Long-term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units Considered to Aid Workforce Housing Strategies, Town/County News Release, Aug. 1, 2016 5. Accessory Dwelling Units, American Planning Association QuickNotes No. 19, 2009 Revision #2 Page 8 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 EXHIBIT A Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2.B.2 a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit-er-eight : e : - : . An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. (3) Limit on Tenancy. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as short-term rental units. (4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirement. (5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.C.28 below. (7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an accessory dwelling unit. e - • • •• • • (-14)(9 ) Other Regulations. (a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling will be located. (b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. Exhibit A Draft #2 August 16, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Requirements RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Accessory dwelling unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.B.2.a 1.33 timoc minimum-let area-required Sunset C[ause for Town Ordinance and County Haack:Bon This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately upon its adoption and publication, and shall be effective upon through October 31, 2017. Exhibit A August 16, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Draft #2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Chapter Six - Community Wide Policies 5.0 HOUSING The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community. Policies include: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.4 Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas. 5.5 Provide for mixed use developments which integrate commercial, housing, employment, and service needs. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements. 5.9 Support the creation of public and private funding sources for affordable housing. 5.10 Establish a linkage between new developments and the provision of affordable housing. 6.0 SCENIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The quality of life for residents and the visitor experience within the Valley are, in large part, determined by the natural setting and relatively unspoiled environment Many components of the natural environment have attracted the tourist and resident alike. They include dean water, a pristine landscape and beautiful views. Environmental resources and scenic quality are the foundations of the economy and critical livability factors for residents. Protecting these important environmental assets is necessary to maintain a high quality community. 1ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN), 6-5 Chapter Seven • Action Plan A. Action Plan INTRODUCTION This section includes specific recommended actions for implementing the plan. Some of the actions also include a series of sub-tasks. Many are project related, while others are focused on developing additional information for a specific area of interest. The actions are organized by categories. Government departments and many organizations often have specific needs and wish to have the recommended actions presented together for their specific area. In reality, however, many of the recommendations overlap categories, and it could be argued that some of the recommendations could easily be presented in a different category. It is important to understand that the categories have been utilized only to provide a more convenient access to each of the recommendations. This portion of the plan is meant to be regularly updated and modified. The actions, funding recommendations, and implementation organizations or agencies were developed over an eighteen-month period leading up to June 1995. Over time, new ideas will be developed, new options presented, and individual recommendations will be refined. New projects will arise and organizational capacity will be modified. It is suggested that this action plan be reviewed and modified on an annual basis. The intent of preparing the document has not been to draw a map for the next decade that provides detailed directions for each department. Instead, we have chosen to utilize the broader community vision and community values to act as a rrimpass, always pointed toward "true north." Therefore, reviewing the recommended actions on an annual basis will allow the vision and the actions to be regularly aligned. There are substantially more short-term recommendations than mid- or long-term recommendations. The document was structured in this fashion to insure that it focused on creating enough momentum in the short term to begin the implementation process. Unless this occurs, the plan has little chance of success, and mid- or long-term recommendations become less meaningful. In addition, given current fiscal realities and funding opportunities, it is difficult to provide detailed information related to funding agencies, estimated costs and realistic implementation time frames for many of the long-term action items. Therefore, long-term concepts — such as creating outlying parking with transit facilities -- have been identified without defining the specifics for each action. The resulting action plan therefore identifies a long-term direction, but also creates the initial momentum necessary to make the plan a reality. For each of these six categories, there follows a brief discussion of needs and a series of recommendations: • Land use, • Growth management, • Mobility and circulation, • Urban Renewal Authority, • Housing, and • Intergovernmental cooperation. -4ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> 7-1 Chapter Seven • Action Plan A.5 Housing - Recommended Actions Maintaining the supply of affordable housing within the Estes Valley continues to be a significant issue. Part of the solution will include the identification of land for affordable housing development, which may include utilizing some Town or County owned properties. Other solutions are likely to include a combination of incentives and/or linkages with new commercial or lodging developments. There may also be opportunities to modify zoning classifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units. Providing incentives for the development of second floor apartments in the commercial core or in new commercial developments may create additional opportunities. It should be remembered that the overall solution is likely to be the result of a comprehensive set of strategies being implemented together. While the community as a whole has not been supportive of large-scale subsidies, they would like to address the issue incrementally, using a variety of tools. Speczfic actions include: 1. Completing existing Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) project. The Lone Tree Apartments are under construction. This project will assist local residents and employees to access affordable housing options. 2. Define residential infill areas and strategy. Within the downtown core and a number of neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the core, significant infill opportunities exist. By identifying these areas and creating a special incentive zoning overlay, these opportunities and the associated density incentives would be made apparent. It may also be possible to work with local lending institutions to coordinate the use of Community Reinvestment Funds in these areas. 3. Evaluate accessory structure options. Within the core and in a number of outlying areas, it may be appropriate to allow accessory structures such as Garage Apartments or Attached Units. Specific criteria should be created to define more specifically where such development should be encouraged. 4. Evaluate commercial residential linkages and incentives. Because a substantial portion of impacts associated with employee housing can be correlated with development of commercial or lodging uses, it may be appropriate to link these uses to the creation of affordable/employee housing. Programs could be incentive-based or tied to a direct requirement based on the number units or square footage developed. ESTES VALLEY COMPR1HENSIVE PLAN> 7-13 Chapter Seven • Action Plan FIGURE 7.4 Housing Work Program Summary Recommended Action Time Frame Est. Cost Funding Source Planning Schedule Implementation Schedule Planning Areas Affected Gov. Impacts Capital O&M Housing Rec. #1 - Complete Lone Tree Project Short-term Land Local/State/ Priv. Year 1+ Year 1+ all No No Rec. #2 - Define Residential Infill Areas & Strategy Phase III None NA Year 1 Year 1 all No No Rec. #3 - Evaluate Accessory Structure Options Phase III NA NA Year 1 Year 2 all No No Rec. #4 - Evaluate Comm.-Res. Linkages/Incentives Phase HI NA_ NA Year 1 Year 2 all No No <ES TES V t L L E Y C OM PR E HE NS I V P L A N 7-14 LARIMER COUNT' ‘11111M11 E1STES PARK COLORADO Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 www.estes.org Larimer County 200 W. Oak St. For Collins, CO 80521 www.larimer.org August 1, 2016 Kate Rusch Town of Estes Park Public Information Officer kruschftestes.org Tom Clayton Larimer County Communications Specialist claytontm@co.larimerco.us Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered to aid workforce housing shortage At its next meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission will consider amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and located on the same lot as the single- family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed, in some cases. While current regulations prevent rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The Planning Commission meeting takes place Aug. 16 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room of Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave. Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at www.estes.oreboardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the proposed code amendment with the standards for review in the Estes Valley Development Code, which includes determining whether the amendment is compatible and consistent with the polices and intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. At the Aug. 16 meeting, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and is expected to make a formal recommendation to the Town Board, which is tentatively scheduled to review the recommendation and draft regulations at its Sept. 20 meeting. Next, the recommendations will be scheduled to be reviewed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, tentatively Oct. 17. The proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment is one of several possible code amendments that might be considered by the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners to address the workforce housing shortage. A primary goal within the Town Board's strategic plan is to serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for all segments of the community. The Estes Park Housing Authority, with support from the Town of Estes Park, conducted the 2016 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment. The assessment identified strategies to address MORE CONTINUED workforce housing needs, calling for partners to first convene a Housing Summit to prioritize those strategies. A top priority identified at the May summit is to amend codes to allow and encourage workforce housing. Another recommendation was to allow accessory dwelling units in all residential zones provided that they are rented long-term to employees. The Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment is available at www.esteshousing.org The Estes Valley model for land-use regulations is unique in Colorado. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County partnered in the mid-1990s to develop the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan — a unified vision for land-use planning in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. In 2000, they jointly established the Estes Valley Development Code. The Planning Commission reviews development and subdivision proposals and proposed code amendments within the entire Estes Valley, though the final decision-making authority lies with the County Commissioners and Town Board for their respective jurisdictions. Information on the topic of accessory dwelling units will be available at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. For more information, please contact Community Development Director Randy Hunt at 970-577-3719 or rhunt@estes.org Sign up to receive Town news and/or agendas at www.estes.org/subscribe. More Town news is available at www.facebook.com/townofestesparkco_ and www.twitter.com/townofestespark. END "Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs" American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen Pk-4711Mla,ftl.I klan IC.r; tell5 (Or pi/ Off1(.4-.6 oni:f Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained living units that typically have their own kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom space. Often called granny flats, elder cottage housing opportuni- ties (ECHO), mother-daughter residences, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs are apartments that can be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi- tion to an existing home. They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn. The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many. For the home owner, ADUs provide the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owner's grown son or daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby, The unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families, which would provide the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental Income to the owner. Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage, utilities, and real estate taxes. Finally, leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home owner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and yard for a discount on rent. Despite the benefits, some communities resist allowing ADUs, or allow them only after time-consuming and costly review procedures and requirements. Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood, increase density, add to traffic, make parking on the street more difficult increase school enrollment, and put additional pres- sure on fire and police service, parks, or water and wastewater. However, communities that have allowed ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually built. ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom- ic climate, changes in household size, increasing numbers of aging baby boomers, and the shortage of affordable housing choices. They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range of housing choices. LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTO THE ACT Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs.This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con- ditional use. In either case, reasonable conditions may be imposed. Some states, including California, have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs. In 2001 AARP retained APA's Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested in convincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it. Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Model Local Ordinance, the monograph provides alternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs. The Model Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities. Additionally, the intent of the ordinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval, and further outlines standards for ADU approval pertaining to lot size, occupancy, building standards, parking and traffic, public health, and how to deal with nonconforming ADUs. The Model State Act provides findings and policies encouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize A Publication of the American Planning Association I MS QuickNotes No. r9 for a complete list of references visit http://www planning.org/bas/quicimotes/ REFERENCES 1. Published by American Planning Association Amencan Planning Association. Affordable . Housing Reader. Articles from Zoning News and Zoning Practice. Available at http.//myapa.planningorg/affordableread er (members-only access) Arnencan Planning Association 2006. Policy Guide on housing Chicago American Planning Association Available at wwwplanning.org/policylguides/pdf/hou sing.pdf Raggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and Deborah Howe 1994 Planning for an Aging Society Planning Advisory Service Report no 451 Chicago American Planning Association. For more information on this topic .iisit wwwplanning.org a ()) • DED*00/1 A.7 001 171 A-0I ! ,431 Single story ADU Boor plan. a a Iljj 'WV. en:. adoption of an ADU statute. It specifies the limits to which local governments may prohibit ADUs and outlines default permitting provisions if a locali- ty does no; adopt an ADU ordinance. It details optional approaches for adopting ADU ordinances, certifying local ADU ordinances, gathering data on ADU efforts, preparing reports and recommendations, and forming a statewide board overseeing ADUs. WHAT ISSUES ARISE WHEN A PROPOSED ADU ORDINANCE IS CONSIDERED? ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben- efits to local communities but the road to implementation may not be an easy process. While ADUs are more widely accepted now than in years past, skeptics still remain and some still oppose ADJ zoning. The foliowing describes some issues or decision points that communities must address in order to successfully navigate the perilous waters of public acceptance. The approach that is right for your city or town will be unique, ioseu On local pnysical: political, social, and economic conditions. By-right Permitting. Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of rght (with clear standards built into the ordinance) or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after a public hearing? Occupancy. Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the property lives in one of the units? Form of Ownership. Should the ordirance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium? Preexisting, nonconforming ADUs. How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs? How do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit? Unit Size: Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly accessory to the principal dwelling on the property? kerlhaquazit-7 &Water and Sewer Services. How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in sewer lines, pumping stations, and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs? These are not easy issues. However, communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach that: allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupan- cy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan- dard. PAS QuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Copyright 0 2009. Visit PAS online at www.planning.org/pas to find out how PAS can work for you. American Planning Association staff. W Paul Farmer, pvcP, Executive Director and CEO; William R. Klein, RCP, Director of Research and Advisory Services; Tre Jerdon, QuickNotes Editor; Tim Menne), Senior Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer. A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No. 19 American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen References: Accessory Dwelling Units 1. Published by American Planning Association American Planning Association. Affordable Housing Reader: Articles from Zoning News and Zoning Practice. Available at http://myapa.planning.org/affordablereader (members-only access). American Planning Association. 7006. Policy Guide on Housing. Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/housing.pdf. Daggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and Deborah Howe. 1994. Planning for an Aging Society. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 451. Chicago: American Planning Association. Baron Pollak, Patricia. 1994. `Rethinking Zoning to Accommodate the Elderly in Single Family I-lousing:Jour/la/of the American Planning Association 60 (4): 521-531. Gorman, Alice, and Patricia Pollak. 1989. Community-Based Housing for the Elderly. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 420. Chicago: American Planning Association. Howe, Deborah A. 1990. The Flexible House Designing for Changing Needs:•Journa/ of the American Planning Association 56 (1): 69-77. Lubell, Jeffrey. 2006. 'Zoning to Expand Affordable HousingfZoning Practice. December, Chicago: American Planning Association. Meyerson, Deborah. 2007. 'The Ultimate in Accessibility! Planning, December, 44-45. Wittenberg, Jason. 2002.'Garages: Not Just for Cars Anymore'Zoning News. August Chicago: American Planning Association. 2. Other Resources Center for Housing Policy. 2008. Ensuring Zoning Policies Allow Housing Diversity: Accessory Dwelling Units. Available at www.housingpo I cy.org/tool box/strategy/pol icies/diverse_housi ng_types.html?tieri d=42. Cobb, Rodney, and Scott Dvorak. 2000. Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Washington, D.C.: AARP. Available at http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/consume/d17158 dwell.pdf. Cram, Leo. 1993. Missouri Gerontology Institute. Accessory Apartments! University of Missouri Extension. Available at http://ectension.missourledu/explore/aging/gg0014.htm. Massachusetts Executive Office of the Environment. (N.d.) Model Bylaw for Accessory Dwelling Units. Massachusetts Smart Growth Toolkit Bylaw, Available at www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/bylaws/ADU-Bylaw.pdf Minnetonka (Minnesota), City of .A Citizen's Guide to Accessory Apartments. Available at www.eminnetonka.com/communIty development/planning/brochures/accessory_apartments,pdf Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 1995, Accessory Dwelling Units. Report No. 33. Seattle: Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. Available at www.mrsc.org/Publications/adu30.pdf. Phillips, Jory. 2004. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: Director's Report Seattle: City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. Available at www.mrscorg/GovDocs/s42ADUrptpdf. Portland (Oregon), City of 2006. Planning and Zoning Code. Chapter 33.205. Accessory Dwelling Units. Available at www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfrn?a=53301&c=28197 Also see www.portlandonline,com/bds/inclex.cfmk=dgghg. Provo (Utah), City of. 2007. Zoning Code. Section 14.46A Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone Available at www.provo.org/downloads/counciVtitle_14_chapters_41-49c combined.pdf. Santa Cruz (California), City of. 2003. Accessory Dwelling Unit Manual. Available at www.ci.santa- cruzca.us/pVhcd/ADU/PDF/ADU_Manual.pdf. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2004:Accessory Housing is Part of the SolutionrAvailable at www.huduserorg/rbc/newsletter/vol3Iss1more,html A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No. 19 3. Case Law Anderson v. Provo City Corp., 2005 UT 5 (2005). City of Wilmington v. Hill, 657 S.E.2d 670 (2008). Coalition Advocating Legal ,.-lousing Options v. City.of Santa Monica, 88 Cal.App.4th 951 (2001). Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, 21 Cal.App.4th 330 (1993), Harris v. City of Costa Mesa, 25 Ca1.App.4th 963 (1994). Kasper v. Town of Brookhaven, 142. A.D.2d 213 (1988). Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of My°, 157 Cal. App. 4th1437 (2007). Sounhein v. City of San Dimas, 47 Cal.App. 4th 1181 (1996). Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. 416 US. 1 (1976). A Publication of the American Planning Association PAS QuickNotes Na 19 Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> .:STES PAIK 1:wd: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; Citizen Survey online through August 31 6 messages Art Messal <art.messal@gmall.com> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:52 AM To: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <fiancaster@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <tmachalek©estes.org›, Todd Ji rs a ‹tjirsa@estes.org> Cc: Michelle Hiland <michelle.hiland@gmail.com> Hi All, Can someone tell me about the process leading up to the Planning Commission now considering this ADU change? I've heard chatter here and there for some time but no substantial discussion. Will this really be going up for a vote with so little dialogue? This will further increase density and warrants very careful consideration, extensive public input, and considerable time for the public to become informed. Thanks, -Art- Forwarded message From: Town of Estes Park - Public Information Office <krusch©estes.org> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:09 PM Subject: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; Citizen Survey online through August 31 To: art.messal@gmail.com Having trouble viewing this email? Click here nab Like t A i) TOWN OF ESTES PARK Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered to aid workforce housing shortage At its next meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission will consider amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed, in some cases. While current regulations prevent rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The Planning Commission meeting takes place Aug. 16 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room of Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave. Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. Read the complete article. Participate in the Town of Estes Park's Citizen Survey online through August 31 A random sample of 1,500 Estes Park households received the Town of Estes Park's 2016 Citizen Survey in late June. The same survey is now available for broad participation on the Town's website www.estes.org through August 31. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster encourages everyone to take the opportunity to weigh in on Town and community programs and services, including residents outside the Town limits. "The Town understands many people who weren't included in the scientific sample also rely on our services, and the online survey is a convenient way for all citizens to tell us what they think," he explained. Read the complete article. You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in news from the Town of Estes Park. Please add krusch@estes.ora to your address book. I En Like Us on facehook Town of Estes Park, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 SafeUnsubscri be TM artmessal@g mai Loom Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by krusch@estes.org in collaboration with Constant Contaci Try it free today Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM To: Alison Chilcott -<achilcott©estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, Planning commdev <planning©estes.org> FYI - Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthonnpson@estes.org [Quoted text hidden] Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM To: Art Messal <art.messal@gmail.com > Cc: Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Michelle Hiland <michelle.hiland@gmail.com> Good afternoon Art, Thank you for your email. The code amendment that would allow for the long-term rental of attached ADUs is being brought to the three bodies by staff as an option to help address the affordable housing issues in the Estes Valley. The consideration of this amendment will be a public process (Planning Commission, Town Board, County Commission) with ample opportunity for public comment and feedback. We do recognize that the timeline, while wholly within our procedural requirements, is faster than usual. This decision was made in an effort to address this potential code amendment prior to (or soon after) the Highway 34 road closure. The thought behind this is that the change might assist employees in the community who commute to Estes Park from other Front Range communities cope with the highway closure. Planning Commission is the first stop for discussion on this item. Of course, they always have the prerogative to continue an agenda item if they do not feel comfortable making a decision/recommendation. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Best, TM Travis Machalek Assistant Town Administrator Town of Estes Park 970-577-3707 [Quoted text hidden] From: Art Messal Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:20 PM To: Travis Machalek Cc: Todd Jirsa; Frank Lancaster; Michelle Hiland; Randy Hunt Subject: Re: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; CitizenSurvey online through August 31 Happy Thursday Travis, I don't follow the logic for pushing this so quickly. The 34 closure starts around the time when many daily or weekly rentals historically shift to longer term and I fmd it unlikely many will break their leases just to move into an ADU. My concern with the public process is that many in our community are starting to notice that this board has some strong agendas and that participation isn't really worth the effort. We need staff to slow things down.:) I have some specific questions that I sent to Randy. Thanks, -Art-