HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Joint Town Board and Planning Commission Study Session 2021-07-08TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
TOWN OF ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
Joint Study Session
No public comment will be heard
Thursday, July 8, 2021
5:00 p.m.
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
The Town Board of Trustees will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of Emergency
signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and provided for with the
adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020.
If you are joining the Zoom meeting and are experiencing technical difficulties, staff will be
available for assistance from 4:30-5:00 p.m. by calling 970-577-4777.
Options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online via Zoom Webinar which
will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION):
Dial public participation phone number, 877-853-5257 (toll-free)
Enter the Meeting ID: 918-7148-5789 followed by the pound sign (#). The meeting will be available beginning at 2:00
p.m. the day of the meeting. Please call into the meeting prior to 1:30 p.m., if possible.
ONLINE OPTION:
Individuals who wish to watch the meeting online can do so through Zoom Webinar at https://zoom.us/j/91871485789
–Zoom Webinar ID: 918-7148-5789. The meeting will be livestreamed at www.estes.org/videos and will be posted
within 48 hours of the meeting at the same location.
Agenda
Comprehensive Plan and Code Rewrite: Overview; Schedule; Expectations.
Potential Near-Term Priorities for Attention in Land-Use Regulations:
•Housing
•Building Height (downtown and generally)
•Landscaping
•Parking
•Solar Incentives
Value of Semi-Annual Meetings Moving Forward.
Adjourn
NOTE: The Town Board and Planning Commission reserve the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
Page 1
Page 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Hon. Mayor T. Jirsa
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
Town Administrator F. Lancaster
From:Randy Hunt, Estes Park Community Development Director
Date:May 9, 2017
RE:Request to Initiate Action on Master List of Proposed Amendments
to EVDC
NOTE: This memorandum was approved by unanimous vote of the Town
Board of Trustees on May 9, 2017.
Objective:
The following is an outline list of amendments to the Estes Valley Development that
Community Development Department staff wish to propose for action in the future,
beginning in mid-2017.
As this list is lengthy – and as in recent months, EVDC amendments seem to have
taken an extraordinary (by most communities’ standards) long time to process – we
expect the processing and disposition of amendments on this list to stretch beyond
December 31, 2017. The task list in this memo will be updated at least annually, or as
events warrant.
Staff requests that the Board approve the following:
•Concurrence with the overall goal to extensively revise the EVDC;
•General concurrence with the outline list - understanding that specific items may
vary and that no pre-approval of specific changes is expressed or implied;
•Direction to staff and the Planning Commission to prioritize, elaborate on, and
allocate appropriate and available resources to the tasks in the outline list.
A favorable vote on the Sample Motion to Approve will affirm these elements.
Present Situation:
I believe I speak for a vast majority in stating that the Estes Valley Development Code is
difficult to administer and confusing to the development community and public. This
fundamental fact means there’s an immediate, in fact urgent, task before us:
Extensively revising our Development Code.
Page 3
NOTE: This memorandum was approved by
unanimous vote of the Town
Board of Trustees on May 9, 2017.
Page 2 of 9
The original creation of this Code in the years leading to its adoption in 2000 was a solid
accomplishment in principle and intent. The geographically unified EVDC, and the
Town/County uniformity of regulations in th e Estes Valley Development Area, were
innovative and visionary. This legacy lives on and is a clear advantage to Town, County,
and our citizens.
2000 EVDC and Zoning Map:
Inconsistencies were present in the EVDC and the Zoning Map from the very beginning.
The best way to illustrate is by an example or two. To name one example, we have a
significant number of single-family residential properties that were zoned with minimum
lot sizes greater than the actual lots included therein. It is inconsistent for zoni ng lots of
less than ½-acre to be included in a district that requires a one-acre minimum lot size.
Many such lots also have sizeable setbacks resulting in a lot of already-built
nonconforming structures. In some cases, setbacks leave a buildable area of zero.
Whatever the original idea, these things are not workable today. A fix is needed.
Amendments since 2000:
Inconsistencies with the 2000 Code have been compounded since then by amendments
that made the Code even harder to understand, administer, and enforce. Again, one
example of many will suffice: The term “Lot Coverage” is defined as “…portions of a lot
which are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption
of stormwater” (§13.3.137.a). That definition goes on to state that “…Porous pavement
and graveled areas are included in this definition” (§13.3.137.c). The latter section
appears to have been added in 2011.
There are two reasons why this amendment is a problem:
a. Definitions should be used to define – not to regulate. That may sound trivial and
obscure, but it is not – as anyone who has ever tried to calculate EVDC lot
coverage can tell you. No one would ever think to look in Definitions for
calculations, except those who’ve had to deal with eccentric codes like ours.
b. More to the point: The definition is internally contradictory. Any regulation that
says “impervious” surface includes “porous” surface has lost its way in the fog.
Additionally, the definition means that detention ponds are included in lot
coverage – detention ponds literally “...impede the passage or absorption of
stormwater”. Detention areas are usually considered a good way to preserve
open or green space and to manage stormwater – a classic win-win scenario. It
is hard to fathom why a detention area would be defined as “lot coverage”.
There have been a sizeable number of amendments like the above over the years.
This proposal is not aimed at second-guessing previous staff or decision-makers, nor
would that serve any useful purpose in changing the Code now. We may presume that
past code amendments were done with the best of intentions. Some amendments no
Page 4
Page 3 of 9
doubt reflect policies of a former time that no longer pertain to the Estes Valley. Others
show lack of coordination or finesse.
Be that as it may, the task forward is to revise the EVDC to meet the Goals, and to keep
at it. As noted, this will take some time. That scope is no reason to wait. If we delay until
we can fix all the Code at once, we will be waiting a long time. The child may wish for
high tide to wait until her perfect sandcastle is finished… but the tide rises all the same,
regardless of wishes. We build what we can, when we can.
The critical things are: (a) to have a road map of where we’re going; and (b) to get
started and keep at it. This request is aimed at both.
Proposal:
GOALS:
Overall Goal: Provide an extensively revised (virtually every page) EVDC th at meets the
following criteria.
More specifically:
• Simplifies, streamlines, and makes more transparent and accountable all
elements in the Estes Valley Development Code.
o Specifically, makes the revised Code at a minimum twenty-five percent
(25%) shorter than current EVDC, measured by word count.
• Updates language, procedures, and criteria to 21st Century standards.
• Imposes clearly defined and understandable regulations.
o In other words, let’s have a Code that’s written in plain English. Maybe it
will catch on.
o Let’s create a Code that can be picked up by the ordinary citizen, the
design professional, the developer, the elected / appointed official, or the
staff member, and after any of those individuals read the appropriate
sections, all parties can understand what is written and see a clear path
forward on the issue at hand.
• For projects, or any other geographically defined proposal, appropriately balance
the legitimate wishes and needs of neighboring property owners with overall well-
being and policy direction for the entire community, including long-time
permanent residents, recent arrivals, businesses, and daily and seasonal visitors.
• Identifies a clear process, with measurable benchmarks, for every development -
code procedure.
• Uses a “deliberate speed” approach to Code-required process timelines:
“deliberate”, meaning adequate time for public comment , staff analysis, and
decision-maker review; “speed”, meaning without arbitrary delay nor time for
indecision or polarization. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good.
Page 5
Page 4 of 9
• Reduces to a minimum the number of “approvals with [lengthy] conditions”.
(Such approvals are not approvals at all.)
OUTLINE LIST of Proposed EVDC Amendments:
Following is a list of amendments to EVDC the staff has identified as necessary to meet
the Goals. For brevity, this list is only an outline. There is no particular order in the list;
priorities will be determined in further consultation with staff and elected officials.
More detail could be written about every item. And in fact, that will be happening when
staff reports and draft code language are created for each item. For now, this list i s
intended to give an overall scope.
• Revise Development and Dimensional Standards in specific EVDC sections,
including:
o Building Height in RM (Multi-Family) District
o Building Height in CD (Downtown Commercial) District
o [Possible] Building Height in A (Accommodations/Highway Corridor), A-1
(Accommodations/Low-Intensity), CO (Outlying Commercial), CH (Heavy
Commercial), and/or O (Office) Districts
o Change “net density” to “gross density” (e.g., allow for clustering).
o Eliminate Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from Code
o Rationalize and clarify “lot coverage” (impervious surface), in conjunction
with completion of the Town’s Stormwater Master Plan
o Consider how other development and dimensional standards could affect
and be affected by changes in the above-listed standards (e.g., setbacks
are relayed to lot coverage and vice-versa)
• Extensively revise Chapter 7 [General Development Standards], to change the
following to become more understandable and less obscure:
o The aforementioned change from net to gross density
o Ridgeline protection standards
o Limits on changing “original, natural” grade (an obscure term)
o Restoration of disturbed areas; limitations on site disturbance
o Tree and Vegetation Protection
o Public Trails (align with Trails Master Plan)
o Private Open Areas
o Landscaping and Buffers
o Parking Lot Landscaping
o Fences and Walls
o Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection
o Geologic Hazards
o Wildfire Hazards
o Wildlife Habitat Protection
Page 6
Page 5 of 9
o Exterior Lighting
o Off-Street Parking and Loading
o Adequate Public Facilities [see section on “Improvements” below]
o Outdoor Storage Areas
• Sign Code – complete replacement
• Adding a chapter on Redevelopment, with criteria, procedures, and incentives
• Planned Unit Developments: streamline, eliminate unnecessary steps, provide
for added flexibility
• Subdivision Standards: call out different categories, requirements (incl. public
improvements) for each type, timelines, securitization, basic design standards
• New Chapter on “Improvements”, in conjunction with other agencies (Town
Public Works, Utilities, Fire District, Sanitation Districts, etc.), to include:
o Street improvement thresholds & standards (existing)
o Requirements for new streets, incl. thresholds, standards (drainage, curb,
sidewalks, etc.)
o Water system design and installation requirements (public infrastructure)
o Wastewater system design and installation requirements (public
infrastructure)
o Electrical system design and installation requirements (public
infrastructure)
o Timeframe for installation of public improvements
▪ Separate timeframes for “build & dedicate” vs. securitized
▪ In-lieu fees
o Securitization standards (type of security, when required, when released,
partial release)
o Default of Terms/Agreements
o Inspection and Acceptance / Notice of Completion
o Warranty requirements – conditions, terms, security
o Standards for T.C.O. and final C.O. issuance, enforcement
o Requirement for as-built plans before C.O.
o Reimbursement for oversized public improvements
o Delayed Improvements: protocols, securitization, administration and
enforcement
o [Note: This Chapter and the Code are not intended to include specific
engineering design standards and criteria. Those are better left in
administrative policies and procedures.]
• Any use of the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” (or parallel language with
the same interpretation) is to be eliminated, unless that term is accompanied by a
precise definition and measurable criteria
• Elimination of authority to approve “Minor Modifications” from certain
development/dimensional standards, thus bypassing the variance process:
o Eliminate staff authority to approve up to 10% “modifications”
o Eliminate EVPC authority to approve up to 25% “modifications”
Page 7
Page 6 of 9
• Elimination of unnecessary review procedures, and/or steps in the review
procedures
o Example: “Preliminary” and “final” condominium map approvals (it seems
adequate to combine into a single plat for approval and recordation)
o Example: Streamlining Special Reviews, so that minor Special Reviews go
to only one body instead of two for approval; compliance with quasi-
judicial decision-making criteria
o Example: All Development Plans to be approved administratively, rather
than tasking Planning Commission with larger ones
o Revise variance criteria for Board of Adjustment to align with best planning
practices and eliminate non-variance-related elements
o Realign and rationalize Subdivision review procedures
• Provide specific steps and timelines for other reviewing entities
• Provide additional flexibility and/or incentives to encourage redevelopment of
underutilized or obsolete properties
o Specifically, provide additional flexibility for non-conforming structures to
move toward conformity during redevelopment process
o Specifically, focus on Code-related redevelopment opportunities in
commercial corridors, accommodations areas, and on multi-family
properties
• Modify Temporary Uses section to provide for longer Temporary Uses but limit
number of times they can be renewed or extended
• Create new section (separate from Temporary Uses) to regulate and facilitate
mobile food vendors
• Extensively revise “Separate Lot Determinations” section to allow alternatives for
development
• Eliminate Conditional Use Permit section (replace with new Special Review
procedure and criteria)
• Codify recent administrative determination that rezonings do not require
development plans to be provided in connection with rezoning approval
• Consider creating a “floating zone” for higher density (16 units/acre) multi-family
housing
• Expand employee housing development options (currently tied to accessory
housing in mixed-use projects only)
• Implementation of new floodplain maps (when finalized and approved by FEMA)
and hydrologic data, coupled with complete rewrite of floodplain regulations with
sensitivity and incentives as applicable to foster redevelopment
• Making appropriate modifications to the Stanley Historic District review process
and regulation; may include sunsetting, revision, and/or amendment of the
District; may also include modifications to the Stanley Master Plan
Page 8
Page 7 of 9
• General: Clarification of language, tightening of definitions and applicability,
removal of ambiguity, elimination of cumbersome and archaic procedural steps
and substantive elements
Placement of EVDC Revisions within Overall Planning and Strategic Goals:
In best planning practice, a Comprehensive Plan is the first step in articulating the
community vision and direction for land use and development. Once the
Comprehensive Plan is created or updated, the follow-up steps often involve
(re)aligning the Development Code to match the community’s vision and goals.
That is not the sequence proposed here. It is still the preferable order of things.
However, my reasons for going straight to Code revisions are altogether pragmatic. A
Comprehensive Plan update is underway, but that timeline is 12 to 18 months away
from completion. Frankly, we do not have the luxury of waiting. Various recent analyses
and plans, such as the 2015 Estes Valley Economic Develo pment Strategy and the
2016 Housing Needs Assessment, point to a clear and present need for EVDC revision.
Timeline:
The process for considering a relatively simple code change in 2016 (the Accessory
Dwelling Unit [ADU] amendment) was approximately four months. That amendment
would have taken five months if the typical last phase, review by the County, had not
been eliminated by the Town Board’s disapproval of the amendment. Another recent
Code amendment – eliminating the 40,000 square-foot minimum lot size in the RM
District – took approximately 2.5 months for an uncomplicated and uncontroversial
Code amendment.
These timelines are lengthy by most communities’ standards. In my own experience
elsewhere, an uncomplicated Code amendment usually takes around 1.5 to 2 months. It
is also quite common for a set of uncomplicated amendments to be combined, with
perhaps five or six amendments in a single “housekeeping” Code amendment package.
There are approximately 50 amendments listed above. Some are uncomplicated and
could be included in a combination or housekeeping type of amendment package.
Others will need more time. With the caveat that variable timelines are involved, I would
estimate that processing all of the above amendments would need around seventeen
(17) years, based on our current approach to Code amendments. Coincidentally, 17
years is the age of our current development Code.
Ways and Means:
The proposal does not envision the use of outside consulting resources, provided the
timeline is acceptable. Staff would propose to draft amendments, see them through the
internal review and public processes, and take all necessary implementation steps
Page 9
Page 8 of 9
following adoption (such as adjusting fee schedules, keeping public resources such as
the website updated, etc.)
An accelerated timeline, faster than 17 years, could be accomplished by invoking
external resources, such as a specialized consulting firm. The City of Laramie’s
Development Code was rewritten from scratch in around 3.5 years, from initial contract
to final Code adoption. This relatively speedy pace was accomplished by spending
between $200,000 and $250,000, not counting in-kind resources.
Staff is not asking for a quarter million dollars to repair the Estes Valley Development
Code. We need to fix the Code, but that is not the only budget priority for our
community. We expect this to be an in-house project.
On the other hand, 17 years is a long time.
It is suggested that a deliberate, in-house pace is manageable and affordable. It is also
suggested that we can go faster than 17 years.
Advantages:
• The EVDC is dated, confusing, and does not serve our community well in its
current configuration.
• A goal of simplicity and transparency in the Code, and in our operations within
Code, is good public policy and aligns with community expectations.
• EVDC revisions would also result in more efficiencies for local decision-makers,
including staff and elected and appointed officials.
Disadvantages:
• Significantly changing the EVDC means changing some of the fundamental
assumptions under which the community has been operating.
• Change itself is seen as threatening and produces fear among some.
• Some practical adjustments – such as changes in the fee schedules, application
deadlines, and the like – will need to be considered and addressed concurrently
with a number of code changes.
• The full task list will take a long time.
• Some changes will be differential and even reciprocal.
Level of Public Interest:
It is not clear how much public interest exists in the abstract idea of “Code
amendments”. Specific amendments, such as building heights, density, and
redevelopment, have generated quite high levels of interest.
Page 10
Page 9 of 9
Many stakeholders are not present through much of the year. Our community’s visitors
are also stakeholders. Engaging the attention of all members of the public is important
in this effort.
Sample Motions:
I move for approval of the Request to Initiate Action on Master List of Proposed
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code.
I move for denial of the Request to Initiate Action on Master List of Proposed
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code.
Attachments: None
Cc: Board of Larimer County Commissioners
Cc: County Manager L. Hoffmann
Cc: Estes Valley Planning Commission
Page 11
Page 12