HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2022-03-15PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
1:30 p.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The Estes Park Board Planning Commission 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. Procedures for
quasi-judicial virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town
Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020, and outlined below.
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/93771272278
Or Join by Telephone:
1.Dial US: +1 833-548-0276 (toll free)
2.Enter Webinar ID: 937 7127 2278 followed by #
The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and recorded and
posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
Public Comment
When the moderator opens up the public comment period for an agenda item, attendees
wishing to speak shall:
1. Click the “Raise Hand” button, if joining online on the Zoom client, or
2. Press *9 and follow the prompts if joining by telephone.
3. If you are watching live on YouTube, please call the number listed above, and mute your
computer audio for the duration of your remarks.
Once you are announced, please state your name and address for the record.
To participate online via Zoom, you must:
•Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer.
•Using earphones with a microphone will significantly improve your audio experience.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
Prepared March 9, 2022 Page 1
NOTE: The Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 15, 2022
ACTION ITEMS
1. Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision Senior Planner Woeber
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. RM2 Update Ayres Associates
2. CPAW Update Planner Bergeron
3. CompPlan Update Director Garner
4. In Person vs Virtual Meetings
ADJOURN
Prepared 3/9/2022
Page 2
Page 3
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 15, 2022
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado.
Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 15 day of
February 2022.
Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene
Centurione.
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice-Chair Heiser, Commissioner Elkins,
Commissioner Hanson, Director Jessica Garner, Senior
Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning
Technician LJ Baur, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund,
Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Barbara
MacAlpine,
Also Attending: Jeremy Call from Logan Simpson
Absent: Centurione
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 4-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT none
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Elkins) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 4-0.
ACTION ITEMS
1.Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision
In relation to the slope reduction/density calculation discussed at the January 18
meeting, Planner Woeber found examples where staff or the Planning
Commission had granted a "minor modification" for the minimum lot area or
requested. For zone district standards, staff may grant a modification up to 10%
before final approval. Planning Commission may grant up to 25%. This authority
is found within EPDC Section 3.7.A.2. where it explicitly identifies zone district
standards, including minimum lot area. Lot 1 of Golden Leaf is an 8%
modification.
Staff requested this subdivision hearing be continued to the March 15, 2022,
meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to continue this item to the March
15, 2022 meeting. The motion passed 4-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Comprehensive Plan consultant from Logan Simpson, Jeremy Call, reviewed the
current state of the CompPlan rewrite and the working vision to date with a Powerpoint
Presentation. He shared the draft vision and draft guiding principles with the
Commission. Hanson questioned the use of "Estes Valley" in the vision statement.
The upcoming stage will move the dialog into the "Civic Square" with the development
of Community Choices and Priorities Outreach for different ways to accomplish the
vision. Considerable discussion was had on one of the main choices: Growth
Management Area. Mapping annexations in the past 20 years could help shed light on
Planning Commission – February 15, 2022 – Page 2
future growth locations. Another critical choice pertains to supporting stronger
development regulations and solutions to Hazards and Climate Change regulations.
Chair Comstock stated that if we are planning for growth, we need to support the
protection of natural resources, and this is our opportunity to set the standard.
Vice-Chair Heiser reminded the Commissioners that the Planning Commission will
recommend adopting the Comp Plan to the Town Board; therefore, keeping apprised on
it is essential.
With two Commissioners needing to leave the meeting, it was decided to continue the
Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) discussion to March 15.
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
_______________________________
Matt Comstock, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Estes Park Planning Commission
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: March 15, 2022
RE: Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision
(Mark all that apply for later Town Board handling)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Location:
325 and 327 James Street, Estes Park. Located at the northwest corner of the intersection of
West Elkhorn Avenue and James Street.
Owner/Applicant:
Owners: Mark and Renae Adelmann
Consultant/Surveyor:
Van Horn Engineering, Tom Bergmann
Staff Contact:
Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Applicant Request:
The applicant seeks approval for a Minor Subdivision to create three lots in an E-1 (Estate)
Zone District.
Objective:
1. Review for compliance with the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) and Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan; and
2. Provide a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees for approval/denial
of the minor subdivision application
Project Description:
The 4.44± acre site is within an E-1 (Estate) Zone District. Currently there are two residences
on the property, with the smaller residence located at the northeast of the site originally
constructed in 1936, and a larger, two-story residence to the east and center of the site dating
from 1924.
• Lot 1: 1.13 acres in size, contains the smaller existing residence, labeled “single story
cottage,” addressed as 327 James Street.
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 15, 2022
GOLDEN LEAF MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAGE 2 OF 6
• Lot 2: 1.83 acres in size, contains the larger of the two existing residences and is
addressed as 325 James Street.
• Lot 3: 1.47 acres in size, is vacant land. The prominent rock outcropping on this
property is predominantly on Lot 2 and partially on Lot 3. The plat depicts a building site
for a residence and driveway access, on the southwestern portion of Lot 3. Staff notes
this proposed residence is for illustrative purposes and will not be shown on the final,
recorded Minor Subdivision plat.
Site Data Table:
Parcel Number: 3525200008 Development Area: 4.44± acres
Existing Land Use:
Residential
Proposed Land Use:
Single Family Residential
Zoning Designation:
E-1 Estate
Proposed Zoning Designation:
No Change
Adjacent Zoning:
East: E-1 (Estate) North: E-1 (Estate)
West: E-1 Estate South: CO (Commercial Outlying)
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: James Street, Residential North: Single-Family Residential
West: Residential South: Commercial, Accommodations
(Elkhorn Lodge)
Services:
Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District
Review Process:
Under the EPDC, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.9.D.3., Minor
Subdivisions shall follow the approval process in Section 3.2, which requires a Planning
Commission recommendation, with final action (approval or denial) by the Town Board. The
submittal requirements and review standards for a minor subdivision are not specified and
separated in the EPDC, although clearly a Minor Subdivision is a distinct type of application
process from a “regular” subdivision, which involves a separate application process for a
preliminary plat and final plat.
Although the Code’s Minor Subdivision process is somewhat unclear, past Department policy
requires essentially a Preliminary Plat, with topography, existing structures, vegetation, water
bodies and other natural and manmade features for Planning Commission review. Although the
Final Plat is not a separate process, the Town Board review and approval will involve what
amounts to a “Final Plat” which depicts mainly lots and easements, with signature blocks,
dedication statements, and plat notes as applicable. This plat, if approved is recorded in the
records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s Office in Fort Collins.
Page 8
PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 15, 2022
GOLDEN LEAF MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAGE 3 OF 6
Generally, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a
more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project:
1. Water. Town water service is provided to the two developed lots, and is available to
undeveloped Lot 3. See “Planning Commission Continuance” No. 1., below.
2. Sewer. Existing sanitary sewer service is provided to the developed lots, and is available
to undeveloped Lot 3.
3. Access. Each of the three proposed lots have access from James Street.
4. Sidewalk/Trails. N/A. See Review Agency comments, Public Works, below.
5. Mapped Hazard Areas. The subject property is not within flood or geologic hazard
areas.
6. Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within the Fall River Planning Sub-Area.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes existing uses such as single-family and
accommodation uses, with discouragement of future commercial convenience type uses.
There would be no changes to the single-family land use allowed under the existing E-1
zoning proposed with this subdivision.
• The proposed subdivision creates an additional single-family lot with an existing
single-family home, and supports the following policies Chapter 6 Community-
Wide Policies, Section 5.0 Housing:5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and
pricing.
• 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community
that is integrated and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods.
Planning Commission Continuance:
The Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision application was presented to the Planning Commission on
January 18, 2022. Questions were raised at that time, with the Planning Commission ultimately
voting to continue the Subdivision to the February 15 hearing. On February 15, staff requested
the Subdivision be continued to March 15, 2022. The continuances were to give staff and the
applicant the ability to provide clarification to those questions. The following is a brief
discussion of the questions that were raised on January 18th:
1. The “Minor Subdivision” criteria within the EPDC Section 10.2 includes a requirement
where, “…the subdivision entails no extension of public facilities.” This mainly involves
extension of utilities including electric, wastewater, and water. Electric service and
central sewer service is available to the subdivision parcel. The Town of Estes Park
does provide water to the property, and in fact the two existing residences are now
served by Town water. Currently, the water lines consist of very old service lines, dating
back many decades. They were not installed to modern standards, and are not able to
adequately serve the existing and proposed new development. The Town of Estes Park
Utilities will require most of this old water system to be replaced and upgraded to current
standards. Rather than an “extension of public facilities,” staff sees this as an upgrade
and replacement of the existing water system.
Page 9
PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 15, 2022
GOLDEN LEAF MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAGE 4 OF 6
2. The Slope Protection Standards within Section 7.1 of the EPDC, includes Subsection
7.1.A., titled “Density Calculations for Residential and Accommodation Development on
Steep Slopes in Excess of 12%.”. This Section is very clearly for “density calculation.”
The Section contains a table that abruptly, and with no explanation, shifts from density
calculation to “Adjusted Minimum Lot Area.” Staff emphasizes that Minimum Lot Area is
not the same as density. For the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision, the density calculation
has reduced the allowable number of units (single family dwelling units) to be only three,
rather than four. The parcel is 4.44 acres in size. E-1 (Estate) Zoning, with a one-acre
minimum lot area, clearly provides for four, one-acre lots. The applicant has applied the
Density Calculation in Section 7.1, and this has been reduced to three lots on the 4.44
acre parcel.
At issue is whether after this density calculation and reduction in density, the “minimum
lot area” must also be increased for each of the lots. Staff researched numerous past
subdivision files from approved subdivisions that had applied the Density Calculations
for slopes. Staff was looking for consistency in applying Section 7.1, to determine what
approach that had been taken in past years. Staff did not research all previous
subdivisions but only enough for a reasonable sample. A few subdivisions with a lot or
lots that did not meet the increased minimum lot area were allowed through a “Minor
Modification.’ The EPDC, Section 3.7.A.2., provides for “Minor Modifications from
General Development and Zone District Standards.” Staff may grant a modification to
certain standards up to 10%, the EPPC may grant modifications up to 25%. “Minimum
lot area and dimensional requirements” are one of four specific modifications that may
be modified. The modification based on average slope of the three proposed lots has
been calculated by the applicant’s representative, summarized as follows:
Lot 1. Average slope is 22%. Add 10,000 square feet to the 1 acre minimum
required in E-1 zoning. This equals 1.23 acres. They are proposing 1.13 acres,
which is an 8% difference. The 1.13 is an 8% "minor modification" to the 1.23
acres required.
Lot 2, 38% average slope. This comes to 1.60 acres required, they are
proposing Lot 2 at 1.83 acres, no modification required.
Lot 3, 25% average slope. 1.30 acres required. Lot 3 is proposed to be 1.47
acres, no modification required.
Reviewing Agency Comments:
This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.
There has been much discussion with Town Utilities Department regarding water service for this
subdivision, both existing and for proposed Lot 3. Town Utilities requires both private service
lines as well as some infrastructure that will be considered public improvements, and involve
extension of a water main to serve a new hydrant.
Staff is recommending a condition of approval where, if the Minor Subdivision is approved by
the Town Board, prior to recordation of the Minor Subdivision plat, the owner/applicant shall
guarantee installation of public improvements, per EPDC requirements. This may involve
installing the improvements prior to recordation of the plat, or an improvement agreement with
collateral, as applicable.
Page 10
PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 15, 2022
GOLDEN LEAF MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAGE 5 OF 6
The Estes Park Sanitation District has been in discussion with the applicant’s representative to
determine specifics of how wastewater/sewer infrastructure is to be installed. Staff notes that
both water and sewer in this area date back many decades, and installing new connections can
be complex. The District has determined a manhole replacement is necessary, and must be
adequately installed to accommodate existing and planned sewer connections. See applicant’s
statement of intent for additional detail. Staff is recommending prior to recordation of the Minor
Subdivision plat, the owner/applicant shall guarantee installation of public improvements.
The Town Public Works Department provided comment, noting there is no curb, gutter and
sidewalk in this area, with two lots being developed, and sidewalk, curb and gutter is not
required to be constructed. The owner/applicant will need to clear out a culvert for the driveway
access.
Public Comments:
Written notice has been mailed to properties in accordance with EPDC Section 3.15 General
Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the
application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also
posted a “Development Proposal under Review” sign on the property.
As of, January 10, 2022, no written public comments have been received for this application
package. All written comments are posted to:
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Staff Findings:
Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. The Minor Subdivision complies with applicable standards set forth in the EPDC.
2. The Minor Subdivision complies with the applicable goals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Minor Subdivision Plat.
4. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed projects.
5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Estes Park Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval
of the proposed Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision to the Town Board, with staff findings and the
following condition of approval:
1. Prior to recordation of the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision, the owner/applicant shall
guarantee installation of public improvements for water and sewer infrastructure per
recommendation of the Town Utilities Department and the Estes Park Sanitation
District. This may involve installing the improvements or submitting an improvement
agreement, subject to review and approval by Community Development.
Page 11
PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 15, 2022
GOLDEN LEAF MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAGE 6 OF 6
Sample motions for the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision:
1. I move to recommend that the Town Board approve the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision
with findings and condition of approval recommended by Staff.
2. I move to continue the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision to a date certain, in order
to...[state reasons for continuance].
3. I move to recommend that the Town Board deny the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision
finding that...[state reasons for denial].
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Minor Subdivision Plat
Page 12
Site Location
WELKHORN A V E
W WO
N
D
E
R
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
O L D R A N G E R D R
FALL
R
I
V
E
R
L
N
VA L L E Y R D
F A R V I E W D R
BIG HORNDR
J A M E S ST
BIGBOULDER DR
FAR VIEW LN
ROCKRI D G E R D
FILBEYCT
M A R I G OLD L N
OLDMAN
MOUNTAINLN
0 250 500
Feet -Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development
Printed: 12/14/2021
Created By: Jeff Woeber
Project Name:
Project Description:
Golden LeafMinor Subdivision
For Illustrative Purposes Only
Page 13
Golden Leaf Subdivision
Statement of Intent
The following application is a request on the part of the Mark and Renae Adelmann for a
3-lot subdivision for a 4.44 acre parcel located at 325 James Street to be known as the
Golden Leaf Subdivision. There are presently two dwellings on the subject property; a
3,400 s.f. house (built 1924) located near the center of the property, and a 720 s.f. house
(built 1936) located near the northeast corner of the property. Both of these dwellings are
accessed from a shared road connecting to James Street. It is the goal of this Minor
Subdivision to separate these structures onto their own lots with separate utilities and
continue the shared driveway. Lot 1 will contain the smaller single family house and a
portion of the shared driveway while leaving room for future expansion on the 1.13 acre
lot. Lot 2 will contain the existing main house, a portion of the shared driveway as well
as the large rock outcrop and space to allow for future expansion to the west on the 1.83
acre lot. Lot 3 proposed with this Minor Subdivision is a 1.47 acre lot that would have a
separate, dedicated driveway entrance to a future home near the southwest corner of the
existing property. This location will provide separation and privacy from the existing
homes and the neighboring parcel to the west. The surrounding properties are a mix of
mostly residential and commercial development including both houses and cabins of
various sizes. This property is also located directly across from the Elkhorn Lodge. The
development of this parcel as three single-family lots (ranging from 1.1 to 1.8 acres in
size each) will not alter the character of the neighborhood, since neighboring lots vary in
size from 0.43 acres to three acres. There are several multi-acre lots in the neighborhood,
some of which have been subdivided into smaller lots ranging from one half to two acres
in size. The subject property is zoned E-1, and one acre minimum lots are what we are
striving for and believe this is in keeping with the existing nature of the neighborhood.
ACCESS
Access to this three-lot subdivision will be served by the existing paved road, James
Street. The two northerly lots currently have an already developed, shared entrance from
James Street. The southerly lot will be serviced by a new access approximately 150 feet
southwest of the existing entrance.
DRAINAGE
Drainage on site is discussed in a separate Preliminary Drainage Analysis. Of note in this
analysis is that a local outflow culvert that diverts water that flows over a portion of Lot 3
and a portion of Lot 2 and other neighboring properties contribute to is presently clogged
with rock and sediment and will need to be cleared out. It is anticipated that the property
owner will work with CDOT to ensure this culvert is cleared.
Utilities such as electric, water, gas, and telephone can be extended from existing utilities
already on/along the property. It is to be noted that the owner of the subject parcel (325
James Street) is also the owner of an un-developed parcel (Parcel 3526100037) located
east of the curve of James Street. The utility plan for this subdivision is intended to
enable this property to also have access to local utilities. Easements within the
Page 14
subdivision to access electricity and other utilities for this purpose are as shown on the
preliminary plat.
ELECTRICITY
Additional electric service for the southerly lot is proposed to come from the existing
pole near the southerly edge of the property. A transformer will be placed at the pole at
the southerly boundary of the subject parcel (over proposed Lot 3) at the time of
development. An additional easement is dedicated with this subdivision to facilitate
connection to the undeveloped property (Parcel 3526100037). The existing electric
connections to the existing homes will be kept as-is with all electric service lines to be
located in utility easements as shown on the preliminary subdivision plat.
SEWER
A sewer line for the southerly lot is proposed to be routed by a pressurized grinder pump
to a proposed EPSD manhole located near the existing manhole along the south side of
James Street just east of the existing entrance. An existing shared sewer service line
comes down the south side of James Street and turns easterly through 340 James Street
(Parcel 3526100034). No known easement for this sewer main across 340 James Street is
known, prescriptive rights of use are assumed. EPSD has identified that the existing
manhole needs to be replaced and brought up to EPSD standards due to age and not being
located above the point of curvature of the existing sewer main. EPSD has expressed
interest to upgrade the existing connections to this manhole as well as collecting the local
sewer main into the new manhole, if possible. This change/update would therefore be
mutually beneficial to the subdivision and EPSD. The existing two homes on the subject
property will separate the sewer lines that currently flow in one pipe to the existing main
and tie into the proposed manhole with this subdivision proposal. All sewer connections
are to be trenched together within the prescriptive easement that exists on 340 James
Street and will not seek new alignments, but lie along the existing alignment.
WATER
The closest fire hydrant and water main lies approximately 250’ northeast of the subject
property on James Street. This existing water main is a 6” water main, but will be
extended with an 8” water main that will extend to a proposed hydrant just west of the
easterly property line of 325 James Street and Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. This
will provide sufficient fire suppression for the existing lots and as well for the new lot
approximately 300’ from the hydrant. The hydrant will be located as shown on the
Preliminary Subdivision Plat with a 6” tee and leave an 8” line stub to the south for any
future connection.
An existing water line that serves 875 West Elkhorn crosses the southerly portion of the
property. A private waterline easement will be dedicated with this Minor Subdivision to
cover this existing use. This water service line is very shallow and is only used
seasonally. It is anticipated that this private, seasonal service line will be re-aligned from
the existing location to a permanent dedicated easement along the southerly area of the
proposed Lot 3 when the owner is ready to upgrade send line. If this seasonal waterline is
abandoned this easement is to also be abandoned. The owner/applicant and Van Horn
Page 15
Engineering has been discussing the upgrade and the re-routing of this line with the
owner of 875 West Elkhorn and we will be working with the owner on the timing of this
re-routing such that the seasonal line will not be disconnected until a new connection has
been constructed. At this time the owner of 875 West Elkhorn wishes to discuss the re-
routing in the spring when she comes back to town in the spring. If the waterline is not
relocated it is understood the easement as dedicated will continue to provide rights of use
and maintenance until such time as the seasonal waterline is abandoned. A water service
stub will be routed for this future service from the hydrant and extended in the trenching
beneath James Street and stubbed to a location in the southerly portion of the R-O-W for
James Street south of Lot 1.
The existing service lines for the two northerly lots will also be separated into individual
service lines and will connect to the proposed water main that will be routed along James
Street. This main will provide future separate services for proposed Lot 3 and Parcel
3256100037 and will provide stub-outs to the south side of the James Street R-O-W.
HAZARDS
The property is not located within the Fall River mapped flood hazard area, although it
lies just south of the subject property. Although the steep rocky area on the subject
property is not included as a geologic hazard on the Estes Valley Hazard Map, the
average slope over the rock spire is more than 40% slope. Areas of steep slopes are
shown on the Preliminary Plat.
The proposed property configuration follows the intent of the code by formalizing the
two existing single-family homes on separate lots instead of a non-comformity of having
two single family homes on one lot. The additional lot utilizes the remaining acreage
such that all lots will have more than the minimum acreage in the E-1 Estate zoning while
providing screening and separation from the existing improvements. No variances are
being requested with this application and we believe this proposed subdivision is within
the existing character of the neighborhood.
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
’”
’”’ ” ’ ’
’” ’
’” ’’”’’ ” ’
’” ’ ’” ’
’” ’ ’” ’’” ’’” ’
’” ’’” ’’” ’’” ’’” ’
Page 20
Page 21
Memo
To: Estes Park Planning Commission
Through: Jessica Garner, Community Development Director
From: Ayres Associates
Date: March 15, 2021
RE: Proposed Code Amendment related to the inclusion of “Missing Middle” housing
types in the Estes Park Zoning Code
Planning Commission Objective:
The Community Development Department is seeking to create opportunities for affordable
housing in Estes Park. Specifically, staff is interested in reviewing the code to identify areas for
inclusion of “Missing Middle” housing types for infill development and for new development
projects. This memorandum provides an overview of the following:
• Proposed process for community engagement to be completed in conjunction with the
comprehensive plan update.
• An explanation of “form-based” codes and how they can be integrated into a proposed
code amendment.
• Proposed process for consideration of a “Missing Middle” code amendment.
Background
At the November 11, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, staff provided a presentation on
Missing Middle housing types and discussed potential changes to the Zoning Code to facilitate
denser development. The discussion was a follow up to a previous discussion on the proposed
RM-2 Zoning District, which was an incentive-based system to allow building at higher densities
and/or reduce regulatory burdens such as parking requirements in exchange for some
affordable component.
While the Planning Commission indicated a general desire to allow for greater densities, it was
clear that a more nuanced approach was needed to ensure compatibility with existing residential
neighborhoods and the town overall.
As a result of the feedback from the Commission, staff was provided direction to explore the
concept of the Missing Middle. The Missing Middle refers to medium density housing types that
can be more easily integrated into single-family residential neighborhoods, while providing much
needed housing options. The Planning Commission informally signaled that they would be
favorable to considering this approach.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Page 22
As a result, staff in conjunction with Ayres Associates and Gould Evans, is proposing a
community engagement process focused on Missing Middle housing types, its potential impact
on local housing needs, and a possible updates to the code that would allow for this housing
type. Gould Evans is a nationally recognized firm that specializes in community code
assessments and code amendments and are acting as a subconsultant to Ayres Associates in
support of this proposal.
The engagement also includes discussion on the use of “form-based” codes to promote Missing
Middle housing. Form-based codes are different in that they emphasize building relationships to
adjacent public spaces, and other built structures as opposed to traditional codes which tend to
be more formulaic.
Housing affordability is becoming a problem in Colorado and Estes Park is no exception. In
2016, the Town of Estes Park completed a Housing Needs Assessment that projected housing
needs through 2020. The study found the need for an additional 1,480 to 1,690 housing units to
address current workforce housing shortages and keep pace with future demand. The Town is
in the process of updating that assessment but a strong demand for housing still exists in Estes
Park.
Community Process:
With the ongoing Comprehensive Plan process currently underway, there was concern that
there may be some confusion with a new effort to amend the code. Staff is proposing that this
process, to address Missing Middle “piggy-back” onto the Comprehensive Plan process to
address those concerns and to ensure a seamless process.
The following provides an overview of the approach and timeframes for consideration:
Step 1: Current Building Review/Inventory
The first step would be to complete a preliminary inventory of Missing Middle housing that
already exists in Estes Park. This includes duplexes, quadplexes and other multi-unit housing
types to provide visual example of this housing concept.
Staff would draft a module for the Engage Estes site (https://engageestes.org/) to introduce the
concept of Missing Middle housing density to the public and offer examples of where it is
currently in use. The module would serve as an information portal and can be expanded to
solicit community input.
For the inventory, we would review existing building types in the Estes Valley as per the
following:
• Modeling housing options currently present in Estes. This would include existing
examples of duplexes, condominiums, and other medium density developments along
with cabins, town homes, single family neighborhoods, etc.
• Develop typology illustrations with general dimensional parameters.
• Examples of how Missing Middle density could be integrated within context of Estes
parcels and neighborhoods.
• Provide an economic analysis of specific housing types that would include construction
feasibility to assess the overall affordability and price points.
Page 23
Step 2: Community Workshop(s) – Missing Middle
With Gould Evans, the consulting team will identify any local issues, assess the current code
and context, to identify barriers. They will also document best practices and draft code
modifications to incorporate into the current code structure.
During this step, the team will also introduce the use of Form-Based codes to ensure
consistency of design with the existing built environment. Form-Based codes focus on the
physical form of the building rather than simply the separation of uses.
For this step we propose the following actions:
• Conduct a staff workshop with Gould Evans to review existing housing codes, issues of
concern and overall approach.
• Identify key opportunities for code adjustment and explore opportunities to include
incorporate Form-Based code principles into the amendment.
• With staff input, conduct a Development Code assessment to gain an understanding of
the regulations, structure, and procedures, in relation to the issues and barriers
identified.
This would be followed up with a community engagement education session to include the
following:
• An information program that explains the Missing Middle including examples from the
community.
• Information on the use of Form-Based codes as a more flexible approach to applying the
code.
• Identification of locations and contexts where options would be feasible. (See example
below from Leadville, CO)
Page 24
• Develop an educational program that can be shared via Engage Estes and other official
social media channels. It may include:
o Virtual tours of existing developments that match the “Missing Middle” housing
types both within Estes and in other Colorado Communities.
o Online community forum to solicit public input. The forum would include
information on “Missing Middle” housing types, densities, conceptual designs,
and existing examples.
o In person or virtual community forum to discuss “Missing Middle” housing,
potential code amendments, impacts and other issues. (May consider co-
sponsoring with the Estes Economic Development group)
o Define a clear narrative for the community that reflects “Estes Park density”.
o Develop additional social media collateral as needed and share with PIO.
Step 3: Code amendment draft and consideration
Staff in collaboration the team from Ayres and Gould Evans and with input from community
workshops, would complete a draft code amendment for consideration by the Planning
Commission. The amendment would be presented to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation to the Town board for approval. In addition to drafting the code amendment,
we would propose to create a handbook for both print and online use that would highlight the
new options available under the code.
Form Based Codes
Form-Based codes are a relatively new but have been growing in popularity over the last few
decades. It serves as a departure from more traditional zoning that relied heavily on the
separation of uses and more formulaic design considerations. Under a form-based code
scheme, regulations define outcomes and relationships with adjacent public spaces instead of
strict adherence to formulas
Staff is not seeking to adopt a full Form-Based code but rather to a hybrid model that adopts the
elements from Form-Based codes that allows for greater housing diversity. Following the
completion and approval of the Comprehensive Plan, the Town may seek to engage in a full
code update process.
Timeline/Next Steps
Staff are planning to start building the online modules this month followed by the staff workshop
to review the existing code to start the process of building a draft amendment.
Staff will also begin planning community engagement session in conjunction with the
Comprehensive Plan process to share ideas and gather input. We plan to have a draft
amendment ready in the next few months.
Page 25
Town of Estes Park Planning Commission
Missing Middle –Follow Up
Discussion
Page 26
“Colorado’s housing affordability
challenge is first and foremost one
of supply.”
-Shift Research Lab
Page 27
Background
•Follow up discussion to the November 11, 2021, Planning
Commission meeting introducing the concept of “Missing Middle”
Housing
•Review our approach to community engagement.
•Understand the need to coordinate closely with the Comprehensive
Plan update.
Page 28
Missing Middle –Review
•Generally, planning concept to promote more medium density housing types.
•Blend more seamlessly with single family housing types.
•Duplexes
•Side by Side
•Stacked
•Fourplex
•Courtyard building
•Cottage Court
•Townhome/Townhouse style
•Multiplex
•Triplex
Page 29
Comparison
Page 30
Next Steps
Page 31
Estes Forward
http://engageestes.org
•Use existing outreach
tools to educate and
inform the public.
•Use the site to solicit
input from the public
on the proposed code
amendment during the
process
Page 32
Community
Outreach
•Staff workshop to begin the process that would include Gould Evans.
•Complete a community outreach session, share the concepts and solicit feedback.
•Return to the Planning Commission with an amendment for consideration.
Page 33
Schedule
Page 34
Conclusion/Questions
1.Is the level of community engagement sufficient
or should additional sessions be contemplated?
2.Does the Planning Commission have any
additional questions or concerns regarding this
type of housing?
3.Is there anything specific the Planning
Commission would like to see or include in the
proposed code amendment?
Page 35
Page 36
Development Code Recommendations
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Page 37
1
Development Code Recommendations
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Acknowledgments
The Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) program works with communities to reduce wildfire
risks through improved land use planning. CPAW is a program of Headwaters Economics, an independent,
nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions.
Land use planning recommendations and the corresponding report were done in partnership with Kendig Keast
Collaborative. CPAW is funded by grants from the USDA Forest Service and private foundations.
Author Information
Kimiko Barrett, Ph.D., Headwaters Economics | 406-224-1837 | kimi@headwaterseconmoics.org
Doug Green, CPAW Program Manager | 541-749-0620 | doug@cpaw.headwaterseconomics.org
Tareq Wafaie, AICP, Principal-In-Charge, Kendig Keast Collaborative | 720-850-5609 | tareq@kendigkeast.com
P.O. Box 7059 | Bozeman, MT 59771 Denver, CO
https://headwaterseconomics.org http://www.kendigkeast.com/
Cover image: Downtown Estes Park, Colorado (Image: ThisMountain.Life).
Page 38
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and overview ..................................................................................................... 3
CPAW background ........................................................................................................................... 3
Description of this report .................................................................................................................. 4
General overview ........................................................................................... 4
Wildfire risk mapping ................................................................................................................ 4
Summary of recommendations .................................................................................................. 4
2. Development code recommendations .................................................................................. 5
Update zoning standards .................................................................................................................. 5
Clarify dimensional standards .................................................................................................... 5
Strengthen specific use regulations ............................................................................................ 5
Update the landscaping regulations ........................................................................................... 6
Improve the wildfire hazard area standards ............................................................................... 7
Clarify review procedures related to wildfire risk reduction ..................................................... 8
Consider the thresholds for applicability of wildfire standards ................................................. 8
Define wildfire-specific terms ................................................................................................... 9
Update subdivision standards ........................................................................................................... 9
Enhance adequate public facilities standards ............................................................................. 9
Clarify subdivision design standards ......................................................................................... 9
Clarify minor subdivision procedures ...................................................................................... 10
3. Conclusion and next steps .................................................................................................... 10
Page 39
3
1. Introduction and Overview
CPAW background
Since 2015, the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) program has assisted dozens of
communities across the United States in reducing wildfire risk by providing land use planning assistance and
other services. The program is funded by the USDA Forest Service and private foundations. The CPAW team
brings expertise in planning, wildfire mitigation, science and research, and communications to create fire-adapted
communities. All services and assistance are provided at no direct cost to the communities. Participation in
CPAW is voluntary, and implementation of CPAW recommendations is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction
that has authority over land use decisions.
In 2021, Estes Park, Colorado, was selected for the CPAW program to receive technical assistance for improved
land use planning to address increasing wildfire risks. Additional support includes enhancing communications and
outreach for wildfire mitigation measures and building capacity to adopt and implement land use planning risk-
reduction strategies.
This report includes land use planning recommendations to better integrate wildfire risk mitigation into the
planning and development framework for Estes Park. The recommendations are supplementary to additional
CPAW products and tools to increase understanding, support, and action around community wildfire risk
mitigation.
Figure 1: Wildfire risk is widespread in Estes Park, Colorado. Populated areas in Estes Park have, on average, greater
risk than 86% of communities in Colorado.
Page 40
4
Description of this report
General overview
This analysis and recommendations are the result of the CPAW team’s collective review of various planning
policy and implementation documents applicable to Estes Park. The lens of review was solely focused on
strengthening wildfire mitigation and reducing wildfire risk. As such, recommendations should be reviewed and
considered with other community priorities and competing interests.
Wildfire risk mapping
Many of the recommendations in this report may require additional wildfire risk-mapping resources to administer
and enforce the code provisions accurately and consistently. The current wildfire risk maps for Estes Park identify
high-tree risk areas; however, there are not varied levels of risks identified (such as low, medium, high, and
extreme). Should the Town establish standards with thresholds dependent on risk levels (e.g., only applies to
high- or extreme-risk areas), then detailed mapping or site-specific assessments will be warranted. For now, the
Town will administer any wildfire provisions based on whether they are in the currently mapped risk areas.
Summary of recommendations
Key recommendations for updating the Development Code to reduce wildfire risk in Estes Park can be
categorized as follows:
• Update Zoning Standards; and
• Update the Subdivision Standards; and
• General Recommendations
The remainder of this report includes the specific recommendations within each of those categories. The table
below indicates a generalized expected level of effort required to establish, adopt, and administer and enforce
regulations associated with the recommendations in this report.
Recommendation Level of effort to
establish
Administration and
enforcement
Update Zoning Standards
Clarify dimensional standards Easy Easy
Strengthen specific use regulations Moderate Moderate to Difficult
Update the landscaping regulations Moderate Moderate
Improve the wildfire hazard area
standards
Easy Moderate
Clarify review procedures related to
wildfire risk reduction
Easy Moderate to Difficult
Consider the thresholds for applicability of
wildfire standards
Easy Moderate
Define wildfire-specific terms Easy Easy
Update the Subdivision Standards
Page 41
5
Enhance adequate public facilities
standards
Easy Easy to Moderate
Clarify subdivision design standards Easy Easy to Moderate
Clarify minor subdivision procedures Easy Moderate
General Recommendations
Integrate Wildfire Risk Reduction into
Policy Documents
Moderate to Difficult Moderate to Difficult
Wildfire risk mapping Moderate to Difficult Easy to Moderate
2. Development Code Recommendations
Update zoning standards
The Town’s zoning regulations are included with the Development Code, which includes both zoning and
subdivision regulations. The regulations previously applied to both the Town of Estes Park and parts of the Estes
Valley unincorporated areas within the jurisdiction of Larimer County. Because the intergovernmental agreement
for that dual applicability expired, the Town re-adopted the Estes Park Development Code to revise its
applicability – but the regulations remain relatively unchanged.
Zoning regulations are effective wildfire risk-reduction tools because they can control and restrict the types of
activities established across the land, the areas within a town where certain uses are more appropriate than others,
and the size, scale, and massing of development throughout the town. Context is key when it comes to applying
any land use regulations. Some of the recommendations below may be appropriate for some parts of town, but not
others. See additional discussion later in this section on applicability thresholds.
Clarify dimensional standards
Section 1.9, Rules of Measurement, includes general terms for measuring building and lot standards, including
exceptions to those rules. The following should be clarified:
• Clarify the application of Subsection 1.9.D.1.b.(4). As drafted, it is confusing. Is the gist of the standard
as follows: If the setback was 10 feet, then the patio or deck couldn’t extend into that 10-foot setback by
more than 3 feet? What happens beyond the setbacks and closer to adjacent properties can impact the
potential for structure-to-structure ignition.
• Items listed in Subsection 1.9.D.1.b should be “subject to compliance with wildfire defensible space
provisions” or similar.
Strengthen specifi c use regulations
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 address use regulations and procedural requirements for establishing uses in the Town. We
recommend the following improvements to support wildfire mitigation.
• Subsection 3.11.C, Temporary Uses - Standards for Review - could explicitly call out natural hazards as
areas to avoid for temporary use permits. Currently hazards could be arguably addressed through the
generalized subparagraph 4, public health, safety and general welfare.
Page 42
6
• Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, actually addresses allowable land uses. This is misleading based on the table
of contents. Although this is not directly related to wildfire risk, we included it in this report as a general
improvement to the Code.
• Consider consolidating the permitted uses Tables 4-1 and 4-4.
The tables are currently inconsistent in terms of how the uses are
listed, and combining them will ensure consistency over time.
• Subsection 5.1.B, Vacation Home - Consider prohibiting the use
of outdoor wood-burning devices in some or all residential zoning
districts (or maybe for homes in mapped wildfire risk areas) for
vacation rentals. Visitors may not always understand the wildfire
risk. Additional educational information should also be provided
to all users of vacation rentals.
• Subsection 5.1.I, Group Living Facilities - Consider requiring an
evacuation plan for facilities located in mapped wildfire risk
areas.
• Subsection 5.1.J, Hotels - Consider requiring an evacuation plan for facilities located in mapped wildfire
risk areas. If evacuation plans are already required by Fire Code, then such requirement does not need to
be reiterated in the Development Code.
• Subsection 5.1.L, Outdoor Display, Sales, Storage - Limit the storage of flammables and debris in
mapped wildfire risk areas. Subsection 5.1.O, Religious Assembly - Consider requiring an evacuation
plan for facilities located in mapped wildfire risk areas. Additionally, ensure standards for religious
assembly also apply to other assembly uses for consistency with the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
• Subsection 5.2.G.2.f.2, Outdoor Kitchen - Consider whether outdoor kitchens should be more strictly
regulated in mapped wildfire risk areas. Could also consider requiring water supply or fire extinguishers,
materials requirements, or others as suggested by the fire department.
• Subsection 5.3.D.5, Temporary Fireworks - Consider prohibiting fireworks sales in mapped wildfire risk
areas, regardless of zoning or setbacks. The Town may also consider banning the sales of fireworks
altogether, like many communities have done. It is unclear whether temporary fireworks sales are exempt
from the prohibitions of firework sales in the Municipal Code, Chapter 9.10.
• Section 5.4, Mobile Food Vending - Consider either prohibiting or applying stricter standards to mobile
food vending uses within mapped wildfire risk areas. Requiring additional setbacks from combustible
materials (flammable vegetation or surface areas) may reduce risk to spread of a kitchen fire into the
forest.
• Section 7.13, Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment - Include a provision that all
outdoor storage areas and activities shall comply with the wildfire mitigation standards in Section
7.7. Also include language that limits the storage of flammables and debris in mapped wildfire risk areas.
• For RV Parks and Campgrounds (Section 7.15), revise the provisions to include a requirement for the Fire
Department to review any proposals for outdoor fire pits. Additionally, Subsection 7.15.C.4 requires one
tree per two sites to be located in close proximity to those sites. Include a qualifier “unless compliance
would conflict with wildfire safety measures” or similar language.
Update the landscaping regulations
Section 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers, prescribes the minimum requirements for improving the aesthetic
appearance of properties through landscaping and buffering materials. The purposes of landscaping are inherently
at odds with wildfire prevention and mitigation policies. This is an area where the Town must strike a balance.
The Fire District reports that
short-term rentals are a major
source of wildfire ignition
because single-family building
codes and existing homes are
often not suited for intensive
use by a constant stream of
visitors, or lack of awareness
about outdoor smoking, grilling,
or firepit use. (Estes Forward
Detailed Issues Summary, p. 13)
Page 43
7
We offer the following recommendations to improve the landscaping standards to bring them closer in alignment
with risk-reduction policies.
• Establish a general provision in Section 7.5 that clearly states that if the wildfire mitigation standards in
section 7.7 conflict with standards in this Section Sec. 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers, then Section 7.7
shall control.
• Clarify the procedures for review of alternative landscaping. Subsection 7.5.C.2 states that alternatives
“may be authorized by the decision-making body” if a landscaping plan is submitted and they determine
the alternative meets the purpose and intent of Section 7.5. To ensure predictable outcomes, clarify who
reviews an alternative landscaping plan, and to what criteria. For example, would that review be
completed by staff? How would staff determine whether the landscaping is consistent with the purpose
and intent of Section 7.5? The Code should provide examples of conditions justifying an alternative
landscaping plan, such as unique lot sizes and configurations, the presence of utilities and/or easements,
preservation of natural vegetation, or situations where strict compliance would be impractical.
• Consider making compliance with fire-resistant landscaping materials mandatory, rather than a
recommendation as currently stated in Subsection 7.7.D.2.a.(2).
• Subsection 7.5.D.2.b.(2), Preservation of Existing Trees, states that trees of 4 inches DBH are not allowed
to be removed within 25 feet of the property line at the street. That provision should be amended to
include an exception to comply with defensible space standards.
• Subsection 7.5.D.3.d states that trees shall be planted to allow for normal growth without excessive
pruning. There needs to be an exception to comply with defensible space standards.
• Subsection 7.5.E addresses the landscaping requirements for multifamily and nonresidential uses.
o The requirements are one tree and three shrubs for every 1,000 square feet. It should be amended
to vary depending on the lot size (perhaps a sliding scale with a range of lot sizes).
o Offer alternatives to these standards for properties within high-risk areas.
o There also needs to be an exception to comply with defensible space standards.
o There is a living plant and mulch requirement of at least 50% of all required planting beds. There
needs to be an exception to comply with defensible space standards.
• Subsection 7.5.F, Buffering and Screening, should be amended to allow for exceptions as they relate to
wildfire risk reduction and defensible space. For example, Sec. 7.5.F.2.a.(3) requires that landscaped
buffers between certain zoning districts be planted with eight evergreen trees and 11 shrubs per 100 feet
of the district boundary. Apply that to a 300-foot lot at a district transition and you end up with 24
evergreen trees and 33 shrubs. The standards should be reduced and made more flexible in mapped
wildfire risk areas. For example, reduce the number of trees and shrubs, or allow and encourage the use of
berms in lieu of trees.
• Subsection 7.5.J, Maintenance Requirements, should be adequately enforced if it is not currently. Poorly
maintained landscaped areas can increase the amount of fuel present and increase the overall risk to a
property and/or neighboring properties.
• Subsection 7.5.J.3, Replacement, should be amended to allow exemptions for replacement standards
when it would benefit the site in terms of wildfire risk reduction.
Improve the wildfire hazard area standards
Section 7.7, Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, prescribes the minimum requirements for analysis and
mitigation for geologic and wildfire hazards. The standards are an excellent foundation on which to build. We
recommend the following improvements:
• Clearly state in this section that if the wildfire mitigation standards in this section conflict with standards
in Sec. 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers, then this Section 7.7 shall control.
Page 44
8
• Integrate mitigation plan standards directly into Subsection 7.7.E.2 instead of relying on the reference to
the Colorado Landowner Forest Stewardship Plan Guidelines. Those guidelines are forest management
plans but do not provide specific details on wildfire mitigation planning.
• The review criteria in Subsection 7.7.E.3 suggest that the decision-making body may recommend and/or
require additional mitigation measures but does not specify the process for doing so. It is highly beneficial
for applicants to have a predictable outcome during the review criteria process. The lack of specified
protocols regarding additional mitigation measures allows for variability and potential inconsistency
within the decision-making process.
• The referenced documents in Subsection 7.7.E.3 from the Colorado State Forest Service are dated. Recent
guidance from experts and from the International Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) code should serve as a
basis for new standards. We recommend including more recent references, or even better, including
standards from more recent references and incorporating them directly into Section 7.7 to avoid sending
the user outside the Development Code for additional requirements or guidelines. The Fire Department
should weigh in on appropriate standards to incorporate directly into the code.
• Clearly describe the process for land that is subject to both geologic and wildfire hazards. Can the
applicant prepare a single mitigation plan to satisfy the requirements?
• Review the community development plant list referenced in Section 7.5 and make amendments and
improvements to it based on wildfire-resistant species.
Clarify review procedures related to wildfire risk reduction
In addition to updates to the review standards for compliance with Section 7.7, consider the following updates to
clarify the priority of wildfire risk reduction and mitigation.
• In Section 3.1, consider adding a provision requiring all land use applicants within a hazard zone as
defined under Section 7.7 to attend a pre-application meeting prior to submitting an application.
• In Section 3.6, Variances, consider adding a subsection 3.6.C.8 that requires the BOA, in granting a
variance, to consider hazard risks listed in Section 7.7 and requires the applicant to demonstrate that any
increased risks have been nullified or mitigated.
• Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), should be clarified to include a provision that the
requirements for Section 7.7, Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, shall not be modified through the
PUD negotiation process. Clearly state other sections that you would not want to modify through the PUD
process.
• Section 11.3, Open Space Developments, should be updated to integrate reference to Sec. 7.7, Geologic
and Wildfire Hazard Areas, to ensure that clustering does not exacerbate known wildfire or geologic
risks. We recommend allowing clustering by right in low- to medium-risk areas, but requiring site-
specific consideration for clustering in areas of high to extreme risk. Clustering development is inherently
good practice for preserving open and otherwise sensitive areas for development; however, “clusters” of
development can also exacerbate home-to-home ignition potential.
• Subsection 11.3.F.1, Site Design for Open Space Developments, states that open space development
better attains policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan related to “preserving existing trees and
vegetation coverage…” and later in that sentence “…preserving…hazard areas.” This could be a point of
conflict to address. Be clear that wildfire mitigation may be required in open space developments to put
safety first. This section should refer to compliance with the standards in Section 7.7.
Consider the thresholds for applicability of wildfire standards
For any existing or new standards adopted for wildfire risk reduction, the Town should carefully consider the
applicability thresholds for when such standards apply. Options to consider are listed below. Each standard should
be considered independently – the Town could apply different thresholds to different standards instead of a one-
size-fits-all approach.
Page 45
9
• All new development. Apply the standards uniformly across all new development, regardless of size or
scope of the project.
• Site plan trigger. Any project requiring a site plan shall meet the wildfire mitigation requirements.
• New development over a certain size. Apply the standards to new development only on lots of a
specified size (e.g., 15,000 square feet or larger) or involving buildings over a certain size (e.g., 10,000
square feet or larger).
• Modifications and additions. Apply the standards to new development as described in one of the options
above, and also to modifications and additions to existing developments meeting a specified size
threshold for lots or buildings (e.g., 50% of the structure or site is being developed or redeveloped).
• All properties. Apply the standards to new and existing developments. Bring existing properties into
compliance with the standards through regular enforcement and community education.
Define wildfire -specific terms
Amend Chapter 13, Section 13.3, to include wildfire-specific definitions to correspond with existing terms used in
the code and any new terms used through code amendments as recommended.
• Defensible space
• High-tree fire hazard area
• Steep slope
• Wildfire hazard area
• Wildfire mitigation plans
There are plenty of good examples of similar definitions from NFPA 1140, IWUIC, other professional resources,
and other jurisdictions that have defined similar terms.
Update Subdivision Standards
Subdivision is an opportunity to address larger site design and preparation issues prior to any vertical
development. The Town currently has some subdivision standards addressing hazards, but we recommend
clarifying and strengthening them.
Enhance adequate public facilities standards
Section 7.12 addresses adequate public facilities, ensuring that the minimum standards provide the Town with the
necessary utilities and services needed to support any new development.
• Update 7.12.E, Water, to mention that additional water supply standards for suppression and response,
including but not limited to minimum water levels and flow rates, may be required in areas of high
wildfire risk. Additional guidance for water supply standards can be found in the model WUI Code and
also NFPA 1142: Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting.
• Update 7.12.H, Transportation, to include specific requirements that new developments provide:
o Multiple access points into and out of a subdivision
o Multiple driveways for large developments and multifamily developments
o Adequate driveway width, length, and slopes for firefighting apparatus
For each of these recommendations, ensure that the Fire Department has the opportunity to review water supplies.
Clarify subdivision design standards
Section 10.5, Subdivision Design Standards, prescribes the minimum requirements for compliance for new
subdivisions.
Page 46
10
• Update 10.5.A.2, Hazard Areas, to clarify exactly how the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) is
supposed to review subdivisions in regard to wildfire hazards. There is a reference to Section 7.7,
geologic and wildfire hazard areas, but it is unclear whether and to what extent the Planning Commission
would review required mitigation plans.
• Consider requiring defensible space zones to be indicated on plats whenever building envelopes are
shown and/or required.
Clarify minor subdivision procedures
The review procedures for minor subdivisions in Section 3.9.D.2 state that areas with geologic hazards are not
eligible for processing as a minor subdivision. Would minor subdivision process be allowed for areas within a
high wildfire risk area? Perhaps expand this current provision to apply to extreme wildfire hazard areas – or
require a mitigation report or site assessment to qualify for minor subdivision.
3. Conclusion and Next Steps
This report is one piece of a larger strategy to increase wildfire adaptation and resiliency in the Town of Estes
Park. It reflects a process based on local stakeholder engagement combined with local and national expertise. All
CPAW recommendations are voluntary, and the Town is encouraged to make any modifications to improve
alignment and success. In the coming months, additional recommendations and strategies will be presented that
will look at how wildfire is addressed in other plans and policies outside the Development Code in the Town of
Estes Park. Combined with the above Development Code recommendations, the complete report will serve as
starting point in a long-term roadmap for Estes Park, guiding wildfire risk reduction through appropriate land use
planning strategies.
Following review of this report, the Town may recommend that the CPAW team begin drafting specific
Development Code provisions for further consideration in support of these recommendations.
Page 47
Discussion with Estes Park Planning Commission
February 15, 2022
Planner Bergeron
Page 48
The Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) program was established in 2015 to help
at-risk communities better adapt to living with wildfire risk.
Following the record-breaking 2020 Colorado wildfire season, the Town of Estes Park, through the
Community Development Department, applied for and was awarded CPAW assistance for 2021
and into 2022. Alex Bergeron is the department lead on this initiative.
CPAW is funded by the USDA Forest Service and private foundations. There is no direct cost to participate
in the program.
The primary objectives of CPAW participation are:
1.Increase land use planning capacity
2.Enhance community communication on wildfires
3.Support other agencies (e.g., EVFPD)
The first deliverable was a set of recommendations for improving the Town’s Development Code.
This is the subject of today’s discussion.
Page 49
No formal action is needed from the Planning Commission at this time.
The Planning Division is bringing these recommendations to the Commission for feedback and
general guidance.
Where do you believe our priorities lie?
Do you have comments or input on the staff assessments of the recommendations?
Contributions by the Commission are presently non-binding, as CPAW participation is fully
voluntary –which includes taking action on their deliverables. Action will relate to the future code
update. Until then, we intend to keep you informed with regular updates.
Page 50
Agree that enhanced mapping will be needed to update mapped hazard area
If at all*
Currently, the Town has a (outdated) codified map of Wildfire Hazard Areas
Agree that 1.9.D.1.b(4) (Rules of Measurement/Features Allowed within Building Setbacks) is confusing
and promotes structure-to-structure ignition. Recommend making patios and deck (exemption #4)
comply with setback standards.
Agree that ensuring educational materials are a part of every short-term rental stay is desirable.
Open to enhanced setbacks for outdoor kitchens and open flame uses.
Agree that banning sales of fireworks is advantageous
Agree that the Fire Dept. should review RV parks and campgrounds in any location due to ignition risk
from regular burning. Other restrictions on this land use?
Page 51
Agree that we should codify specific wildfire standards and not simply reference additional guidance
from partner agency document(s) which may become outdated/obsolete.
Adopted language should reflect the International Wildland-Urban Interface code language.
Agree that wildfire-resistant species should be prioritized in adopted plant list. How?
Agree that natural hazard mitigation should not be negotiable with PUDs.
Agree specific definitions are needed once new guidelines are codified.
Agree that review responsibility for mitigation plans needs to be clear –consult with experts or learn to
interpret as staff?
Page 52
Disagree that there should be codified tiers of wildfire hazard
During a high-wind, rapid-spread wildfire event (see: Marshall Fire, East Troublesome Fire) there may not be
any difference in susceptibility.
Fire Chief has indicated support for entire town being considered a wildfire hazard area.
That would negate the need for an updated Wildfire Hazard Area map –thoughts?
After consulting with EVFPD, conclude that ban of temporary uses in regulatory hazard area less
desirable…strengthening operational standards preferred.
The Fire Code also covers topics such as evacuation plans and maximum allowable quantities (MAQs).
Pre-application meetings for all land use applications can be burdensome on applicants and staff when
regulations could simply be standardized and enforced.
The benefits and need for density may outweigh increasing space between units due to fire risk –
preference for strong mitigation standards and use of fire-resistant building materials.
Opposed to use of platted building envelopes.
Page 53
Recommend hiring a landscape architect in Colorado to apply landscaping recommendations to a
modified EPDC 7.5.
Prefer geologic hazards be handled separately from wildfire hazards since they are distinct issues with
unique expertise required to mitigate.
Believe having the Board of Adjustment consider wildfire risk along with other criteria is a good
thing…(i.e. Is evidence of risks mitigated appropriate for most variances?)
Geo-hazard areas are not eligible for minor subdivision requires further discussion. Should we extend
that to other hazard areas, including wildfire hazard areas?
The need for housing units may supercede this suggestion, and because we may consider the entire Town a
wildfire hazard area.
Page 54
Questions?
Discussion?
Thank you!
Page 55