HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Larimer County Commissioners Study Session 2017-09-18Monday, September 18, 2017
7:00 p.m.
Board Room
AGENDA
The meeting will be televised, streamed and available on the Town
website www.estes.org for viewing on Tuesday, September 19, 2017.
1. Review of the Master List of Proposed Amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code. (Director Hunt)
"Informal discussion among Trustees, Board and Commissioners concerning agenda items or other
matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 6:45 p.m."
1
Memo
To:
jiiii5u1,11,1,1,1,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,1Lv91„,1,1,1,
1111rOu ,,u,„111.0,..111I11.1.1:111ilililililili.11.11111.11111,11,111111111111,1)11,11111111111IIIIIIII00001,000011111111101
1...1...1:"...1.:1!1„:„..41111.11,,illiliiitIliniikniiiimolioid 11.1.1.1.1.111'1111111111 III 111111111 111111111111111111
................--101111.11111,IIIIIIIIipl,1,1,1,1,1L1,1,111,11111.11110111111111111-000.11111,111,111,1,1,1,111111,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,11,1.1111101010111)1,111,0,ovit
Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park
Honorable Chair Gaiter
Board of Larimer County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
County Manager Hoffmann
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: September 18, 2017
RE: Master List of Proposed Amendments to EVDC: Updated from May 9,
2017 Memo to Include Prioritization Timeline
The content in the attached Master List memorandum was presented to the Town Board
of Trustees on May 9, 2017, as an action item on that agenda, and was unanimously
approved (7-0) that evening.
The same content was provided to the Board of County Commissioners in a work
session on May 22, 2017. Inasmuch as no action is taken at work sessions, no County
vote has been taken; however, the Commissioners expressed willingness to proceed in
considering individual amendments as they came forward during the process:
The May 9 memo is attached with no changes to content, except that I have organized
the outline on pp. 4-6 by priority categories, with various bullet -point styles or fonts to
show which years we expect to address each topic or listed concern. The key to the
bullet styles and their priority is on the bottom of each page, beginning on p. 2.
Two other symbols used: (a) Anything listed with a striketlacou-g14 is a task already
accomplished; and (b) anything in italics is an ongoing or continuous task with no
specific start or end date.
A revised version of the memo can be created after the Sep. 18 joint study session, if
priorities need changed or additional information is added.
Two other items, both new, are a table and a map of undersized residential parcels in
the Estes Valley. Staff will explain this information in the meeting. We will also have a
few additional examples and other thoughts to share on Monday.
3
Staff Report
To:
TCYWN ()12 IttSITS PARI
,1111
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 (priorities added Sep. 18, 2017)
RE: Request to Initiate Action on Master List of Proposed Amendments
to EVDC
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.
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 the Estes Valley Development Area, were
innovative and visionary. This legacy lives on and is a clear advantage to Town, County,
and our citizens.
4
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 zoning lots of
less than'/2-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
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
✓ 2017 Revisions
•• 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
4
5
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 that 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.
• Reduces to a minimum the number of "approvals with [lengthy] conditions".
(Such approvals are not approvals at all.)
4
✓ 2017 Revisions
• 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
6
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 is
intended to give an overall scope.
• Revise Development and Dimensional Standards in specific EVDC sections,
including:
Building Height in RM (Multi Family) District APPROVED July 10, 2017
❖ Building Height in CD (Downtown Commercial) District
❖ [Possible] Building Height in A (Accommodations/Highway Corridor), A-1
(Accommodations/Low-Intensity), CO (Outlying Commercial), CH (Heavy
Commercial), and/or 0 (Office) Districts
•S Change "net density" to "gross density" (e.g., allow for clustering).
✓ Eliminate Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from Code
❑ 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:
❖ The aforementioned change from net to gross density
❖ Ridgeline protection standards
•A Limits on changing "original, natural" grade (an obscure term)
❖ Restoration of disturbed areas; limitations on site disturbance
❖ Tree and Vegetation Protection
❖ Public Trails (align with Trails Master Plan)
+ Private Open Areas
❖ Landscaping and Buffers
❖ Parking Lot Landscaping
+ Fences and Walls
❖ Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection
❖ Geologic Hazards
❖ Wildfire Hazards
•: Wildlife Habitat Protection
•3 Exterior Lighting
❖ Off -Street Parking and Loading
❖ Adequate Public Facilities [see section on "Improvements" below]
❖ Outdoor Storage Areas
✓ 2017 Revisions
+ 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
7
✓ 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:
• Street improvement thresholds & standards (existing)
❖ Requirements for new streets, incl. thresholds, standards (drainage, curb,
sidewalks, etc.)
• Water system design and installation requirements (public infrastructure)
• Wastewater system design and installation requirements (public
infrastructure)
•:• Electrical system design and installation requirements (public
infrastructure)
❖ Timeframe for installation of public improvements
■ Separate timeframes for "build & dedicate" vs. securitized
■ In -lieu fees
• Securitization standards (type of security, when required, when released,
partial release)
+ Default of Terms/Agreements
• Inspection and Acceptance / Notice of Completion
+ Warranty requirements — conditions, terms, security
❖ Standards for T.C.O. and final C.O. issuance, enforcement
•• Requirement for as -built plans before C.O.
• Reimbursement for oversized public improvements ,
•:• 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:
•3 Eliminate staff authority to approve up to 10% "modifications"
❖ Eliminate EVPC authority to approve up to 25% "modifications"
• Elimination of unnecessary review procedures, and/or steps in the review
procedures
❑ Example: "Preliminary" and "final" condominium map approvals (it seems
adequate to combine into a single plat for approval and recordation)
✓ 2017 Revisions
• 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
8
to only one body instead of two for approval; compliance with quasi
judicial decision making criteria APPROVED July 10, 2017
❑ Example: All Development Plans to be approved administratively, rather
than tasking Planning Commission with larger ones
❑ Revise variance criteria for Board of Adjustment to align with best planning
practices and eliminate non -variance -related elements
❑ 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
•S Specifically, provide additional flexibility for non -conforming structures to
move toward conformity during redevelopment process
•• 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
• General: Clarification of language, tightening of definitions and applicability,
removal of ambiguity, elimination of cumbersome and archaic procedural steps
and substantive elements
✓ 2017 Revisions
❖ 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
9
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 Development 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
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
4
✓ 2017 Revisions
d• 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
10
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.
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:
N/A
✓ 2017 Revisions
• 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
11
Attachments: None
Cc: Board of Larimer County Commissioners
Cc: County Manager L. Hoffmann
Cc: Estes Valley Planning Commission
✓ 2017 Revisions
•:• 2018 Revisions
❑ 2019 Revisions
12
Undersized (Min. Lot Area) Parcels in EVDC — Summary Statistics
September 12, 2017
Audem Gonzales / Randy Hunt
8,478 total residentially zoned parcels in the EVDC area
2,060 of those are undersized for their zone district, per Minimum Lot Area (Table 4-2 EVDC)
That equals to 24.2% of all residentially zoned parcels being undersized
RE-1 208 undersized
RE 228 undersized
E-1 707 undersized
E 639 undersized
R 245 undersized
R-1 5 undersized
R-2 28 undersized
4
13
4
Study Session September 18
1moumage
Larry Jones "1tjoneo22@mun.com>
Own Cle,k �kx^nchrk0�em(co�rg�
Tue.Sep 12.2U17ad3:03PK8
Why are you changing zoning. The current zoning has been welcoming new buyers from other places for years without
making wholesale changes tozoning.
When you make major exceptions to zoning you will change the character of Estes that many of us came here to enjoy.
Who and why are some so active in attempting to change this town. We all knew what was allowed when we purchased.
Now
you feel you can change some of the rules that affect everyone's property. For example what the hell is a floating zone??
How can the town make special exceptions without going though the planning commission. This could easily lead to
secret agreements for friends and others. No one person should have that kind of power.
Town Clerk
Would you please forward this to the Town Trustees , County Commissioners , and Planning Commissioners for their
review before theSoptombor10hmeedng.
Thanks
Larry and Bev Jones
Sent from myiPhone
rl
L�T�� PARK
9/18 study session, 5 PM, EPTrostees, Co. Commissioners, Planning Commission
1 message
Pat Blume <pandaS@padblume.00m>
To: TOWNCLERK@estes.org
Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:46 AM
Town Clerk Williamson: Please forward this email to the Trustees, County Commissioners and Planning Commissioners
Having read the Community Planning Director's Report of May 9th, 2017, to the Town Trustees, et.al., weare dismayed
at numerous suggestions within and are counting on the promise to call for public input. With the study session onSept.
18, we trust major changes mentioned in the May 9 memo will receive initial discussion; the entire character ofEstes
Park and the Valley could be altered radically without initial due diligence.
Specifically, as 11-year fulitime residents of this community and visitors with history of many additional years we urge the
group todiscuss thoroughly:
Radical changes to current residential zones that would increase the density in single-family areas
Allowing for clustering of buildings
Create efloating zone? What iethat?
Additional plans to produce 1,400 new workforce and attainable housing units in 2.5 years. What exactly do
these plans entail?
The impression given in the May 9 memo is one of a rush to cut corners, not to work carefullybhroughhogua|ohzimpnnm
the area, while destroying the charm of Estes Park and the Valley.
With the millions nfpeople that now pass through town tnthe National Park, what will bethe resulting character ofaTown
that recently celebrated its Centennial ifcare ianot taken now? How many will wish tobecome full-time residents, let
alone stop to visit?
Please becareful stewards ofour Town and Valley.
Pat and Art Blume
GS1Cedar Ridge Circle
Monday study session ~ please distribute to trustees, county commissioners &
planning commissioners
/ meaaage
phippoup@airbits.00mn<phippoep@airbitn.uom>
To: townclerk@estes.org
September 13.2017
To: Town Trustees, County Commissioners & Planning Commissioners
R*: Monday'ajoint study session
Wed, Sep 1%.2017cd112P[N
Since the plan torevise our Estes Valley Development Code was presented last May, gradually the public has become
aware ofit. Alot offolks have spoken houaabout it, and wmhave spoken hnothers. Everyone ioalarmed, confused or
both. We can understand why the Trustees decided, in May, to let the implementation of the plan be presented little by
little. However, itturns out, webelieve, that this would be unfair to the public. It would be impossible to follow, especially
over athree year period. Noone would ever beadvised ofthe big picture. This procedure will continue, wmrealize.
However, now is a good time to review the overall objectives and goals of the plan, in at least some detail. And this
review and updating, in some public meetings or study sessions, needs to be continued periodically. As noted in the plan,
the Code would be extensively changed, and so the public needs to be extensively involved. This iueven more important
due to the fact that the idea is to amend the Code and then revise the Comprehensive Plan to fit the Code - which is
backwards. There are sound reasons why itshould bethe other way around. (Although wmrealize that you know what
plan we are referring to, we are attaching it just to avoid any possible confusion.) Thank you for holding this public joint
study session, and for your consideration and patience. John and Connie Phipps, Estes Park
RANDYSPLAN RETOVVN.pdf
25SK
Town C,Ierk <towncle ostes,o rg>
E 5 E
Monday zoning study session comment
1 message
Ross Maxwell <rmaxfive@gmail.com>
To: townclerk@estes.org
We are writing to express our concern about some of the proposed amendments to the EVDC.
We are troubled by increased zoning densities changes being proposed in residential zoned areas
of of Estes Park. We don't believe existing residential neighborhoods should have to constantly
fight smaller and smaller lot sizes through subdivision regardless of the perceived greater good. I
don't have a clue how the term floating and zoning belong in the sentence. We think zoning in
residential neighborhoods should be consistent and very slow to change. People invest their life
savings in Estes Park and we think that should be honored by the zoning laws. We resent the fact
that we have to fight for our residential neighborhood protecting it from the Town government .
Ross & Sue Maxwell
Estes Park
Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:16 PM
Please forward to the Trustees, County Commissioners & Planning Commissioners
For: Study Session Sept 18
1 messaige:
Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
To: townclerk@estes.org
Ibwn r der k croinclo r k((p uRsta�s orq>
Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:32 PM
There are numerous issues to address in the proposed amendments to the EV Development Code,but I will address just
2 of importance here.
1. General: the elimination of Planning Commission reviews or replacing its decision making with Staff authority should
be re -considered. The proposal is under the guise of efficiency, but it is well known that developers and Realtors are a
frequent presence in staff offices, and have the ability to exert undue influence. It is a widely known report that one owner
representative, upset about a staff person's opposition to a plan threatened "I'll have your job!". Not uncoincidentally, that
person was demoted shortly thereafter. No doubt the staff is mindful of this incident. The Planning Commission is
professional, careful, and less subject to pressure.
2. Specific. Floating zones completely defeat the purpose of zoning. Owners and prospective buyers deserve to know
what is the development plan for their area.
%Ze&eeza L. Ur ,cat -art
Attorney at Law
970-586 7586
Joint study session on Monday.
1 m sssnje
Theresa Oja <theresaoja@gmail.com>
To: townclerk@estes.org
TOWdl Clerk
r1,
Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:57 PM
Hi,
Please forward this email to the Trustees, County Commissioners & Planning Commissioners.
In reading about the proposed changes I am very concerned about the future of our residential zoning. Especially in view
of what has occurred with vacation rentals and the impact they are having on our residential neighborhoods and our
residents.
What are the fundamental assumptions our community has been operating under and how are those going to change if
these proposed changes are implemented?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
`i iuoic::,<1 C)j<
RANGE
EALTY, LTD.
AiEST. 1969
The Oldest Real Estate Company In Estes Park
September 13, 2017
Via email to:
townclerk@estes.org
I am now concerned that our residential zoning is being attacked. I'm certainly not
against attainable housing if planned properly and without doubling densities in our four
primary residential zones. Some of the items in the plan to revise our code bother me.
For instance, in what zones would planned unit developments be promoted? And what is
"clustering"?
n Racie
Estes Park
300 East Elkhorn Avenue P.O. Box 1604 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-2345 Fax (970) 586-5293
To be brief, there are many things in the "50 Point Plan" in revising the Estes Valley
Development Code that disturb many of the local residents, including me.
There are many terms and points where the reasoning there of and/or the meaning are not
easily understood, such as "calling out" different subdivision categories. The approval by Staff
rather than by the Planning Commission?...sometimes we hear Staff is overloaded and they are
asking for more?
Why is it advocated that no development plan be needed for a re -zoning request?
To take away the Single Resident zoning (E —'/2 A; E-1 — 1 A; R — i/a A; and R-1) would
be a disaster when "net density' to `gross density" and clustering are terms which would
eventually lead to what many think would be "build out" with the attainable housing ( whatever
that is) and workforce housing. I believe many of us read between the lines.
Some zoning is said to be non -conforming. How many years has .85 of an acre been in a
one -acre zoning and no one has every complained? Why now change and make it more
complicated?
This is not a ski resort, a college town or a bedroom community. The purpose of the
Planning Commission is to regulate the development of the Valley. Why would we ever think of
putting Staff, who is comprised mainly by persons who have not lived here but for a short time —
5 to 7 years at the most, in charge of making critical decisions for the entire Valley.
Lastly, I encourage ALL of the Board and Commissions to listen to the people of the
community. This could be a test.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia F. Newsom
Property Owner/Resident of
Estes Park
IE
[1 ill
SEP 1 4 201/
RE: Monday, Sept 18 Study Session
TO: Estes Park Town Board & Mayor, Larimer Board of County
Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Sandy Lindquist, Estes town home owner and full-time resident
September 14, 2017
Please always preserve our Estes residential neighborhoods as zoned! Don't let
aggressive Development Code revisions - particularly done before a revision of the
Comprehensive Plan is complete - result in defacto zoning changes and patchwork
zoning mosaics as a means of increasing living density valley -wide. Growth cannot be
infinite, even if it's always seemingly the goal of urban planning. Most Estes primary -
residence owners still prescribe to an American Dream far different than just having the
newest $1000 'Phone with talking -poop emojis.
We've invested - usually later in life with much advanced planning and effort - in our
ultimate homesteads ("refuges" - THIS is the American Dream) based on market prices,
known zoning, and researched neighborhood regulations. Our homes became
"attainable" or "affordable" when our personal finances became adequate.
Subsidization should not be an American goal.
We certainly provide the "off-season" customer support for many local businesses.
Beyond that, business needs such as seasonal or permanent workforce amenities are
primarily the responsibility of business owners to establish in appropriately zoned areas
proximal to the business community (also a way to avoid unnecessary daily commuting
traffic -- THAT'S good planning). "Redevelopment" should begin THAT way, and I'm
grateful that our valley Planning Commission tries to preserve our community values
even though we don't elect them. As community appointees rather than paid staff,
we need EVPC to have that responsibility,
Most Estes full-time residents have no need or desire to generate income from their
home properties. The scourge of "short-term vacation rentals" (effectively,
accommodations zoning) has already kicked many full-time owner residents in the gut
or butt. There should be NO circumstances under which effective zoning changes
overprint existing residential neighborhoods without impacted property owners having
a say. Owner residents must NOT be forced to lower their own quality of life (or to
subsidize by forced "donation" of home equity) in order to accommodate seasonal -
or ever-increasing permanent - population growth.
Let's Work Toward Positive OLACOrnes
BvJon Nicholas
President/CEO, Estes Park EDC
Over the last year, Estes Park EDChas devoted substantial time and effort toeducating the
community about the need for Workforce Housing. Our organization started inlarge part due
to the steep decline in 35-44year old residents in Estes Park. According tothe U.S. Census, we
experienced a 28 percent population decline in this working age bracket from 2000 to 2010,
and the decline accelerated to4Spercent from Z000to2011 This has profound implications
for the SU6tainabiUtyofour Hospital, the School District, police and fire services, and the
community as 8 whole.
In April, I wrote about the need for development code changes to facilitate workforce housing,
including a height increase for Multifamily Residential zones to enable three-story apartments
in the RM Zones (about 1.8 percent of the Estes Valley's available land area). Arecent Denver
Post story reveals that seven Front Range counties rank among the twelve least affordable for
housing nationwide —that list includes both Boulder and Larimer counties. |Dshort, vvecannot
expect other communities tosolve our problem.
There are also larger issues with the Development Code that need to be addressed. In late
ZOl5,the Regional Economic Strategy, funded hy8DEDAgrant concluded that "if development
codes and processes are not revised to match the Deeds of local businesses, the Estes Valley
will not see necessary investments iDredevelopment and local business expansions." This has
major implications for the quality of life of this community, which depends upon the availability
of quality services, ' I
In May, Community Development Director Randy Hunt presented the Town Board with a
proposal to begin work on clarifying and simplifying the Development Code. Facilitating
workforce housing is only a subset of the bigger issue of code complexity, code ambiguity and
internal code conflicts. Last year | spoke 8tapublic hearing regarding the Lazy BRanch
proposal tOstress one point: regardless Ofwhat the Board decided, ambiguous code provisions
were unfair foboth applicants and neighboring residents and businesses. This process was
unfair t0all residents, regardless ofwhat development policies they support.
I thought it important that community members read a fair summary of the staffmemo from
May of 2017. Below are some of the key points from the memo.
First, the memo mentions that the "Estes Valley Development Code is difficult to administer
and confusing to the development community and public. This fundamental fact means there's
animmediate, iDfact urgent, task before us: extensively revising our Development Code."
One of the examples provided was that it is estimated that one-fourth of the homes in the Estes
Valley do not comply with minimum lot sizes and/or current setback requirements. AsUresult,
anyone wanting to pull a building permit to do significant work on their home must seek
approval for a variance.
Second, the memo states that the purpose of amending the Development Code is to align that
code to meet defined goals:
1) Simplify, streamline and make more transparent and accountable all elements of the Estes
Valley Development Code
2) Update language, procedures and criteria to meet current standards;
3) Impose clearly defined and understandable regulations (so that an ordinary citizen as well
as professionals, developers and elected officials can read it and understand what is written);
4) For projects, balance the wishes and needs of the neighbors with the overall well-being of
the entire community;
5) Identify a clear process with measurable benchmarks for Development Code procedure;
6) Use a deliberate speed approach to process timelines, with adequate time for public
comment, staff analysis and decision -maker review --without arbitrary delays; and
7) Reduce to the minimum the number of approvals with lengthy "conditions" (some of
them are not approvals at all, and others are difficult to monitor and enforce).
These goals appear to be worthwhile. Placing greater burdens on figuring out what the Code
means does not promote fair enforcement.
Third, the memo references as a disadvantage the fact that it will be seen (by some) as
changing some of the "fundamental assumptions" under which the community has been
operating. Based on prior experience, it appears to me that the key assumption is that
amending the Code should take 4 to 18 months —for every such amendment-- rather than 6 to
eight weeks. In a time of great online transparency and instant communication, community
members can and do provide input on potential code changes.
Another one of the disadvantages of acting noted in Randy Hunt's memo is that "change itself is
seen as threatening and produces fear among some." That is unfortunate. Our options to
address workforce housing are to: build up (concentrate density in specific places); build out
(which would potentially affect single-family residential neighborhoods), or do nothing. Doing
nothing is not a good option. If we care about being a multi -generational community, let's take
action --starting now. The Town Board and County Commissioners will meet on September 18
to discuss potential code changes over the next 2 or three years. To accomplish positive action,
let's have an informed and dispassionate discussion focused on desired outcomes and goals
that best serve the needs of the community.
HARRY M. L I V 1 NGSTON
MEMBER AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS
D. Li= a S F 5 E5 k 2 S C/ F- 1
We k��lC4.s1 Pc2-N0-6 c) ee-Vitr--rsAi4-e f(��sdl-vim H-l:
ru(l..0 J„G.
e, ( OLIG P20(1,s-^-`:'
LCj G� l� .N� IA. " cry
PV4�-
c n_ c -0 2 3 Ott." e- /3 (o o (�- d c- %� - o G "s •� c s—
I- c t b tJ [ c i S � d 33- .! 4, S'at k .r-
O,u r-- N S Vv u r, g 1.— o v .e i o J :A._ -Ay .� rr,tr c- O"„r,
q “" L Tt._<r CGM at t~ v y
V - ` q mil/ (�� C l+C' N �� c S L c �/ L� r r .a J I! 15 l� lZ- s-, c C ✓/
J� k 7f-AfA ��� ���4_ .N-Tit- W� .(4_Lv � ��G��„
Lt.t2 5 t cvle._
\ U Ar
2 14'LC- 4r S N 0,6o- -AFL Loy- w‘Y A
MKs- SC-S
(Ai S 'c
' cs, f ik-&" e-.)) tr()
k' Wit(` E� ,p I..✓ G j S a .n /rA rC
ff 10h ,rL►C"l"Lt-- 1'V 0s,c-`k8u .1'f" adto
t7 D nJ G—e.g. etc (fit L v v y ; U! [z c
�s�Lc a2,i f, -I' WA- t s NI-g2J4-R- ss ? ? ? 0e -.- K a(k It f,t
fl-.---Jcs C tRGc_4,5 tz,: 2Tff(.-.S Di 5dc re 2esk.Lt G NSkdc .-ii,- H'c pf?_0P,'4.TJ
1-5 p w 6- fie- `L. w i,-,0 s c ,c-,...,...„ k,
74 B t , c l- O 2 r- p fr ,. `--k t- 6 d-2k 4_S ii II,
C/ J-'� a�c'`' re -Sri 1 tf � .✓ (� cam" C., v c.�. t.. w
5'Ek.Vc..ti-F_Ow12 Ca.v,K�Iu..W'(`t
t r C. G 6�-� �ui-.+' .0 K.yD D Q, pry'
v
15 5* Cc" Aso
Sc Goi 11 ule_s dtu —is -- i(,W��4�
I
625 W. WONDERV IEW * ESTES PARK, CO 8051
970-586-8376
HARRY M. LIVINGSTON
MEMBER AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS
Sept. 18, 2017
Dear Estes Park Board of Trustees —
We have just learned you are wanting to resolve the concern for additional
housing by rezoning property lot sizes.
Do you want to make this lovely community into a Denver suburb? One
way to do it would be to change the height limits to no higher than Long's Peak. I
am sure one of my contractor friends would love to jump on that one!
My wife and I discovered this charming little community in 1969 and visited
here every year until we could afford it, purchased our home here which is on a
one acre lot with a view and a little elbow room. (We still are not sure we afford
it.)
I guess we could make some money by building a second house as so could
our neighbors on their lots, but woops---we would no longer be the lovely, quiet
little neighborhood we moved here for!!! That is progress??? No Thank You!!!
Please reconsider this disastrous change to the property sizes, our former
Town Fathers seemed to feel was fair and reasonable.
Do we really want to become another Denver suburb? Of course, then we
could build more parking garages! ! !
We sincerely Thank You for serving our community!
Signed: Harry Livingston
Mary Livingston
625 W. WONDERVIEW * ESTES PARK, CO 80517 * 970 586-8376