Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2002-02-11tt TOWNBOARD STUT_SESSION____1 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2002 3:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. TOWN BOARD ROOM #130 REVISED 1/29/02 1. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE: A. Floor Area Ratio Discussion - Continuation. B. Block 11 EVDC Code Changes - Discussion as necessary. 2. LOCAL PURCHASING POLICY: A. Discussion. 3. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES: A. Review background and schedule. - & 11'.. :-1 1 -p- 41.44.A. 4" . I 90.... ,#L " 1 . ==-ur'FFI .*P¥4 ...- f. 4 in,: ..j. ... 1 14* l U. qrill-'ll. . ':u 6I \ 1 - .'. 74. I * I ./ ~N 13 J . 4 44. P 9 9 r d f ,\, 9- ..~1.1-- r iA I -~flil- 1 ; A . - 47*24+ 40 IN % #11,12 4 1 - . 1...i//9 9 Wi Vi#r 3 1.1,7 7 1 /1 , . 1 1 , 4 1.4 OlD 00 0 0 01 .4 •H~ & U , /4 .. j~ , (4'·14~ ~,t N ·· 4* IfWC/&2214,71.1- . 4* ~~j 10 492/El/%1%5&/" 7.1/ . 1 11 i 9 1 (h) 1 19 t. - I ,.ix"l 3 .le 1~ if i. 1 9 % a 0 -' CD ii ~./li.85/ - '41/6<le'. lit l. ,,/, . 7, *1~ 71<ljb tf 42#Ilf,Of~# 1 80.11/2. *,0 M C,D .3 1 '...41 ic/.7.,4*NA - .FK+AAirh 6%/T, ·fo~,~,.4,~~· ·· g,r ~i,~i 9 :2 3 & E f SaDE ZOE :Fo.IV puul ssolg SO.DE €g' I :Bal¥ PurI SSOI€) 3669 :@Sul@Ao) snoTAL[odUII 96*t :28EigAOC) snolkied[UI UUI WOJUIO J :OUIEN HazuaddV xIUEN s}!un LL :4!suga sl!.un O€ :Kl!.suaa 90 :NVA Of. :NVA DATIO MPLE ' **M~EV*~* 9"Id-'ari'-:,IN- liif7 IM ~ 11/L 1 1.7 - ce -Iip - 1, 1 4/ f' E ~ .49 1,-RA... . N --, . St, 1 40.i %1 5=32 I '. U \.I V. :.1 ... 1; 6 '2114"E $1 -& 1 S - ~ 1 £ 4 I / 4.. 1-/Ii.# '14:- f. 1 .. . -1 /1 , 11- 94 I . I 4 **W f.1 ** ¥ 1 ~~#f t.r 1 MI f *.1 4 , ,/ 0 h K 4. g 114® R ......' I -'i~ E'· t-11 .*¥4 . //L- : .*, 0 1,31; r + 6 1 -'~I· ~··'~- t k U I ry' - d~ ~ ~ e , is J 4~01 : ~~*4~l _ ~ ~ ~ ¢1 1 114 V € U t. f' C. 2 , .7.. r . > J j : .-. il g= 05 44 , = M K 5 0 10 2 =f , 1 - m E+U = 1,.% I kati fit. m f /5 4 E A ew#4~: '; 1?.·~ ~ ~ ~ Im R M 1%1 <. . . I . n.1 3.1 £ -2 d f ~ f 1 /.f- I , 4 , - 1 r p, + 4 #,1 1.- , c - .9 -R 1 - 1.. 6¥' M. 3 * '~ 13 ' ' W ~ t*! 20=< 9.A L V U & 6 -1 . .. U g .56 - 2 0 # V: _ 44 = 6. 0 , C ce Z O 0 v4 -V 96*Z :O8EIOAO:~ sno!1[2dUII 9683 :OSEJOAOI) snow@diuI FAR: .13 DATION EXAMPLES sJlmS ap!6~3310 :OUIEN %0108 VI'€ :Barv Pur-I ssolg il.- U; . ged, 0. . ~11 i- Bil & i ,-11 Ui, 41'IR/All Ill '91. - Ikil,~, -Tly/.- -tra U//7.6 A (4 1 4, -· · t i_ - -:.. I - . 7/ .Fiqut- . ./.6/44 - © - 1 rt mi£?tiu. = e'll IN.Il.-26~2fy¥~' -J-.'//IW , -kir//AM- &*FAN//1 *18 ../ 1 % : ¥4?~~ I. ':67 48/ 0 EW'.9/.ir.i". 4. ".....6 2 CS . a U 0 U 0 U 6 -0 0 00 0 Z A > = 0 O 0 4 -0 0 O 0.1 ce 4 E Z O i I .Ll t»££-Illill -t<*bly -,~-~1-B,/.9¥7/FL/C'/ //~/ m * ~'t<*4 .4.,2 'm - -Ii- 1 1 j'*it r« 0 - y- 9,/'/2/~.I- :- Ill'INMA/61//14/. t 1,1:1.7, IN"..... -- ..52.F +11: .6 1 92£ ., ./.8 'r= L- -©G:< -24 11/ Uil*A . I.W./.1:41 '9 AGEJ.umulaw Amp.- "62 -- -- k MULTI-FAMILY EXAMPLES f~. %2108 89'8 :BaIV PurI SSOIE) SaDE OI solou g'17 2019 pur{ Ssolf) *,St 18EIJAO) Sno!Al@dUII *,£17 :OSEIgAO) SnOTAIjdUII a#PRI '18 :OUIEN (I 101) Atopugy,I q,UUM :mueN slaun €g :4!suaa Slwn Lf :4!suaa sl!un ZE :4!suaa ZE :PIVA I E :HVr:I *17' :HVT=I /.92-1 1,$ r 4 + 7 // - \ lib -- /,1 1.1. \.- /1 \· i ~'*r ~91 i-4436 e - -Ele:25. , 1 =f -& i j f, . (,1 WI:,1 50 * i-24/IN' 3 M z 1 \-f... I ............ ic el a U .- 64 '1-1 , '11/Int U --' f 48%924" - 0 0 1 -- 1 1.-Al ' .): 4*lily U=.. C - .~4'It™. M . A M.A.i iM#V",4 U ZOO 1-s 211 ' i *. Wai . C~ .Ul - B. ..r ' A 4»14 =44, · r 41 -J, tw. ur. 4 - L -- /1 t I ' 1#P>f I INfr f 'ar -\E--~ . 1¢,1,61 1.flu Ad f..· \,1,1#2~: 2,944 .. .. - 4..3.- I . fri ¢ 04 < I r 'll - -7i-4.-, .ill=; 4 t, Ga . · 1 a. - t. r.-- 1, 11:1~1:11, 030- , - =I'll- R.§~ -Il'"'"Il,---I,i'-'- B.. .'*9 ......#./.......' -=- - *. 1 ~ i)BaNT.6, +il*ttija - . j &.4 4 253~ 1 LE€ :98EloAOj sno!AloduII 96317 iSEIOAOC) snogiadUII 36LL :OSEIJAOE) snovuaduII 17*· :PIVT:I (mutupcoidde) 09' :MV=I SOLIOU * :80]v puuu SSOLIE) SOLDE V93 301¥ PUE'-I SSOI{) MULTI-FAMILY EXAMPLES sfun VE :4!supa sltun gt dusuaa .ARI:OUIEN Buppul:1 §,al#1,1 :guIEN 0- Et. I 'Pet '' *Ill.* 44) PJ ..'-I- a Ja¥ , ....2 14 Mit 3,24)1/70;, i~allrlli~ r 1~ i 11'Sto /2 -1,2 - ..... y.. - il.--&2 9 4. * =cr r. 4?*fi· 17 1 74. . L N . I . U 154 1 4/ OS ks < .4 ZO,4 6.. 7.1",8.1 d 'lill""al &1/ 0 6 CO E v 1 L.1-1 1.-01~ :2 1 -. irivt'. - m4 9 . 1 m 0 A M U.\. M .- . e 20 - .5./.F .7 4 i: u r -0 •L € 1 U 0 C/D 4 04 ....././7/ A- 11 'll / I ly - /'11/ 1 - 3* ai Abll ..4.t,1••• .W~ - 5. bl -11 (11/k 9. -41490)- .„: m.zil -t.*- « 1 ' A.. . 4. 4 ./ //all//911'.. 10-:. S@108 EL' :EarY purI SSE 930'09 :MOIV PurI SSOI€) *,Lg :OBBIOAO j sno!1[9duII 9606 :@Sulakoo sno!AI@duq 9539 :28U1@AO j snolluaduII (aimupcoidde) 06' :MVE[ (aimu!xoidde) I Z' :MVE[ ER IAL EXAM LES Colmu!xoidde) (almupcoldde) DIIV BUHA~OH :JuieN ime/67 " ..............m"plr1.... --miv *te/- - Vfillilli~ilillili~illillillil 0 -\ ·- . ' 611' -di ~ tf --All.-b I~ e 74 --1 . . I.k 9 = 8 0 3 04 04 -~ i., w*- ·\-.2 4-07 4. 3.1 ..2.Jade. 1. iN#- ./ lill lit 331?1@*a'Ak• 111~ 01: 2/ 1~ 4··~* 6--7 ..4 2//Ifi"6- *I ?rea., Illillillillilillill:ils:/64¢=alli'JMI4IIEF ~ -A¥.ll 0 00 -Ii-j-* rt¢~- - . 20 I./.0 9",8 eli) ../ 4 4 94 8 4:. u . 1. 8 r 08 / V 1% + 3*i 5 Z COMMERCIAL EXAMPLES *,gL :OSE.IJAO) SnOIA.IadUII %08 :ofielokoj sno!AL[OduII TE Iv PUE'-I ssolg Solou 9Z'gI :Eolv PurI SSOI[) SaIDE Z' I :Barv PurI SSOID aBBWA K.IumS :JUIEN (glmupcoidde) t€* :PIVA 17I' :PIVA 7. 6,(. Act du.. Pve L 3 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director »t93 Date: 1-10-02 Subject: Estes Valley Development Code; Floor Area Ratio and Impervious Coverage Background: Staff is proposing the following revisions to the Floor Area Ratios and Impervious Coverage Ratios based on two years of experience with the existing code provisions. The upward adjustments will permit more effective utilization of the limited area zoned for commercial purposes without compromising the basic goal o f protecting the character of the Estes Valley. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption ofthe following revisions: Determining Impervious Lot Coverage "CO" Example It has come to the attention of Community Development Staff the current 50% Impervious Coverage limit is inherently restrictive. Specifically, the 50% limit will not allow for maximum FAR and required parking (assuming a one-story building). Therefore, Staff has reviewed impervious coverage, and offers the following calculations. Assume a 40,000 square foot lot. With a .25 FAR, this would allow for a total of 10,000 square feet. This may be all at ground level, or 5,000 at ground level and 5,000 second level, or any combination so long as the total does not exceed 10,000 square feet. A 10,000 square foot building requires 50 parking spaces. This equates to approximately 16,000 square feet of parking lot. A 10,000 square foot building (assuming all on ground level, which has maximum coverage) plus 16,000 parking area = 26,000 square feet of impervious coverage. 26,000 s.f. of impervious coverage/40,000 square foot lot=65% Impervious Coverage. 1 Based on this, Staff recommends raising the Impervious Coverage limit in the "CO" district from 50% to 65%. "A" Example With the .30 FAR, the maximum floor area is 12,000 square feet. 12,000 s.f.-20% (for "lobby" areas)=9,600 s.f. Assume a 500 square foot room. 9,000s.f./500 s.f. = 20 rooms 20 rooms with 1.25 parking spaces per room = 25 parking spaces, or 8,000 s.f. of parking. 12,000 square foot building + 8,000 s.f. parking = 20,000 s.f. impervious coverage. 20,000 s.f. / 40,000 s.f. = 50% ' Based on this, it is Staffs opinion the 50% impervious coverage limit for the "A" district is adequate. i GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION, FLOOR AREA RATIOS, LOT COVERAGE RATIOS Background: This provision of the Code that allows an exemption for floor area that is below grade was the subject of an appeal of staff interpretation that was heard by the Board of Adjustment. The BOA overturned the staff interpretation of this section and staff has drafted a revision that provides for a clear and consistent application of this exemption as follows: § 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES (Page 13 - 25) Floor Area, Gross shall mean the combined sum of the gross building floor area of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot, including basement gross floor area except as specifically excluded herein, as measured along the outside enclosing walls, but not including: a. Parking structures accessory to a nonresidential use; b. Any area where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than five (5) feet; c. Any arca in o residential building that is more than fifty percent (5094) below gfad< d. Am¥-aFea-in The lowest floor of a nonresidential building where no portion of 3 the enclosing exterior wall is exposed more than three (3) feet above 419#46. more than fifty percent (50%) below finish grade and that does not have direct access to the exterior through a door (i.e., the total floor area of a walk- out basement in a commercial building is included in the calculation of gross floor area). Floor Area Ratio and Impervious Lot Coverage (Page 4-20) Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts '':. ' 't#%..: :<:.:I'U~/*I~ g-·5...2 . ·:..'1Minimum.,IJand,. .i , - - . .1:1 . ,.,u. , : Minimum Bbildi,i*'/St,li~cture r~, t·, .6....ti,2-.:4:>-fi ,5,3*7:*,.*2219:lfeerg. Minimum Lot Size · . ..Setbacks [4£ 4 · 24 ·' .,».f:.~. ' ·M#x.4.,:., ·0:i',~. , :'· ' '1> €22·-·,ST-*4 ' ·ty' g :,Accommqdation o:; : ... - -· --·. Buildi@*p· 244:. 3#*UN i·Zo*ing ;.'/Residential Unit .1 , Area Width . Front . . Side . ~ Rear .··.1.··H,eight.·.·t·:j : Maz.~': - Loveragg 1 r_District ··· tsq..ft.·*er unit). . (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.) 1 )' ·.-(ft.)~~ 1 (ft.):.--9 7, (ft.)4.·.4 FA]R..~'¤~·'(0/0)~.* Accommodation Unit =1,800 [1]; Arterial Residential Units: = 25 [5]; 72.S A SF = 9,000; 40,000 [2] 100 [3] All other 15 [6] 10[6] 30 50 2-Family = 6,750; streets = 15 MF = 5,400 Arterial = 25 [5], A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 10 30 50 120 streets = 15 Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Comrner- Fronting Arterial cial arterials= = 25 [5], CO n/a Recrea- 200; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 tion/ All other streets 65 Entertain- lots = 50 =15 ment = 40,000 [2] All other lots = 15,000 [2] "I-1" Impervious Coverage At the direction of the Planning Commission, Community Development Staff have re- examined the impervious coverage limit for the "I-1" Light Industrial zoning district. Upon examination, Staff recommends raising the maximum lot coverage from 60% to 80%. Staffused the following methodology in determining the proposed lot coverage: Staff applied three different lot coverage calculations: 1) keep zoned setback as pervious surface; 2) keep front and rear yard setbacks as pervious; and, 3) keep landscaping setbacks as pervious. In addition, these three calculations were applied to three different lot sizes: minimum lot size, median lot size of all "I-1" zoned land, and mean lot size of all "I-1" zoned land. For example, with the minimum lot size, after deducting all yard setbacks, a maximum of 56% of the lot could be impervious coverage. Please refer to the following chart for results. Maximum Lot Coverage After Netting Out: All Yard FronURear Yard Landscaping Setbacks Setbacks Setbacks Minimum Lot Size (.34 acres) 56% 67% 62% Median Lot Size (1.05 acres) 74% 81% 77% Mean Lot Size (1.93 acres) 80% 86% 83% Mean (Average) Lot Size Example: All Yard Setbacks Front/Rear Setbacks Landscaping Setbacks (80% coverage) (86% coverage) (83% coverage) 'J _-4' 0,- IJ - - r- 7 ' I Mk '& * .6JV OL - --L- -1 ill:'44-1 -- I 11-1 1 ,-11 1 1-*F . 1 1 6 -- 01- 1 -1 .~4 r 1 . 1, 1,11 1 -*.31 1» 1 - 1- c i -4:~1 1-- 1,A ' ' 11 -1 f 1 - - rn t. · - ./ 1 1 --f, 467, -- - -1 1 ,6.-: . 7-1 2- - 1-- 4 1 -4-1 -r 214. - 1 31 1 9.1 1 /-7 11 r-- 1 -- z -tz t- - - -4 '#' rEM- - .4 1 Lili 01 F - -Al *1,12'194 T L . , i ,~21'· 1 - Amendments to the Estes Valley v Development Code, Block Two Estes Park Community Development Department ~ Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue -i -- PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: January 22,2002 RMf TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley USFS Development Code, Block Two .~Ce.8.1, r~-- at REQUEST: To make a number of changes Fbcky .... and corrections to the adopted Estes Valley N'blnal USFS 1~lorej Development Code. Le. LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the * USES RVNP Bounchy Town of Estes Park. - APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: These Code revisions address and correct errors and omissions that have surfaced after the first year and a half of experience working with the Code. Other revisions clarify and modify existing Code provisions to produce standards that are more workable. REVIEW CRITERIA: All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and Development Code Changes, Block Two 1 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3:18 PM 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with double strikethrough (The quick brown fox). 2. New text delineated with underline (The quick brown fox). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. ITEM 1 - FAMILY HOME DAY CARE: §13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases 103. Family Home Day Care shall mean a facility for care in the permanent residence of the provider for the purpose of providing day care and training for neMAGFe·4han-fetw 04 adults or children who are not related to the provider. The maximum number of persons for which care is provided shall comply with State of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Human Services rules and regulations. ITEM 2 - APPENDIX D: ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: II.C - Private Streets and Driveways 2. 01:Weways A shared driveway may be-used-le provide access to not more than four (4) ef fewer dr.'elling units single-family residential lots. 1 Multi-Family Developments. A driveway may provide access for not more than 100 vehicle trips per day. ITEM 3 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES: § 12.7 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. Nonemergency Matters. In the case of a violations of this Code that de does not constitute an emergency or require immediate attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall... Development Code Changes, Block Two 2 Date and Time Printed: 2672002 3:18 PM ITEM 4 - PRIVATE OPEN AREA SET-ASIDE AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE: § 4.3 C. DENSITY/DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Page 4-7) 5. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-2: [1] a. See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. 16 See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. § 4.3 D. ADDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS (Page 4-8) 1. Private Open Areas; Applicability and Minimum Set-Aside Required. All residential developments and subdivisions containing five (5) or more units shall set aside a minimum percentage of total gross land area for the purpose of private open areas in the amount shown in Table 4-3 below. See §7.4 for additional private open area standards. Table 4-3 Minimum Private Open Areas Zoning Minimum Private Open Areas Adiusted Minimum Lot Size/Area District ( % of Gross Land Area) RE-1 30 7.00 acres RE 30 1.75 acres E-1 15 0.85 acres E 15 0.43 acres R 15 0.21 acres R.1 15 4,250 square feet R-2 15 Single Familv = 15.300 square feet; Duplex = 22.950 square feet RM 15 No Reduction in Minimum Lot Size Development Code Changes, Block Two 3 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3:18 PM 2. Lot Size. a. General Rule. Subiect to the exceptions listed below, the minimum lot sizes for lots within single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas shall be as shown in Table 4-3 above. b. Exception for Lots with Private Water/Sewer. The minimum lot size for lots serviced by private wells or private septic sYstems shall be two (2) acres in all districts, except the RE-1 zoning district. c. Exception for Development on Steep S]opes. Lots with an average slope of greater than twelve percent (12%) shall be subject to the lot area adiustment set forth in §7.1.A of this Code. The minimum lot areas set forth in this subsection shall be used as the base for any required increase in lot area due to steep slopes. ITEM 5 - STREAM AND RIVER CORRIDOR SETBACKS: § 4.3 C. DENSITY/DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Page 4-7) 5. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-2: [3] See Chapter 7, §7.6, which requires, generally, that all buildings and accessory structures und parking lots shall be set back 30 feet from the delineated edge of stream corridors and 50 feet from the delineated edge of streamhiver corridors and wetlands. § 4.4 C. DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Page 4-21) 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-5: [4] See Chapter 7, §7.6, which requires, generally, that all buildings and accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back 30 feet from the delineated edge of stream corridors and 50 feet from the delineated edge of sueamhiver corridors and wetlands. In the CD zoning district, building/structure setbacks from the edge of a stream/river corridor may be reduced to 20 feet and the parking lot setback may be reduced to 12 feet. See §7.6.E. 1.a.(2). Development Code Changes, Block Two 4 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3:18 PM § 7.6 WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION (Page 7- 27): B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all new development, except for the following development or activities: 2. Development on lots of record that were approved for single family residential use prior to the effective date of this Code; D. Boundary Delineation. 1 Stream and River Corridor Boundaries. Stream and river corridors shall be delineated at the annual high-water mark, or if not readily discernible, the defined bank of the stream or river, as those terms are defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. Regulated stream and river corridors shall include only those streams and rivers as identified on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. The rivers delineated on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map are the Big Thompson and Fall River. Streams delineated on the Map include various named and unnamed streams and minor drainages, some of which are intermittent. E. Buffer/Setback Areas. 1. Stream or River Corridors. a. Building/Structure Setbacks. (1) Stream Corridors (Except in the CD Zoning District). All buildings and accessorY structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream corridors or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readilY discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. See Figure 7-10. (2) River Corridors (Except in the CD Zoning District). fal General Rule. All buildings and accessory structures shall be setback at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of 911-eam-eF river corridors or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the 91*eam-€Hz river. (\A Exception for Lots Developed Prior to the Adoption of this Code. A\\ buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. See Figure 7-10. Development Code Changes, Block Two 5 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3: 18 PM ....h •-' i. :PLW 01 "™LI , C,I'.COC- I ... SetrIack ~--1-U*4'Zay,C;& 7·· ~9, p: j.... . . .. A 7».,25, VU £6*mkm- 1,P: Dild/"I/41/W ./.-: Cn~tl#*0 -·4L 2,- .. 7./.Pt ITTL*I/9/11M 9 rE,pig (3) Stream and River Corridors In the CD Zoning District. In the CD district, all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where defined banks are not readilv discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. 6*eept·-th+whefe Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the approval of the Decision-Making Body. (1) All development which is in conformity with the applicable ri ver or stream corridor setback provisions prior to the adoption of this Code shall not be rendered nonconforming if the sole nonconformity is the violation of the stream or river corridor setback set forth in Paragraph (1) above. The property may be further developed including remodeling, redevelopment, alterations and extensions of the structures and uses on the property so long as said activities meet the prior streani or river corridor setback and ate otherwise in conformance %1, .. ith all applicable terms and conditions of this Code. The provisions of §3.7 of this Code shall not be allowed to modify the prior Se*3*tele:· Development Code Changes, Block Two 6 Date and Time Printed: 2/8/2002 10:50 AM 2. Wetlands. b. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. See Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots of record that were approved for single- family residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt. § 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Thread shall mean the centerline of THE low-flow course of a stream. ITEM 6- MINIMUM LOT SIZES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF STEEP SLOPES § 4.3 C. Density/Dimensional Standards (Page 4-7) 5. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-2: [l] h. See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. c. See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. d. See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. § 4.4 C. Density/Dimensional Standards (Page 4-21) Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Land Minimum Building/Structure Area per Minimum Lot Size Ill Setbacks [4] Max. Accommodation or , Building Max. Lot Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. Coverage District (sq·-E: psr~Mt)- (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.) "(ft.) (ft.) (ft.) FAR (%) Development Code Changes, Block Two 7 Date and Time Printed: 2/8/2002 10:50 AM Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- Fronting Arterial cial arterials= = 25 [5]; 50 CO n/a Recrea- 200; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 tion/ All other streets Entertain- lots = 50 =15 ment = 40,000 [2] All other lots = 15,000 [2] Fronting Arterial Arterials = = 25 [5]; 60 I-1 rda 15,000 [2] 200; All other 10 [6] 10 [6] 30 .30 All other streets = lots = 50 15 Note to Table 4-5: a. [71 See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. ITEM 7 - CONDOMINIUM PROCESS §10.5.H. Condominiums, Townhouses, and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership (Page 10-7) 3. Exemptions. Theuefms-e#+AW This subsection shall not apply to condominium slizile*eves projects of two (2) units ef QI less. The number of units shall include any units reserved for future development. ITEM 8- BARNS AND STABLES MAXIMUM SIZE § 5.2 ACCESSORY USES B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning District. Development Code Changes, Block Two 8 Date and Time Printed: 2/8/2002 10:50 AM b. Barns and Stables. The cumulati ve total ground floor area of a-barn--ep-Stabte gil barns or stables shall be not exceed two percent (2%) of the gross area of the lot or parcel or 2,400 square feet whichever is less. ITEM 9-ATTAINABLE HOUSING §11.4 Attainable Housing Density Bonus A. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of attainable housing for persons living andlor working in the Estes Valley. B. Eligibility. All residential subdivisions and developments in residential zoning districts are eligible for the attainable housing density bonus set forth in this Section. "Attainable" Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable C. housing units" shall mean the following: 1. Rental Attainable Housing. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing that is attainable to households earning no more than fifty percent (5096) of the median income for Larimer County and who pay no more than thirty percent (3096) of their total income on rent. a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning sixty percent (60%) of the Larimer CountY Area Median Income or below, adiusted for household size. b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e. rent and utilitY expenses) must not exceed thirtY percent (30%) of the maximum income for an imputed household size based on sixtv percent (60%) of the Larimer County area median income. The imputed household size is equal to 1.5 times the number of bedrooms in the unit. For example, rent on a two (2) bedroom unit would be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income limit of a three person family; for a three (3) bedroom unit the rent should not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of a 4.5 person family---the midpoint of the range of a four (4) and five (5) person family. If the property owner does not paY all utilitY expenses, then a utility allowance, computed by the Estes Park Housing Authority, must be subtracted from the housing cost to determine the maximum rent. Development Code Changes, Block Two 9 Date and Time Printed: 2/8/2002 10:50 AM 1. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing that is attainable to households earning no more than eighty percent (80%) of the median income for Larimer County and who pay no more than thirty percent (30%) of their total income on housing costs. i Housing units that are attainable to households earning eighty percent (80%) of the Larimer Countv Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size. & To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty percent (40%) of the eighty percent (80%) Larimer County Area Median Income, adiusted for household size. 3. Determination of Maximum Rent/Income Limits. The Decision Making Body shall use the "Income and Rent Tables for 10% 120% of Median Income for Colorado Counties for 1999" (Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, 1999), as amended or succeeded, to determine the income limits and maximum rents given the size of the dr.'elling units proposed and the likely household size of targeted residents. "Larimer County Area Median Income" Defined. The Larimer CountY area median income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer County published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. § 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Attainable Housing Units shall mean the following: a. Rental Attainablo Housing Renter Occupied Attainable Housing Units. HoUGing-that-is affordablo to households oarning no more than fifty porcont (5094) of tho modian incomo for Larimor County and who pay no moro than thirty porcont (3094) of thoir total incomo on ront, using data compilod by tho Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. See §11.4.C. b. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing that is affordablo to households oarning no more than oighty porcent (80%) of tho median incomo for Larimor County and who pay no moro than thirty porcent (30%) of their total income on housing costs, ucing data compiled by tho Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. See §11.4.C. Development Code Changes, Block Two 10 Date and Time Printed: 2/8/2002 10:50 AM ITEM 10-BED AND BREAKFAST § 13.2C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples 2.b. Accommodations, Low-Intensity Examples. (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: An establishment operated in an owner-occupied, single- family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (including--an excluding accessory building©, that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than six (6) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. Accessory buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. Development Code Changes, Block Two 11 Date and Time Printed: 2/8/2002 10:50 AM TOWN OfESTES PARK Inter Office Memorandum January 10, 2002 TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Randy Repola SUBJECT: Local Purchasing Policy The Town of Estes Park has had a "Local Purchasing Policy" in effect since 1990. Staff researched purchasing preference policies by contacting five municipalities and the Colorado Municipal League. Towns/cities contacted included: Breckenridge, Durango, Fort Collins, Loveland and Steamboat Springs. None of the municipalities surveyed have a preference policy. In 1996, the Colorado Municipal League (CMU published "Municipal Purchasing," to provide guidance to municipalities in the area of purchasing techniques, strategies and organization. In ) that publication, CML outlined the pros and cons of local-preference policies for purchasing (excerpt attached). The pros were listed as the benefits ofthe multiplier effect of buying from local vendors and the goodwill generated by such purchases. The cons, on the other hand, were more extensive. Arguments against local-preference policies were as follows: increased costs, reduced competition, retaliation by other jurisdictions, subsidization of inferior vendors and various administrative problems. CML concluded that there are other strategies that a municipality can employ to support local vendors without enacting preference laws or policies. The City of Fort Collins has also investigated the issue of local-preference policies and produced a six-page "pamphlet" outlining their position. The pamphlet outlines arguments against local- preference polices similar to those made by CML. In addition, the Fort Collins document points out that determining whether a business is local or not can be a complex process. Obviously, Fort Collins has chosen to not enact a local-preference policy for purchases. Research indicates that local-preference polices are not used by municipalities. The Town of Estes Park has three options in determining its stance on local-preference polices for purchases: 1. Maintain the current practice of providing a 2% local vendor preference. 2. Adjust the current preference up or down from 2%. 3. Eliminate the current 2% local-preference policy. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE SUBJECT: Local Purchasing Policies ACTION: The Town may provide a 2% local purchasing advantage for equipment, supplies, and services up ta $25,000. Final determination of. whether the local advantage is applicable shall be made by the Town Administrator. Specifications for new vehicles will be written "generically" whenever possible. If only one make or mbdel of vehicle or equip- ment is specified, the appropriate Committee shall be advised. Bids will be sought from local dealers for all equipment, services, supplies, and vehicles. Pertaining to vehicle bids, bids will be sought even if State Bid Awards are being used. Prices for trade-in vehicles shall be spec- ified as a guaranteed bid price, and not as a ) trade-in allowance, or other wording with price "subject to change." As a general rule, after advertising, trade-in vehicles shall be sold locally to the highest bidder. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 1990 APPROVED BY: Gary Klaphake, Town Administrator (0.9- DISTRIBUTED TO: Community Development Director Finance Officer Light and Power Director Police Chief Public Works Director Stanley Park Executive Director Town Clerk j j .. fund availability before allowing approval of a requisition. Preference Local-Preference Policies policies Preference policies are a way to provide advantage, most com- are a way monly with a percentage price break, to certain classes of vendors. to provide Preference laws come in several forms. Percentage preferences dis- count the bid price of the preferred bidder by an established per- advantage, centage. lie bid preferences give the preferred bidder the award in most common ly the event of a tie. Reciprocal preferences allow governments to pro- with a percentage vide the same preferential policies for their own businesses that price break, adversely affect these companies when they bid ih jurisdictions that have a local preference policy. to certain classes Colorado has a reciprocal-preference law with which the state of vendors and all local governments must comply. The law requires officials to grant in-state bidders the same preferences that an out-of-state or out-of-country bidder is given in its state or country.~ As a practical matter, not many states have local-preference laws but several, like Colorado, have the reciprocal-preference laws. A more commonly discussed purchasing issue, and often a more controversial one for municipal officials, is whether a municipality should have a local-preference policy. And "local" in this sense ~I means a business from that municipality, county, or other geo- graphic area. This ·issue is raised typically after a construction, engi- neering, or large equipment purchase is not awarded to a local bid- den and the argument is made that tax dollars should be spent locally. Local businesses may be inclined to favor a local-preference pol- icy, making the argument that their businesses should be supported by local tax dollars and that such a policy would attract new busi- nesses into a community, thereby strengthening the community's tax base. The purchasing profession acknowledges that keeping tax dollars. within the local region may assist in bolstering the local economy but generally contends that the advantages of a local-preference pol- icy are limited and are far outweighed by the disadvantages. The debate over the issue is often a mix of professional judgment and emotional reactions. Pros and Cons of Local-Preference Policies The Pros. Some advantages of local-preference laws are: · The multiplier effect. The multiplier effect theory says that a dollar spent in the local economy will turn over a number of times and thus create additional business and tax revenue. How many times does this dollar turn over? Estimates range from j Municipal Purchasing 45 fivE to seven times, assuming that all the dollars spent remain in the Ideal economy. 2 Opponents argue that this may be true for some dollars spent ~ on a service contract but that when supplies, vehicles, or equip- ment are purchased, the majority of the dollars flow back to a manufacturer and out of the local economy. ~ · Goodwill. Good local vendor relations promote advice and sup- port on both new and existing products as well as promoting innovation and alternatives. Because of their location and stock- ing capability, local vendors haVe a built-in advantage over their out-of-town counterparts. The Cons. Some of the disadvantages of having local-prefer- ence policies are: • Increased cost. The cost of goods or services for taxpayers is increased when a percentage differential is allowed. If a bid is 1 awarded to a firm basedl on the local-preference price difTeren- tial, it means the taxpayers just spent more dollars than they needed to. • Reduced competition. The cost of goods or services can be increased by reducing competition. Local preference can dis- )) courage nonlocal vendors from bidding, which reduces the ~ number of bidders and competition. · Reraliation. Local-preference laws invite reciprocity. Other jurisdictions may adopt their own local preference to provide ~ the same "protection" that vendors competing with their local vendors enjoy. • Subsidv to infkrior vendors. Local preferences can be inter- preted as a subsidy to a firm that is too weak in irs operations to compete on an even, equitable basis. · Administrative problems. Additional staff time is required to ~. calculate preference award amounts and to determine if a busi- ness is "local." Is it a business location, a P.O. box, a percentage . of locally hired employees? Many businesses outside the ~ municipality's limits still consider themselves local. What status does a company have that has a sales representative living locally but imports all products from outside the municipality? Alternative Strategies to Assist Local Vendors There are several things that can help suppon local vendors shon of enacting a preference law. Here are some suggestions: · Give preference to a local bidder in case of a Iii u-hen all other facrors are equal. Such a policy does not hamper competition bur can result in keeping the tax dollars within the community. B . 46 Colorado Municipal League ~ 1 1,1. . .....................................................................4 1 · Start a vendors file and search out local. firms that offer products A policy or services that the jurisdiction may purchase.' of open · Foster bids from local businesses by producing and distributing "How to do business with the City or Town of " competition fliers that explain the municipality's bidding process. is fair • Familiarize the business community with the municipality's bid- to all vendors and ding process, the overall goals of competition in bids, and fair- to all taxpayers. ness and objectivity in making the awards for bids. • Sponsor an open house that shows the various items the city or It ensures your town buys. - government · Hold a local vendor exposition to let them display their prod- is as cost effective ucts. and efficient • Meet with businesses and the chamber of commerce to explain as possible your jurisdiction's interest in doing business with them and to encourage them to bid on the municipality's needed products. e · Prepare a report outlining where your purchasing dollars are spent; it might reflect a higher percentage of dollars being spent loc.ally than is commonly perceived. The belief that a govern- ment is not buying from local businesses is sometimes one of perception rather than reality. A policy of open competition is fair to all vendors and to all tax- payers. It ensures your government is as cost effective and efficient as possible. Recycled Preference Recycled preferences are sometimes enacted to promote environ- mentally conscious values. The>' are adopted in part to assist in cre- ating a market demand for recycled products by purchasing prod- ucts that utilize post-consumer waste. Some municipalities, like Boulder, have adopted preferences for buying environmentally friendly products to encourage recycling and to reduce the amount of solid waste. Boulder includes a provision in its purchasing code to provide a 5 percent price differential when recycled products are bid against products produced from virgin resources. Some jurisdictions extend recycled preferences on smaller-vol- ume purchases by soliciting bids for a recycled product. For exam- ple, if recycled paper costs more than virgin paper but the total pur- chase is under S 1.500, the societal value may make it worthwhile to buy the recycled product. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under author- ity of the Resource Conservarion and Recovery Act (RCRA), requires government agencies under certain circumstances to pur- chase products made from recycled materials. The EPA·'s goals are j Municipal Purchasing 47 1 , MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Joseph From: Will Birchfield, CBO Date: February 8,2002 Re: Strategy for Adoption of the International Code Per your request, following is an outline of my strategy for the adoption of the International Codes: 1. Coordinate with Northern Colorado Building Officials to facilitate a regional and unified process for the adoption of the International Codes. We, 13 regional Building Officials, are currently meeting semi-monthly, with the next meeting Wednesday, February 13, 2002, in Loveland. A. Timeline B. Which Code Cycle (2000 or 2003 Codes) C. Which Codes (Residential (IRC), Energy (IECC) is new, Fire (IFR) is new to Estes Park, etc.) D. Amendments E. Training 1. Building Departments 2. Builders and Contractors 11. Coordinate with Larimer County Building Department to facilitate a process that provides consistency within Estes Valley. A. Time Line B. Which Codes C. Amendments D. Interpretations E. Enforcement Policies 111. Coordinate with local Designers, Builders, and Contractors through a comprehensive outreach program of workshops, handouts, and check lists. The next workshop is scheduled for Thursday, February 21, 2002, and approximately 50 have RSVP. A. International Codes Concepts and Changes B. Current Unresolved (Non-Complying) Issues C. Department Policies and Procedures Adoption of International Code . Page 2 D. Participation in the Adoption Process E. Participation in this Board of Adjustment F. Department Philosophy: Code Compliance Through Cooperation, Not Enforcement IV. Coordinate with Town Staff and the Town Board A. Inform of National, State, Regional and County Status B. Inform of Issues C. Inform of Options D. Request Administrative and Political Direction Note: The above strategy is a simultaneous effort and has been implemented as of the first of the year. .'.. MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Fire Chief Scott Dorman Date: February 1, 2002 Subject: Fire Code review committee Background: The first question that comes to mind is, "why do we need a fire code?" Fire Codes are not new to our country. The first fire code was enacted in Colonial Boston. Building codes can be dated back to Babylon in 1913 B.C. Historically, Building and Fire codes are usually enacted ajker a catastrophic event involving a high loss of life or property, such as the great Chicago fire, the San Francisco earthquake or the Coconut Grove nightclub fire. Building and Fire codes protect the public and protect firefighters. More than 50% of a modern building code usually refers in some way or another to fire protection. Requirements for occupancy, exits and extinguishing equipment, i.e. automatic sprinkler systems, generally are already required in the building codes. Maintaining these requirements is done through a fire code. In other words, building codes address original design and renovations but end with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Fire codes pick up where the building code leaves off. Fire codes address the building and occupancy during the building's life, when the building is subject to the highest risk of loss in property or the lives of the occupants. In the year 2000, a fire department responded every eighteen seconds to a fire somewhere in America. Estes Park is not immune to fire related incidents. History shows that it is a prudent course to seriously review the possibility of adoption of a fire code. The building department is currently looking into the adoption of the International Building Code® in the spring of 2003. It would make sense if the decision were to adopt the International Fire Code in conjunction with the building code adoption. Budget: Budget impacts would need to be reviewed. Recommendation: Staff recommends instituting a Fire Code review committee. This committee would review the International Fire Code and make a recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees. The membership of the committee should include the Chief Building Official, Fire Chief and a Town Board member of the Public Safety Committee. 0 4#411 & 8.11 # 0 8 5 i / 0 v 2 8% \\\ 1 23 0/ a a 8 0 1 *E odo E:% .¤ a) n41 1 2 6 22 8 1 g ND® 2 22 EM a> 0 AES / au c r- 0 0i -06'. ~.00@ 0,4 5 2. @ At W .% SI 22/<Fee u, 0 C 6 000.-2 . ge@§ Ma g.~£~ 0 v 4, 0 M > \N t @ --1.1- CV 64'A? ~o 'Ze • 248 0 4> @NR 0 0 206 Z I z I \\1 ~%-1 *%440~ ;. do 82 k l ic 0 Z > dd mi -1 < 2 :g 88 4*er i W E- §-8 ZE 53 5 >. ,6 8 1: S m8 oe -O 0 %9 6 22¥@ - 16 .05.E a) ~5 16 Bodd £ USS 2 2% . b e 3 5 N 3 > 2 a X\\ 2292 2*3 4) - Z M 7 0.9 99* j e E «t '23 OO X.\~ ZN ON. 05 9 er d 51 li ES 11 51 6/ // mo p 2 11*o N a> . O-1 I Ncr * 8 6 &2 9 29" 2 0 8 > z ig:i &.2 /305 r€ . 2 001448 - El ...000000 ~ & e & 22% ir g 33%2 > o m M S ®4?*ee A ® 439'17 ~ 3#f li @ 3232 20 ME ED U 2 2 8 0004 ~ #05/ r N Utr E // 8/,3 E~c°' 2 ... -trirriir lim N =2 - 2% 62- O ¢0 m 0 O . 2 11=.2 2 28 2 fo J 3 9, D O· C 0 0 0 O th 8 2 li 0) > M 0 8 c 0 -C M In 0 03 8 & 3.5 - 6. 2 B E v tie O 2 : 2& - € 0 .9 0 m 2 - 5 E * 3 £ C 0 h Te tive f SeA BugOOJ aUOZ Ola 'SU.101SXS seleol#!Vao Aq eseo luellel pue SlepOLUel epnpl.4 s!41 SeOO )U 'Uoilepunod sdluels 34 uo!10!psunf ~noh seoa 'uogepunod ole 'sule;SAS proposed adoption date of the I 2003 What fee schedule will be adopted Mod'fied 19~ 1997 ~UBC Building Department Comparison Survey As of February 2002 eA!SueD<e What I Codes did you or do you plan What was the adoption date or the 03!nbel uo!10!psunf inok sea on adopting? Codes? 6Sqof le!0.lell,WOO eIBu!s e uo sdwels 84nbei noX pinoM teefe pupAA 46!4 e u! 6umeMp X1!luel