HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2017-11-14Tuesday, November 14, 2017
TOWN BOARD 5:00 p.m. – 6:40 p.m.
STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203
4:45 p.m. - Dinner
5:00 p.m. Update on Development Code Changes.
(Director Hunt)
5:45 p.m. Discussion on Use of Off Highway Vehicles on Town Streets.
(Attorney White)
6:15 p.m. Discussion of Town Board Salaries.
(Town Clerk Williamson)
6:30 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:35 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:40 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1
2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Hon. Mayor T. Jirsa
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
Town Administrator F. Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Estes Park Community Development Director
Date: November 14, 2017 (priorities added Sep. 18, 2017)
RE: Update on 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.
3
2017 Revisions
2018-2019 Revisions
2020 and later Revisions
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 ½-acre to be included in a district that requires a one-acre minimum lot size.
Many such lots also have sizeable setbacks resulting in a lot of already-built
nonconforming structures. In some cases, setbacks leave a buildable area of zero.
Whatever the original idea, these things are not workable today. A fix is needed.
Amendments since 2000:
Inconsistencies with the 2000 Code have been compounded since then by amendments
that made the Code even harder to understand, administer, and enforce. Again, one
example of many will suffice: The term “Lot Coverage” is defined as “…portions of a lot
which are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption
of stormwater” (§13.3.137.a). That definition goes on to state that “…Porous pavement
and graveled areas are included in this definition” (§13.3.137.c). The latter section
appears to have been added in 2011.
There are two reasons why this amendment is a problem:
a. Definitions should be used to define – not to regulate. That may sound trivial and
obscure, but it is not – as anyone who has ever tried to calculate EVDC lot
coverage can tell you. No one would ever think to look in Definitions for
calculations, except those who’ve had to deal with eccentric codes like ours.
b. More to the point: The definition is internally contradictory. Any regulation that
says “impervious” surface includes “porous” surface has lost its way in the fog.
Additionally, the definition means that detention ponds are included in lot
coverage – detention ponds literally “...impede the passage or absorption of
stormwater”. Detention areas are usually considered a good way to preserve
open or green space and to manage stormwater – a classic win-win scenario. It
is hard to fathom why a detention area would be defined as “lot coverage”.
There have been a sizeable number of amendments like the above over the years.
This proposal is not aimed at second-guessing previous staff or decision-makers, nor
would that serve any useful purpose in changing the Code now. We may presume that
past code amendments were done with the best of intentions. Some amendments no
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
4
2017 Revisions
2018-2019 Revisions
2020 and later Revisions
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.)
5
2017 Revisions
2018-2019 Revisions
2020 and later Revisions
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:
o 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 O (Office) Districts
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
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
Exterior Lighting
Off-Street Parking and Loading
Adequate Public Facilities [see section on “Improvements” below]
Outdoor Storage Areas
6
2017 Revisions
2018-2019 Revisions
2020 and later Revisions
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:
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)
7
2017 Revisions
2018-2019 Revisions
2020 and later Revisions
Example: Streamlining Special Reviews, so that minor Special Reviews go
to only one body instead of two for approval; compliance with quasi-
judicial decision-making criteria 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
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
8
2017 Revisions
2018-2019 Revisions
2020 and later Revisions
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
9
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.
Attachments:
None
10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Study Session: Update on Development Code Changes
The Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners have made it a priority
to revise and rationalize the Estes Valley Development Code. Among other priorities,
this effort is aimed at facilitating development and construction of workforce and
attainable housing in the Estes Valley. Other goals include: Simplifying and shortening
the EVDC; rewriting as much of the Code in plain English as possible; balancing the
needs and wishes of all stakeholders in the community with those of neighboring
property owners; and reforming processes and procedures to provide benchmarks and
consistency.
Much progress has been made so far. The following amendments and procedural
changes have been made within the Estes Valley Development Code, or pursuant to it,
since January 2016:
• Mar. 2016: Providing for flexibility in on-site employee housing for commercial
projects;
• Apr. 2016: Allowing for round-off calculation in residential and accommodations
density calculations;
• August 2016: Allowing for concurrent submittal for variance requests and other
development approvals under EVDC;
• Sept. 2016 [Sign Code]: Commercial signage allowed on Town-operated shuttle
bus vehicles;
• Oct. 2016: Elimination of development-plan submittal requirement for rezoning to
RM District and others [administrative determination];
• Nov. 2016: Removal of 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for RM District
development;
• Dec. 2016: Adjustments to density bonus for attainable and/or workforce
housing;
• Dec. 2016: Rewrite of EVDC provisions regarding Vacation Homes;
• Feb. 2017: Regulations on display, installation and maintenance of Official
Street-Name Signs in the Town;
• Mar. 2017: Clarifying regulations regarding Accessory (2nd) Kitchens in
residential structures;
• Mar. 2017: Modifications to Vacation Homes regulations;
• May 2017: Extension of regulations regarding development adjacent to
drainageways;
• June 2017: Modifications to Special Review procedures, classification, and final
disposition;
• June 2017: Standardized method to measure building heights;
• June 2017: Raise height limit in RM District to 38 feet for attainable or workforce
housing;
• Sept. 2017: Adoption of changes to content and administration of the “Preferred
Plant List”.
Two amendments proposed in 2016 and 2017 did not get approved:
• Dec. 2016: Long-Term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs);
• June 2017: Design standards for multi-family buildings in the RM district
(stepbacks, etc.)
Several additional Code amendments are still in progress:
• Oct. 2017: Removal for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement for development,
specifically including employee housing [approved by Town Board, County
Commissioners action scheduled in Nov.];
• Oct. 2017: Adjusting Height Measurement for Steeply Sloped Roofs [approved by
Town Board, County Commissioners action scheduled in Nov.];
• Nov. 2017: Definition of Single-Family Use [action by Town Board and County
Commissioners in Nov.];
• Nov. 2017: Restricting Density Bonus eligibility to the RM District [action by Town
Board and County Commissioners in Nov.];
• Dec. 2017 [est.]: Rewrite/replacement of Sign Code, Town of Estes Park;
• Dec. 2017 [est.]: Mobile Food Vendor regulations;
• Dec. 2017 [est.]: Bed & Breakfast Inn regulations.
(The above list does not include a variety of project-specific matters, such as
annexations, zoning changes, Special Reviews, etc.; it also does not include several set
of amendments to the various Building Codes facilitated by the Building division.)
All of us have earned the right to feel a sense of accomplishment at the progress made
so far. We have processed and adopted seventeen (17) EVDC or Municipal Code
amendments so far, with six (6) more in the latter stages of formal action. Two more
Code amendments were proposed but in the end did not make it to the finish line.
Assuming adoption of the latest ones, we will have processed twenty-five (25 Code
amendments in twenty-four (24) months.
I would describe this as meaningful change.
At today’s (Nov. 14) Town Board Study Session, I would like to focus on three things, if
the Board concurs:
1. General review of the Master List, with an eye to near-future priorities for Code
amendments, bearing in mind that resources are going to be limited in 2018;
2. A brief discussion about one specific amendment, that being the suggested
change from net density to gross density in measuring n umber of housing units
per acre; and
3. A review of work to date on the Comprehensive Plan update, including how that
will address the EVDC amendments and vice-versa.
Re Item 2: I am attaching the current EVDC language on density calculation and
measurement. Whatever the solution we find and decide upon, I think you will agree
that the current EVDC method for calculating and measuring density is unworkable and
non-transparent.
§ 1.9 - Rules of Measurement
C. Density Calculation.
1. Net Land Area.
Net land area shall be determined by subtracting from the gross land area, the following (as
applicable):
a. Eighty percent (80%) of lands located in the 100 -year floodplain;
b. Eighty percent (80%) of lands located above the elevation serviceable by the Town of Estes
Park water system;
c. All lands within private streets or dedicated public rights -of-way; and
d. All lands subject to a ground lease that, because of the lease terms, would not be available
for development of the proposed land use(s) on the subject property.
2. Net Density.
Net density shall be calculated by dividing the net land area by the minimum lot area or land area
required for each unit.
3. When applying a density standard to a parcel's net land area, any fraction of less than one -half (½)
shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number and any fraction of one -half (½) or more shall
be rounded up to the next higher whole number.
(Ord. 11-16, §1(Exh. A))
4. The number of dwelling or accommodation units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that
all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density established for a zoning district
(see Chapter 4) is not a guarantee that such densities may be ob tained, nor a valid justification for
varying other dimensional or development standards.
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
C. Density/Dimensional Standards.
1. Density Calculation.
(See also Chapter 1, §1.9.C.)
a. Net land area. Net land area shall be determined by subtracting from the gross land area the
following:
(1) Eighty percent (80%) of lands located in the 100 -year floodplain;
(2) Eighty percent (80%) of lands located above the elevation serviceable by the Town of
Estes Park water system;
(3) All lands within private streets or dedicated public rights -of-way; and
(4) All lands subject to a ground lease that, because of the lease terms, would not be
available for development of the proposed land use(s) on the subject property.
b. Net density. Net density shall be calculated by dividing the net land area by the minimum lot
area or land area required for each unit.
c. When applying a density standard to a parcel's net land area, all resulting fractions shall be
rounded down to the next lower whole number.
d. The number of dwelling or accommodations units allowed on a site is based on the
presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density established for
a zoning district (See Table 4-2 below) is not a guarantee that su ch densities may be obtained, nor
a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development standards.
§ 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts
C. Density and Dimensional Standards.
1. Table of Density and Dimensional Standards by Zoning District.
Table 4-5 below lists the density and dimensional standards that apply within the nonresidential
zoning districts. These are "base" standards, not guarantees that stated minimums or maximums can
be achieved on every site. Other regulations of this Code or site-specific conditions may further limit
development on a site.
2. Minimum Land Area Requirements for Accommodation and Residential Uses in the
Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-5 below includes a standard for "minimum land area per accommodations (g uest) or
residential unit," which applies only in the A, A -1 and CD zoning districts. The "minimum land area"
necessary to meet this standard shall be measured using the net land area definition set forth in
§4.3.C, "Density/Dimensional Standards." When ap plying the minimum land area standard to a
parcel's net land area, all resulting fractions shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number.
3. Maximum Units/Density Not Guaranteed.
The number of dwelling or guest units allowed on a site is based on the p resumption that all other
applicable standards shall be met. The maximum residential or accommodations density established
for a zoning district is not a guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification
for varying other dimensional or development standards.
§ 7.1 - SLOPE PROTECTION STANDARDS
A. Density Calculation for Residential and Accommodation Development on Steep Slopes in
Excess of 12%.
1. Applicability.
These density calculation provisions shall apply to all new residential and accommodation
development in the Estes Valley, except for the following:
a. Single-family residential development on a lot created and approved for such use prior to the
effective date of this Code.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
b. Development within the RE-1 Zoning District.
(Ord. 18-02 #1)
2. General Rule.
Notwithstanding the maximum densities permitted by the underlying zoning district, the minimum lot
area for new residential and accommodation development on parcels containing slopes twelve
percent (12%) or greater shall be de termined by the following formulas:
a. All Residential Zoning Districts (Except RM): For each percentage point by which average
slope exceeds twelve percent (12%), the base zone minimum lot area requirement shall be
increased by one thousand (1,000) square fe et, as shown in Table 7-1 below.
b. RM Zone: Residential development in the RM Zoning District shall comply with the base
zoning minimum lot area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet. In addition, for each percentage
point by which average slope e xceeds twelve percent (12%), the base zone minimum land area
per unit requirement (five thousand four hundred [5,400] square feet per unit = maximum density
of eight [8] dwelling units per acre) shall be increased by three hundred (300) square feet per
dwelling unit.
c. A Zone:
(1) Accommodation development shall comply with the base zoning minimum lot area of
forty thousand (40,000) square feet.
(2) In addition, for each percentage point by which average slope exceeds twelve percent
(12%), the base zoning minimum land area per unit requirement (one thousand eight hundred
[1,800] or five thousand four hundred [5,400] square feet per unit) shall be increased by one
hundred (100) or three hundred (300) square feet per unit, respectively.
(3) Single-family or two-family uses in the A Zone shall comply with the base zoning
minimum lot area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet. In addition, for each percentage
point by which average slope exceeds twelve percent (12%), the base zone minimum land
area per unit requirement (nine thousand [9,000] square feet for SF uses and six thousand
seven hundred fifty [6,750] square feet for 2 -F uses) shall be increased by three hundred
(300) square feet per dwelling unit.
15%20%25%30%35%
RE-1 10 acres
RE 2.5 acres 111,900 116,900 121,900 126,900 131,900
E-1 1 acre 46,560 51,560 56,560 61,560 66,560
E ½ acre 24,780 29,780 34,780 39,780 44,780
R ¼ acre 13,890 18,890 23,890 28,890 33,890
R-1 5,000 sf 8,000 13,000 18,000 23,000 28,000
R-2 (SF)18,000 sf 21,000 26,000 31,000 36,000 41,000
R-2 (2-F)27,000 sf 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
No Slope Adjustment Required
Table 7-1
Density Calculation/Lot Area Adjustment for Steep Slopes by Zoning District
Zoning District Base Minimum Lot Area Adjusted Minimum Lot Area (Square Feet)
@ "x"% Slope
d. A-1 Zone: Development shall comply with the base zoni ng minimum lot area of fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet. In addition, for each percentage point by which average slope
exceeds twelve percent (12%), the base zone minimum land area requirement per dwelling unit or
accommodation unit (ten thousand eigh t hundred ninety [10,890] square feet per unit) shall be
increased by six hundred five (605) square feet per unit.
3.
Definition.
For purposes of this Section, "average slope" shall be measured as set forth in Chapter 13 of this
Code. See Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1
B.
Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes.
1.
Applicability.
These development restrictions shall apply to all new development in the Estes Valley, except for
development on lots that were approved for single -family residential use prior to the effective date of
this Code.
(Ord. 18-02 #1)
2.
New Structures-Existing Slopes in Excess of Thirty Percent.
a.
New development proposed to be built on any portion of a site containing a slope of thirty
percent (30%) or greater shall be subject to Staff review and approval of a development plan
pursuant to §3.8 of this Code. This provision applies to development tha t would otherwise be
exempt from the development plan review process (e.g., single -family developments containing
less than three [3] units).
b.
Staff shall review all such development plans and evaluate them according to the following
standards:
(1)
Site disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable (see §7.2.D,
"Limitations on Site Disturbance" below);
(2)
Cuts for utilities and access driveways shall be shared to the maximum extent feasible;
(3)
To the maximum extent feasible, new cons truction shall not take place on any portion of a
parcel that shows evidence of slope instability, landslides, avalanche, flooding or other
natural or manmade hazards (see §7.7, "Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas" below);
(4)
The Applicant shall demonstrate that the slope's ground surface and subsurface are not
unstable, that the proposed development will not cause instability or increase the potential
for slope failure, and that the development of the slope will not increase the degree of
hazard both on-site and on adjacent properties.
c.
For purposes of this subsection, steepness of slope shall be measured from the points with
highest and lowest elevation within five (5) feet of any portion of the proposed structure.
3.
Structure Clearance from Steep Slopes.
Structure clearance from ascending or descending slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) shall
comply with the requirements set forth in the applicable Building Code provisions.
4.
Grading, Clearing and Excavation -Slopes in Excess of Thirty Percent.
Clearing, excavation and grading on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) would not be allowed,
unless expressly approved through a development plan.
5.
Roads/Driveways-Slopes in Excess of Thirty Percent.
Shared driveways and access to sites or lots containing slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%) shall
be utilized to the maximum extent feasible. See also "General Site Access" and "Intersection and
Driveway Visibility" in Appendix D.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
§ 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
76. Density shall mean the number of dwelling or guest units for each acre of land. For purposes
of this Code, density shall be calculated on a "net" basis. See "Density, Net" below.
77. Density, Net shall mean the number of dwelling units or guest rooms/units in an
accommodations use on a lot or site divided by the total gross area (in acres) of the site on which the
units are located, exclusive of the following land areas (in acres):
a. Eighty percent (80%) of lands located in the 100 -year floodplain;
b. Eighty percent (80%) of lands located above the elevation serviceable by the Town of Estes
Park water system;
c. All lands within private streets or dedicated public rights -of-way; and
d. All lands subject to a ground lease that, because of the lease terms, would not be available
for development of the proposed land use(s) on the subject property.
220. Slope, Average shall mean the difference in elevation divided by horizontal distance, and shall be
measured over the entire parcel based on t wo-foot contour intervals, as shown in the following formula:
Average Slope = 0.0046 × length of contour lines (in feet)
Site or parcel area (in acres)
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Discussion on Use of Off-Highway Vehicles on Town Streets
Objective:
Review the proposed Ordinance which adds Chapter 10.24 Off-Highway Vehicles to the
Municipal Code.
Present Situation:
Currently, the Town does not allow the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) within the
Town limits. Section 33-14.5-110 (1)(a) C.R.S. provides that the Town may regulate the
operation of OHVs on public lands, streets and highways within its boundaries. The
proposed Ordinance permits OHVs to be operated on the public roads, streets, alleys,
and avenues of the Town subject to the following:
a. OHVs are not allowed to be operated on the State highways within the Town
except for crossing the highway.
b. Operators must be at least 16 years old.
c. OHVs shall only be allowed to be operated on the Town’s public roads, streets,
alleys, and avenues.
d. The operator of the OHV must have in his or her possession a valid motor
vehicle drivers license.
e. The OHV must be registered and numbered as required by the State statute.
f. The owner of the OHV has to have in full force and effect an insurance policy
containing the minimum requirements of Part 6, Article 4, Title 10 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes.
g. Operators must obey all traffic regulations set forth in the Model Traffic Code.
The Town Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance !!-17 to allow OHVs to be
operated within the Town.
Advantages:
Allows the use of OHVs on Town public roads and streets subject to appropriate
restrictions.
Disadvantages:
None.
11
Action Recommended:
Provide staff with direction on changes to the proposed Ordinance.
Budget:
There are no budget implications.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Attachments:
Copy of Section 33-14.5-101 C.R.S. that provides the definition of OHVs and OHV
Routes.
Ordinance No. XX-17.
12
ORDINANCE NO. XX-17
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 10.24 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES
TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article 14.5 of Title 33 of the Colorado Revised Statutes
(the “State Statute”) allows the Town to regulate the operation of off-highway vehicles
on public roads and streets within the Town; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 10.24 will allow the operation of off-highway vehicles as
defined in the State Statute on public roads and streets of the Town subject to the
regulations set forth in Chapter 10.24; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the terms of Chapter 10.24 and
determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to approve the addition of Chapter
10.24 to the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Chapter 10.24, as more fully set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby added to the Municipal Code.
2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this _________ day of _______________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
13
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2017 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2017.
Town Clerk
14
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 10.24 Off-Highway Vehicles.
10.24.010 Definitions.
1.“Off-Highway Vehicle” or “OHV” shall have the meaning given in Section 33-
14.5-101 C.R.S., as the same may be amended from time to time.
2. As used in this Section 10.24.010, “OHV Route” means and shall include any
public road, street, alley or avenue within the Town excluding Highway 34,
Highway 36, and Highway 7.
10.24.020 OHV Use Permitted. Any person 16 years or older is permitted to operate an
off-highway vehicle only on, within, and throughout the OHV Route, provided that:
1. The operator of the OHV has in his or her possession a valid motor vehicle
driver’s license; and
2. The OHV has been registered and numbered in accordance with Article 14.5
of Title 33 of the Colorado Revised Statutes; and
3. The operator of the OHV has, in full force and effect, an insurance policy
covering the OHV that complies with the terms of Part 6, Article 4, Title 10 of
the Colorado Revised Statutes.
4. The requirements sub-section 1. and 3. above shall be subject to the
provisions of Section 33-14.5-100 (1)(b)(2) C.R.S.
10.24.030 Traffic Regulations. The Town traffic regulations set forth in this Title 10,
including the Model Code, shall apply to the operation of OHVs within the Town. It
expressly acknowledged that it is unlawful for any person to operate an OHV under the
influence of alcohol or one or more drugs, or a combination of both, and that such
conduct is subject to Section 42-4-1301 C.R.S.
10.24.040 Crossing State Highways.
1. The driver of an OHV may directly cross a State highway, at an at-grade
crossing to continue using the OHV on the other side.
2. A person shall not cross a highway while driving an OHV unless the crossing
is made in accordance with the following:
(a) The crossing must be made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees
to the direction of the highway and at a place where no obstruction
prevents a quick and safe crossing.
15
(b) The OHV must be brought to a complete stop before crossing the
shoulder or, if none, the roadway before proceeding.
(c) The driver must yield the right-of-way to all motor vehicle traffic on the
roadway that constitutes an immediate hazard to the crossing.
(d) A driver of an OHV must cross a divided highway at an intersection of the
highway with another road or highway.
16
17
18
19
20
TOWN CLERK Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Town Board Compensation
Objective:
Review the Town Board compensation and determine if Board compensation should be
adjusted prior to the upcoming Municipal election on April 2, 2018.
Present Situation:
An extensive review of Board compensation was completed in 2012. After careful
consideration, the Town Board approved an increase in March 2012 for newly elected
Board members in April 2012: Mayor - $7,500, Mayor Pro Tem - $6,500 and Trustee -
$5,500. The Board members elected in April 2014 received the new salaries. In 2016
staff recommended the salary for the Mayor be increased to $9,000, Mayor Pro Tem to
$7,000 and Trustee to $6,000 which the Board chose not to consider.
Staff reviewed the salaries for the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees for the
communities reviewed in 2012 and 2014, and 2016. The 2017 findings show the
average salary for the Mayor has increased to $11,200 a year. The average salaries for
the Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees has increased to $7,250 and $7,542 respectively. A
number of the communities do not differentiate the Mayor Pro Tem from the Trustee
positions, and therefore, the average salaries are similar. Estes Park ranks towards the
bottom of the scale on how the Mayor is compensated in relation to its peer cities. The
information is being provided for Board discussion at the study session.
In the past the Board has requested staff review the possibility of providing an
incremental increase over a four-year period, and to determine if the current salaries
would be sufficient to cover the cost of health care premiums. With the change in
insurance premiums for employees dropping from 25% to 10% premiums have not been
higher than compensation, and therefore, are not a driving force in considering
increases to compensation.
Proposal:
In the past, Town Attorney White reviewed state statute Section 31-4-405 C.R.S. which
provides, in part, as follows: “The emoluments of any member of the governing body,
including the mayor, trustees, and councilmen shall not be increased or diminished
during the term for which he has been elected or appointed…” 21
The term emoluments are defined to mean the returns arising from office or
employment, usually in the form of compensation or prerequisites. His opinion was the
Section does not allow for any increase of a Trustee’s compensation during the
individual’s four-year term in office.
Staff reviewed the Board salaries versus health insurance premiums for 2015, 2016 and
2017 finding the premiums are well within the bi-weekly salary ranges if a Board
member were to select full coverage options.
2015 Bi‐Weekly Rate 2016 Bi‐Weekly Rate 2017 Bi‐Weekly Rate
Medical Employee 37.91 40.95 41.77
Medical Employee/Children 71.93 77.68 79.23
Dental Family 6.02 6.02 6.02
Vision Family 1.14 1.14 1.14
Total Benefits w/ Emp Only 45.07 48.11 48.93
Total Benefit w/ Emp+Child 79.09 84.84 86.39
Trustees Bi‐Weekly Salary 211.54 211.54 211.54
Pro Tem Bi‐Weekly Salary 250.00 250.00 250.00
Mayor Bi‐Weekly Salary 288.46 288.46 288.46
Health care premium rates are expected to increase in 2018 which can be seen in the
chart. The current salaries cover the increase in cost for benefits of the Mayor and
Trustees.
2018 Health Care Premiums 2018 Bi‐Weekly Rate
Medical Employee 43.85
Medical Employee/Children 83.20
Dental Family 6.78
Vision Family 1.24
Total Benefits w/ Emp Only 51.87
Total Benefit w/ Emp+Child 91.22
Trustees Bi‐Weekly Salary (Proposed) 375.00
Pro Tem Bi‐Weekly Salary (Proposed) 291.67
Mayor Bi‐Weekly Salary (Proposed) 250.00
Raising the Mayor salary to $9,000 from $7,500 would place it in the average pay range
for peer communities. However, raising the Mayor Pro Tem and Trustee position by
$500 each to $7,000 and $6,000 would keep the positions in their current range among
peer communities.
Advantages:
Board salaries would be within the mid-range of other municipalities.
An incremental increase would avoid a large adjustment at one time.
22
Disadvantages:
Board salaries would fall behind the average pay range for municipalities.
Action Recommended:
Provide staff direction on whether the Board would like the proposed compensation
increases be brought forward to a Town Board meeting.
Finance/Resource Impact:
An increase in compensation would require an update to the Legislative personnel line
items.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Attachment
Comparison Compensation Chart
23
Compensation Comparison for Selected Municipal Boards
City Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Benefits
Gunnison $7200/year $6000/year $6000/year N/A
Breckenridge $14400/year $9600/year $9600/year Access to Town's Medical Coverage at Employee rate of premium/ $500 voucher for recreation
Steamboat Springs $13460/year $11795/year $10,250/year Yearly increases by the percentage increase in the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index
Vail $12000/year $7500/year $7500/year
Telluride $18000/year $9600/year $9600/year
Dillion $10800/year $4800/year $4800/year
Durango $9000/year $6000/year $6000/year
Crested Butte $9600/year $4800/year $4800/year
Frisco $11400/year $4800/year $6000/year
If the Mayor Pro Tem serves as Mayor for more than 4 consecutive weeks, an additional $100
would be paid for time served
Blackhawk $11200.44/year $11200.44/year
Entitled to all insurance and retirement benefits offered to full time Town employees or the cash
equivalent
Winter Park $9600/year $4800/year $4800/year
Glenwood Springs $14400/year $12000/year $12000/year family pass to the community center; access to the city's health insurance plans
Estes Park $7500/year $6500/year $5500/year Entitled to all insurance and retirement benefits offered to full time Town employees
Annualized Salary ‐ Low to High
City Mayor
Gunnison $7,200
Estes Park $7,500
Durango $9,000
Crested Butte $9,600
Winter Park $9,600
Dillion $10,800
Blackhawk $11,200
Frisco $11,400
Vail $12,000
Steamboat Springs $13,460
Breckenridge $14,400
Glenwood Springs $14,400
Telluride $18,000
Median:$11,200
Annualized Salary ‐ Low to High
City Mayor Pro Tem
Blackhawk
Dillion $4,800
Frisco $4,800
Crested Butte $4,800
Winter Park $4,800
Gunnison $6,000
Durango $6,000
Estes Park $6,500
Vail $7,500
Breckenridge $9,600
Telluride $9,600
Steamboard Springs $11,795
Glenwood Springs $12,000
Median:$7,350
Annualized Salary ‐ Low to High
City Trustee
Dillion $4,800
Crested Butte $4,800
Winter Park $4,800
Estes Park $5,500
Gunnison $6,000
Durango $6,000
Frisco $6,000
Vail $7,500
Breckenridge $9,600
Telluride $9,600
Steamboard Springs $10,250
Blackhawk $11,200
Glenwood Springs $12,000
Median $7,542
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
Annualized Salary ‐Low to High Mayor
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Annualized Salary ‐Low to High Mayor Pro Tem
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Annualized Salary ‐Low to High Trustee
24
December 12, 2017
Final Review of 2017 Strategic Plan.
Downtown Plan final draft discussion.
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
Presentation of PRPA Zero Net Carbon
Report. Suggested for 12/12/17
Discussion of Downtown Parking Management
Plan. Suggested for 01/09/17.
Discussion of Fire District Request to Collect
Impact Fee. Suggested for 01/09/17.
Building Code Changes to Facilitate
Redevelopment.
3rd Party Building Inspections.
Executive Study Session on Cyber
Security.
Future Use of Senior Center Building.
Items for Town Board Consideration
Broadband ProForma
Update of VIA
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
November 14, 2017
25
26