Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2014-08-12 Tuesday, August 12, 2014 TOWN BOARD 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Board Room 4:30 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 4:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 4:45 p.m. Discussion of Commercially Zoned Properties within the Estes Valley. (Director Chilcott) 5:15 p.m. Break for Dinner. 5:30 p.m. Community Housing White Paper (Director Chilcott) 6:00 p.m. Board Communication. (Mayor Pinkham & Attorney White) 6:30p.m. Meeting Adjourn. Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m. AGENDA                    August 12, 2014 August 26, 2014  Assistant Town Administrator Position  Consideration of Adoption of Dangerous Building Section to Building Code  Town Water Ownership Issues September 9, 2014  2014 Objectives – Review of Progress October 3, 2014  Budget Study Session October 10, 2014  Budget Study Session October 14, 2014  Seasonal Tour Business - Follow Up Discussion October 17, 2014  Budget Study Session October 24, 2014 (If Needed)  Budget Study Session November 11, 2014  Review Citizen’s Survey Results December 9, 2014  2014 Objectives – Review of Progress Items to be Scheduled (Items are not in order of priority)  Enforcement of Vacation Home Regulations Discussion  Parking Structure Design Revisions  Logo Discussion  Discussion of Town Owned Fish Hatchery Property  Museum / Senior Center Master Plan  Review of the Accelerated Development and Design Process Used for Parking Structure  Discussion of the Charter and Charge to a Housing Study Committee  Review of Draft Policy on Public Forums   Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Community Development Director Chilcott Planner Kleisler Date: August 12, 2014 RE: Review of Properties Zoned Commercial Objective: Provide a review of properties zoned commercial as requested by Trustees. The intent of this memo is to provide broad information on non-residential zone districts and specific information about the largest commercial district: Commercial Outlying. The memo concludes by offering suggestions for further research and policy discussions. Present Situation: Commercial Development: The Town’s Role Commercially zoned properties are the centers of economic activity – areas in which businesses choose to locate in order to benefit from the proximity of infrastructure, other business, labor markets and external economies of scale. Municipal governments’ supportive and enabling role in a community’s economic prosperity is crucial yet sometimes overlooked. The Town provides a local transportation network for movement of goods and people; operates water and sewer systems; provides for safety of the public as a whole through police and fire services; builds and operates essential facilities like parking structures and event centers; supports parks, recreation and trail systems; ensure safe and reliable buildings. Through these and other activities the Town lays the foundation for an attractive, appealing and prosperous community. These services are critical in attracting and sustaining diverse commercial land uses. A residential build-out analysis for the Estes Valley was performed in 2007. The analysis model indicated a potential yield of 12,019 units, including 3,077 units in the A– Accommodations district and 1,164 units in the A–1 Accommodations district. The Town budgeted funding in 2014 for commercial build-out analysis; however these funds were diverted to flood recovery projects. Non-Residential Zoning Districts The Estes Valley has seven non-residential zoning districts. 1. A Accommodations/Highway Corridor for highway-oriented, relatively higher intensity accommodations use such as multi-story hotels and motels. Stand-alone commercial or retail uses are not permitted in this district. 2. A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity for low-intensity and small-scale residential and low intensity accommodations uses, such as cabins and condominium developments. 3. CD Downtown Commercial for a wide variety and relatively high intensity retail and commercial services with the intent of functioning as the Valley’s focal point of tourist shopping and entertainment activities. The district promotes compact and pedestrian- scale retail, service and office uses in the downtown core. 4. CO Outlying Commercial to encourage development of a wide-variety of commercial and retail uses along major corridor entryways into the Valley and Town. 5. O Office Zoning to encourage business offices such as personal services (realtors, law offices, tattoo parlors). 6. CH Heavy Commercial to provide for heavy commercial uses, including vehicle repair, construction trades and bulk goods retailing. Larger uses require Special Review. 7. I-1 Restricted Industrial for a relatively wide variety of industrial uses, as reflected in the existing mix of industrial uses, including concrete/asphalt plants, propane distributes, construction trade yards. Current Inventory The Estes Valley consists of 32.5 square miles, with 6.9 square miles within the Town limits. Commercial properties account for 20% of the land within the Valley and residential zoned properties account for 80% (see Attachment 1). Three quarters of non-residential properties are zoned for accommodations use. The CO Commercial Outlying district accounts for most of the remaining non-residential properties. A draft of Chapter 4 Land Use, is attached which describes the amount of land by zone district, along with population and accommodations build-out analysis completed in 2007. Type and Intensity of Use of Non-Residential Zone Districts A Accommodations Many “A” zone properties are used for high intensity motel/hotel uses (24 small units per acre). Because many of these properties are relatively old, there are significant redevelopment opportunities. A recent example of redevelopment is the Comfort Inn along Big Thompson Avenue. Earlier this year the Planning Commission approved a development plan to replace three of the four older hotel buildings with one large, updated building. Planning staff have also fielded questions from other hotel owners regarding similar redevelopment projects. Many existing hotels/motels do not meet current Development Code standards, such as limits to impervious coverage. Much of the vacant accommodations land is being used for multi-family residential development (second homes, vacation homes, and long-term residential); such uses are typically built at 8 units per acre, not the hotel/motel use of 24 units per acre. Absent of any code changes staff expects this trend to continue. This loss of hotel/motel land was not anticipated in 1996 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. A-1 Accommodations A-1 zoned properties are generally a mix of residential and vacation home rentals. There is also a handful of low intensity cabin rentals. CD Commercial Downtown The CD zone district (66 acres) is the only district completely within Town limits. Downtown is generally defined by the district boundaries of the former Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (dissolved by public vote in 2010). There is significant development potential in Downtown, particularly on vacant and underdeveloped land (e.g. small and/or one story buildings). Additional research needs to be completed to determine the existing floor area to lot ratio (FAR) of buildings and what is currently allowed. The FAR requirements may constrain future redevelopment in the Downtown area. The current FAR limit in the CD district of 2.0 allows for two story buildings. The Cleave Street area should also be examined, as much of this land appears to be underdeveloped. O Office Only eight acres of “O” zoned land exists in the Valley. Numerous properties along Dry Gulch Road are zoned “O” (Salud, Crossroads Ministry) and South Saint Vrain Avenue (Aspenwood Professional Center, Peak to Peak Plaza). There is no clear purpose or intent for the “O” district in the EVDC. Generally, the districts allows for limited commercial uses in areas close to residential properties. An example of this is the Oja dentist practice along Mary’s Lake Road. CH Commercial Heavy There are 15 acres of “CH” land in the Valley. Most CH properties are located in the Comanche/Dunraven area. A potential roadblock for future redevelopment of these properties is the parking requirement. An alternative approach in this instance could be on-street parking allowances in lieu of off-street parking spaces. I-1 Restricted Industrial The 84 acres of I-1 district is primarily located along Elm Road (there are also two properties along Fish Creek Road). Most of the I-1 land along Elm Road is outside the Town Boundary. The lack of adequate infrastructure– paved roads, water, sewer, fire– makes it economically infeasible for any one property owner to pursue development opportunities. Such property owners have options they can pursue if desired, such as an improvement district to share the cost burden. Property owners have found landscaping standards to be too strict and not in keeping with an industrial area. The Town and County could research funding options. CO Outlying Commercial The “CO” district is the largest commercial, non-accommodations district. Staff prepared a brief analysis for this report that summarizes the various uses of this district. With further Town Board direction staff could devote additional time for further analysis of the CO or other zone districts. There are just over 850 acres of “CO” land in the Valley. Staff used Larimer County Tax Assessor data to analyze the current uses on the CO properties. The data has yet to be verified in the field, so please consider the results of this analysis as preliminary and subject to minor changes. The preliminary analysis suggests the following: • Most CO land is not available for redevelopment, either because it is owned by a public agency (Bureau of Reclamation, school, golf courses) or is currently used as a residential use; these uses are classified as “Institutional”. • There are 19 acres of open space, mostly at the Knoll-Willows. • Retail businesses account for 48 acres and are generally dispersed along Highway 7 and Moraine Avenue, with the largest being the Stanley Village Shopping Center. • There are 52 acres of warehouse and storage uses. This is a low intensity use for CO zoned land in prime locations. • There are relatively few personal service businesses (e.g. accountants, realtors) and restaurants. • A number of the vacant lots (24 acres total) appear to have development potential. Next Steps Managing the stock of commercial land in the Valley is an important part of achieving the Board’s objective of developing a robust economy. Further research should be completed to determine the following: • Is there enough commercial land area to generate taxes to support future municipal services and our local population? • What services do locals want in Estes Park that are not here and why? What is the appropriate mix of land uses to balance the tax base and provide for future retail, service and employment needs? • The Downtown FLAP grant will spur redevelopment. How does this impact current and future commercial revenue? Are “CD” standards adequate to accommodate this redevelopment? Accommodation s, 10% Industrial, 6% Institutional/Other, 72% Open Space, 2% Personal Services, 1% Restaurant, 1% Retail, 5% Vacant , 3% Accommodations Industrial Institutional/Other Open Space Personal Services Restaurant Retail Vacant • Are there regulatory impediments to redevelopment? For example, many hotels and commercial properties exceed the current density allowance, impervious coverage standards and floor area ratio. • Should commercial activities be encouraged along Big Thompson Avenue instead of hotels? • Should there be further measures to mitigate commercial-residential conflicts. • Why aren’t existing vacant and underdeveloped commercial land being developed now (site specific analysis)? • There is a special area of over 30 acres nearby the school and fairgrounds (see Attachment 2). The constructions of the recreation center will likely spur development in this area. Minimum parking requirements, lot coverage, FAR and setbacks will be notable constraints in this area. Should the Town explore a neighborhood plan for this area or some other study? Proposal: This information is provided to the Town Board to facilitate a policy discussion about commercial properties and possibly provide direction for further staff analysis. Advantages: A continual evaluation of our commercial land may lead to land use decisions that further the Board’s goal of development of a robust economy. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: This report is informational only. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest High: For Key Outcome Areas identified by the Town Board – Rebust Economy Attachments: 1. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter Four (Draft, 2014) 2. Aerial map of Manford/Woodstock area 18 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter Four: Land Use Land Use Plan Chapter Four – Land Use was originally prepared in 1996 as a component of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The 2007 Build Out Analysis shown in this chapter is part of a 2007 Update to the Estesv Valley Comprehensive Plan, and updates the statistical information found in the 1996 Plan. The text of the 1996 Land Use Chapter is maintained, with the exception of updated statistical information. PURPOSE AND DIRECTION The Land Use Element is the focal element of Estes Park Directions and has guided the formulation of transportation, economic, and housing elements. As the focal element, the Land Use Map illustrates the vision that the Valley has for itself in terms of where it should develop, the anticipated scale and intensity of development and how various land uses relate to each other. The Land Use Element also recommends a wide range of land uses and densities, in response to extensive citizen participation, existing land use analysis, and the community survey. The Land Use Element also serves as the guide for implementing new land development regulations (zoning and subdivision). The Future Land Use Plan has several key elements: • The Plan which is based on broad noted public input and noted environ- mental features proposes a series of new land use categories, and loca- tions for these uses. This Plan pro- poses a uniform system of land use DRAFT 18 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use 19 categories and regulations between the Town and County. • Proposes a joint Town/County plan- ning commission for the Estes Valley. • Proposes a new regulatory system that includes location and environ- mental performance standards, ser- vice capacity standards, site and architectural design standards and sensitive land protection. • Proposes a detailed implementation (action) process. • Proposes exploration of a growth management system. EXISTING CONTEXT The land use issues identified during the public workshops provide the basis for defining the opportunities and directions for the Future Land Use Plan. The following issues tend to be among the most important discussed during the process. They include: • Incompatibility among adjacent land uses, land forms and zoning. • Acknowledgment that the range of uses allowed in some existing zoning districts is too broad. • A wider range of zoning districts for both residential and commercial uses is needed. • Demand for small-lot single-family development. • Demand for large single-family lots, which may conflict with clustering concepts. • A new Planned Unit Development process. • Performance standards for new devel- opment. • Maintained as the commercial and entertainment core. • A comprehensive trail and bike path system. • Improve gateways and entries into Es- tes Park that reflect the community’s concern for the environment. • Provide a high quality arts environ- ment. • Preserve open space in its natural condition. • Provide regulations that address ap- propriate building size, site coverage, and site disturbance. As part of the Future Land Use Plan, the consultant and Town have prepared a Geographic Information System (GIS). The system is capable of producing detailed maps and printouts of all parcels within the planning area, identification of geologic hazards (e.g. steep slopes, debris fan and rock fall), wildfire hazard areas and more. Existing land use, existing zoning and the Future Land Use Plan maps and figures are presented in this chapter. The Estes Valley Development Code was adopted as a direct result of the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Code implemented the Future Land Use Plan by establishing valley-wide zoning, hazard area identification and subdivision requirements. Adopted in 2000, the Code exemplifies the partnership among the Town and Larimer County by establishing a land use code for the Estes Valley, both within the Town limits and within the unincorporated Estes Valley. DRAFT 20 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use 21 Figure 4.1: Existing Zoning Summary Residential Districts Non-Residential Districts LAND USE TOTAL ACRES PERCENTAGE Residential Multi-family: 3-8 du/acre (RM)319 2% Single Family: 10 acre min. (RE-1)7,369 37% Single Family: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE)4,694 24% Single Family: 1 acre min. (E-1)2,212 11% Single Family: 1/2 acre min. (E) 1,026 5% Single Family: 1/4 Acre min. (R)202 1% Single Family: 5,000 s.f. min. (R-1)14 <1% Two Family: 27,000 s.f. min. (R-2)74 <1% Non-Residential Accomodations (A)1,962 10% Accomodations (A-1)967 5% Commercial Downtown (CD)66 <1% Commercial Heavy (CH)15 <1% Commercial Outlying (CO)859 4% Restricted Industrial (I-1)84 <1% Office (O)8 <1% TOTAL 19,871 100% E E-1 R R R-2 RE RE-1 RM A A-1 CD R CO I-1 O Note: Analysis from 2013 Town of Estes Park and Larimer County Land Use Records DRAFT Land Use 21 Figure 4.2: Existing Zoning Summary with Estimated Buildout (2007) LAND USE NUMBER OF PARCELS ACRES BY CLASSIFICATION PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ACRES ESTIMATED BUILDOUT (existing + future units) Residential Multi-family: 3-8 du/acre (RM)1,157 294 2%2,255 Single Family: 10 acre min. (RE-1)307 2,859 25%344 Single Family: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE)608 4,332 28%1,121 Single Family: 1 acre min. (E-1)1,583 1,887 12%1,583 Single Family: 1/2 acre min. (E) 1,443 899 6%1,560 Single Family: 1/4 Acre min. (R)540 154 1%583 Single Family: 5,000 s.f. min. (R-1)68 13 <1%78 Two Family: 27,000 s.f. min. (R-2)127 65 <1%254 Non-Residential Accomodations (A)532 780 5%3,077 Accomodations (A-1)260 881 6%1,164 Commercial Downtown (CD)144 30 <1%0 Commercial Heavy (CH)33 10 <1%0 Commercial Outlying (CO)240 240 2%0 Restricted Industrial (I-1)33 47 <1%0 Office (O)25 7 <1%0 null 33 2030 13%0 TOTAL 7,133 19,871 100%12,019 Note: Analysis from 2007 Buildout Analysis DRAFT 22 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use 23 EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY The Estes Valley consists of 32.5 square miles, with 6.9 square miles within Town limits. Figure 4.3 below summarizes the existing land uses within the Valley. Slightly less than half (47%) of land in the Valley is used for residential purposes, most of which is used for single family development. Vacant land and unimproved commercial/ unplatted land represent a relatively small area of land (less than 2% in the Valley). However, many of the improved parcels are eligible for subdivision, or additional development. The larger parcels of undeveloped land tend to occur in the North End and Mary’s Lake planning areas. Current Valley zoning consists of six single family residential districts, two multi- family district, two accommodations districts, four commercial districts, and one industrial district. LAND USE TOTAL ACRES PERCENTAGE Residential Residential Unimproved or Unplatted 2,007 10% Single Family 7,332 36% Two Family 2 <1% Multi-Family 31 <1% Condo 107 1% Non-Residential Agrculture 1,890 9% Commercial 227 1% Commercial Unimproved or Unplatted 140 1% County Land 16 <1% Federal Land 311 2% Forest 974 5% Industrial/Manufacturing <1 <1% Lodging 452 2% Multi-Use <1 <1% National Forest 243 1% National Park 1,494 7% Office 9 <1% Other 3,974 19% State Highway Dept. Land 1 <1% Town Land 513 3% Vacant Land 101 <1% Warehouse 29 <1% null 570 3% TOTAL 20,425 100.0% Figure 4.3: Existing Land Use Note: Analysis from 2013 Larimer County Land Use Records DRAFT Land Use 23 GROWTH PROJECTION A residential growth projection was provided in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The growth projection used the following assumptions: 1. County Assessor’s records were used to determine “vacant” parcels. 2. A typical density was used, based on proposed future land use categories. 3. 25% of the land area of the vacant parcels was deducted to account for roadways. 4. Existing improved parcels that are large enough to be subdivided were considered as potential new development lots. 5. The forecast estimated 2.3 persons per household. The 1996 estimates indicated a potential Valley population of 19,000 – 20,000 people over time. 2007 BUILD-OUT ANALYSIS Residential build-out analysis for the Estes Valley was performed in GIS through the use of a spatial model developed in ArcGIS 9.2 software. The use of a spatial model allows a user to incorporate multiple layers of spatial data against a base layer, in this case the Estes Valley parcels layer with zoning data. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) defines developable area for residential parcels based upon zoning type (e.g., residential, multi-family residential, etc.). The zoning code for these various designations also includes factors for discounting of the developable area of parcels based upon constraint features. Constraint features used in the model included slope, floodplains, new road infrastructure for large parcels, and water service elevation. [2] The first step in the model process was the removal of private open space and tax- exempt properties. The water service elevation layer was intersected against the Estes Valley parcels layer. Next, the developable area of parcels above the water service elevation was discounted by 80%. For parcels large enough to subdivide into 4 or more lots, the developable area was further discounted by 25% to account for future road infrastructure needs. Developable areas inside of floodplains were additionally discounted by 80%. For steep slopes, the EVDC defines levels of developable area discounting based upon the steepness of different slopes unique to each zoning classification. Six categories of slope discounting were used: Slopes 0-12%, slopes 12-15%, slopes 15-20%, slopes 20-25%, slopes 25-30%, and slopes greater than 30%. The remaining developable area of parcels was discounted based upon the combined zoning/ slope discounting factors. [2] Based upon the minimum lot area size for each residential zoning classification, the number of additional housing units that could be developed on each parcel was determined. Existing housing unit numbers were provided from the Larimer County Tax Assessor and were subtracted from the total number of housing units that could be added to each parcel. It was assumed that each residentially zoned parcel would have the ability to have at least 1 housing unit. Therefore, parcels with no existing housing units had at least one unit calculated, regardless of the minimum lot area size resulting from the build-out analysis. [2] The use of a spatial model avoided double- discounting of features that had already been discounted due to other constraint features. Spatial models can be easily updated based upon new constraint features or zoning code changes, allowing the speedy update of statistics in future analyses. The Estes Valley build-out model was provided as a deliverable product to the Town of Estes and can be used in future iterations of build-out analysis. [2] The 2007 build-out analysis model indicated a potential yield of 12,019 units, including 3,077 units in the A–Accommodations district and 1,164 units in the A–1 Accommodations district. The 2007 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment estimates that the Estes Valley has approximately 8,700 existing residential units. This number includes all types—single- family homes, apartments, condominiums, and mobile homes, regardless of whether they are occupied, vacant, second homes, or vacation accommodations. See Figure 4.2 for a build-out estimate by zoning district. [3] Based on development trends, and unit types being developed in the A–1 Wth an average of 2.11 persons per household, the permanent “built-out” population for the Estes Valley could approach 18,867 persons, excluding units developed in the A-Accommodations district. DRAFT 24 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use 25 Accommodations district, the future Valley population should include A–1 unit yield in the population estimates. It is expected that future unit types in the A–Accommodations district will be also function more as dwelling units in terms of unit facilities and occupancy, although occupancy of the units in the A– Accommodations district would typically be more transient in nature, with seasonal vacancy fluctuations. The effective population of the Estes Valley will become more of a blend, with permanent and transient population groups. With an average of 2.11 persons per household, the permanent “build-out” population for the Estes Valley could approach 18,867 persons, excluding units developed in the A–Accommodations district. [2] Future Land Use Plan INTRODUCTION This section describes the proposed Future Land Use patterns and development types for the Valley as a whole. Additional information on the nature and character of each planning area is included in Chapter Eight “Neighborhood Plans”. In order to define the desired future land use for a specific parcel, please refer to the Future Land Use Map and the specific discussion associated with the land use classification for the given parcel. This narrative is intended to provide an overview. FUTURE LAND USE WITHIN THE VALLEY The future land use portion of the plan focuses development so that more compact or urban types of development occur close to the Town core. More compact development patterns are also encouraged in areas which can easily be provided with urban services. In general, the plan focuses commercial development within the downtown core, and transitions to lower density commercial and accommodation uses and ultimately residential uses as one moves away from the center of the community. Future land use patterns also relate to environmental features within the study area and the geographic features which create the Valley. In general, commercial and accommodation development is discouraged in areas where environmental features pose a constraint for development. The Plan proposes limited development on steep slopes, visually sensitive areas, areas with significant wildfire hazards, wildlife migration routes and habitat, and flood-prone areas allow for only limited development within the plan. Performances standards will be developed for these areas. The plan also acknowledges a relationship between the community and Rocky Mountain National Park. Accommodations and commercial development outside of the core area are generally located on transportation spines which connect to the park. Undeveloped land close to the park is generally proposed to have lower densities, corresponding to natural features and providing a transition to National Park Service lands. In summary, the plan proposes more intense development in the core of the community, transitioning to lower density development as one moves out from the center. The plan also recognizes the relationship between the Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park as it relates to access and land use transitions. The future land use plan allows for a direct correlation between the existing land use and the desired future land use patterns on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The future land use map provides information on an individual parcel. Future Land Use Categories Within the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County there are several locations where the zoning and allowable use and densities are not compatible with the physical or built environment. A new set of land use categories has been proposed as part of this Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County will use these land use categories as the basis to prepare a unified development code, including uniform zoning, subdivision, and development review. The proposed future land use categories and their definition follow. These categories do not represent a proposed regulation, but identify concepts. These proposed land use categories and locations have been identified on the Future Land Use Map. In order to implement the future land use map, zoning will need to be modified. In preparation of the Future Land Use Plan, a “best-fit” land use category was applied for existing developments. DRAFT Land Use 25 In some cases, an existing lot may be smaller than the proposed land use category. It is the intent that pre-existing, legally created lots, having an area less than required for the category in which it is located, may be utilized for an allowable use. (e.g., a legal lot of record, 0.75 acres in size, proposed to be placed in a 1.00 acre single-family residential category, could be used for one single-family dwelling. SPECIAL STUDY AREAS Future land use designations have not been made for two areas that are identified as special study areas. The Fall River special study area is located along Fall River Road and the Giant Track special study area is located on Marys Lake Road. These areas are shown as “Special Study Areas” on the future land use plan and will be subject to additional study and analysis during Phase III prior to receiving a future land use designation. The special focus of this Phase III study will be additional neighborhood input and in depth study of the unresolved land use issues which were the subject of special concern within these areas. Residential Future Land Use Categories RE-1 - Rural Estate: 10 acre minimum. There may be a provision that would allow for one house on a site, for example, but if 75% of the site were placed under an open space conservation easement, two dwelling units could be built. RE - Rural Estate: two and one-half (2½) acre minimum. E-1 - Estate: One (1) acre minimum. This would allow for low density single-family development. E - Estate.: One-half (½) acre minimum. An intermediate density single-family neighborhood. (1 dwelling unit/net ½ acre) R: One-fourth (¼) acre minimum. Higher density single-family district which could assist with affordability. (4 d.u./net acre) R-2 - Two-Family Residential: 27,000 S.F. (minimum). Two-family dwelling. A residential district providing for duplex construction. MF - Multi-Family: 3 - 8 dwelling units per net acre. A multi-family district. PUD-R Residential Planned Unit Development: An overlay district, for which the P.U.D. is reviewed based on demonstrated and approved exceptional site and architectural design. Note: Net Density: The number of dwelling units (d.u.) per net acre of land (i.e.,. 1 d.u./ net acre). Net Acre: The area included within a salable portion of land exclusive of pub- lic street right-of-way) equal to 43,560 square feet. COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES CBD - Downtown: A district allowing many uses with the purpose of establishing the downtown as the retail, cultural, and entertainment center of Estes Park. Several use levels may be established by location. Second floor housing may be a requirement for new construction and substantial rehabilitation. C - Commercial: A district allowing a wide range of uses, modified with a system of performance standards. Residential uses would be allowed, but not as a principal ground floor use. (e.g., residential uses, if proposed, would be required to be on the second floor of a commercial use). O - Office: A district which could allow transition between residential and commercial areas. Construction to be residential in character. A - Accommodations: A district specifically designed for the Estes Park accommodations market. This district could also include some accessory uses (e.g. gift shop, restaurant). There would be locational development considerations (e.g. riverfront, neighborhood), and performance standards for site and architecture. A-1 - Accommodations: A district designed for development of rental cabins, which are residential in character. Density may range from 2 - 4 units per acre. The size of buildings and number of units per building may be limited. CR - Commercial Recreation: A district designed for uses such as campgrounds, miniature golf, stables, etc. I-1 - Light Industrial: A district allowing light industrial use, with performance standards PUD - C Commercial Planned Unit Development: A district that would allow for a mix of use types, including commercial and DRAFT 26 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use 27 residential, and having performance standards for site design and architecture. INSTITUTIONAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES INS - Institutional: A district for public and semi-public uses. PR - Parks/Recreation/Open Space: Public use and park areas. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Development in special areas would also be further refined through a system of locational and environmental performance standards and level of service. sA short description of potential “performance standards” follows. • Downtown. This overlay may add a standard that requires second floor housing for new development or redevelopment. The downtown may also have a number of different use or character areas with different stan- dards and development criteria within the district. • Performance Standards. Standards would be added that address land quality limitations and development suitability. Density would be adjusted by a site’s characteristics. Perfor- mance standards could be includ- ed for steep slope, wildfire, riparian systems/drainage ways, visual quality, wildlife, utility service, access, and vegetation. • Highway Corridors. Developments within a certain distance of highway right-of-way would be required to meet exceptional site and architectural design standards. Bulk-plane stan- dards could be added which adjust building height based on setback. • Commercial. Performance standards may require that commercial sites be developed as commercial use on the ground floor. Second floor housing would be allowed. [1] Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, 2007, Centen- nial, CO 80111 [2] Stamey and Associates, 2007, Long- mont, CO 80504 [3] Estes Valley Housing Needs Assess- ment, 2008, RRC Associates, Inc., Boul- der, CO 80301 and Rees Consulting, Inc., Crested Butte, CO 81224 DRAFT 4THSTGRAVES AVE S S AIN T V R AIN A V E BRODIE AVE MORGANST FAWNLN WAPITI PLEA ST L NSTANLEY AVE MANFORD AVE DUNRAVEN ST S A INT VR AIN L N BAILEYLNCOMANCHE ST 5THSTSSAINTVRAINAVECOMMUNITY DRWOODSTOCKDR COMMUNITY DRP O N DEROSADRPONDEROSA D R PONDEROSADR HALBACH LNROOFTOP WAY 401 532 1110 531 663650 344 412 671 652 1031 600 654 559 911 501 615 521 1221 910 721 560 1120 445 320 654 549 523 655 665 519 411 959 911 400 330 1310 881 920 711931 653 970 1211 657 656 663 529 543 220 1065 281 1050 605 555 1250455 1053 340 661 955 720 537 659 1051 540 659 341 1069 1180 635 820 645 1055 675658 260 921 418 651 570 1209 1350 430 1302 1210 665 1140 651 400 381 511 655 261 350 840 535 661 415 701 310 1063 1067 653 544 1011 415 421 1180 1075 340 960 667 1250 531 1170 324 444 411 351 625 950 601 530 433 433 420 536 865 1191 527 438 441 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 160 320Feet 1 in = 300 ft±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity Devel opment Attachment #2Area for Further Analysis Printed: 8/7/2014Created By: phil kleisler N SAINT VRAIN AVE E RIVERSIDE DRLAKE ESTES Bi g Thomp so n Riv e r 2ND STCOMMUNITY DR5TH ST1ST STASPENAVEH I G H L A N D L N ELM AVEHALBACH LNCRAGS DR Proje ct Site Walk to Downtown Walk to Hospital Future RecreationCenter Fairgrounds COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Town Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: David Shirk, Senior Planner Date: August 12, 2014 RE: Town’s role in Community Housing Issues Objective: A. Staff objective is to assist the Town Board in developing a policy defining the Town’s role in community housing issues by providing an overview of: 1. Community Housing Issues 2. Housing market trends 3. Evolution of regulatory environment 4. Evolution of Town’s role in community housing 5. Options for the Town’s Role in Community Housing B. This staff report is in follow up to Town Board study session discussion on May XX, 2014 (staff report and minutes attached). Present Situation: A. Town Board’s Strategic Plan The Town Board has adopted a 2014 Strategic Plan. That plan articulates the Town vision, mission, key outcome, and goals (5-7 year goals with one year objectives). Key Outcome Area - Outstanding Community Services Estes Park is an exceptionally vibrant, diverse, inclusive and active mountain community in which to live, work and play, with housing available for all segments in our community. Goal (5-7 Years) We will serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for all segments of our community 2014 Board Objective (1 year time frame) Define the Town’s role in community housing issues. B. Overview of Community Housing Issues The availability of housing for all segments in our community is critical to ensuring that Estes Park is an exceptionally vibrant, diverse, inclusive and active community in which to live, work and play. It touches every part of our community, including our economy, our workforce, our schools and institutions, and the vibrancy of our community demographics. Housing issues in Estes Park are similar to mountain resort destinations throughout the inter- mountain west: outside demand skews the local housing supply. This skewing of market forces means that housing prices trend upward. This affects availability of workforce housing, which impacts all segments of the community and forces many workers to live outside the Valley, increasing sales leakage. The lack of workforce housing acts as a drag on the local economy, creating a shortage of employees available to serve local businesses. A 2008 survey found that “employers confirm that they have unfilled jobs due primarily to housing (Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment, Jan. 2008). This is a major issue in the Estes Valley, and future Town roles in community housing issues should focus on this segment of the market to ensure long-term availability of housing for all segments of the community. The importance of locally housed employees was evident during the 2013 flood event when employees across every industry were unable to reach Estes Park. C. Housing Market Trends The national market for local housing has increased over the years. This trend has led to approximately 40% of the Estes Park housing stock being second-homes, which do not serve the local population. As a result, the local supply lags behind the national demand, thus driving prices beyond the local economy. Many second homes are used for vacation homes, which primarily serve our guests. The trend toward vacation homes means that many dwellings are not available for year-round rental by local workers. Construction over the last 15 years focused on large single-family dwellings, often designed for future retirement, and on ‘for sale’ condominium units (often used for vacation homes). The only rental housing built in Estes Park since at least the year 2000 was built by the Estes Park Housing Authority; this is a reflection of the effect national demand has on the local housing economy. D. Evolution of Regulatory Environment The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) was adopted in the year 2000. This code reduced the overall density of Estes Park by about 20% from previous zoning codes, thus restricting the local housing supply. The primary method of density reduction within Town limits was the elimination of the “RS” zoning district, which allowed multiple units of lot ½ or larger. The EVDC also prohibits the rental of accessory dwelling units, further restricting use of the local housing supply. E. Evolution of Town Role in Community Housing The Town Boards role in community housing issues has included of funding several studies over the years, with three in the last 25 years. The Town Board began funding of an apartment project (Lone Pine) in the 1990s; this effort was stopped due to a citizen’s initiative and the Loveland Housing Authority completed the project. In the late 1990’s, the Town Board created the Estes Park Housing Authority with the mission statement to “ensure a balanced and sustainable community the Estes Park Housing Authority creates and facilitates housing opportunities and services for persons of low and moderate income.” The Town Board has supported density increases to allow development of workforce housing; examples include the Habitat and Neighborhood subdivisions. F. Options for Town Board Roles in Community Housing There are three broad options for the Town Board role: (1) Null alternative; (2) Financial options; and (3) Regulatory options. Financial options could include actively building and managing more workforce housing, sale or development of Town-owned land for workforce housing, increased funding for the housing authority, provision of low-interest loans, or reduced/waived water tap fees. Regulatory options could include revising the development code to remove regulatory obstacles such as prohibition on renting ADUs or allowing for ‘grandfathered’ density, increasing density allowances (support rezonings), allowing additional market rate units where workforce housing is included, or requiring workforce housing with new developments. Proposal: Define Town’s role in community housing issues and provide policy direction to achieve objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. Advantages: Well-formed and defined housing policy will guide Town Board decision-making and help ensure availability of housing for all segments of the community. Disadvantages: Staff is not aware of a disadvantage to defining the Town’s role in housing. Action Recommended: Draft policy language for Town Board Policy Governance for review at a future a Town Board study session. Budget: To Be Determined Level of Public Interest: Extremely high. Staff anticipates much public discussion regarding any change to policy or the development code, with viewpoints both for and against. Sample Motion: N/A Attachments: Housing Market Trends: A deeper look Evolution of Regulatory Environment: A deeper look Evolution of Town Role in Community Housing Options for Town Board Roles in Community Housing Town Board 2014 Strategic Plan Comprehensive Plan Housing Policies Summary of 2008 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment Estes Area Housing (June 5 Letter from Fred Mares and Sherri White) Available on the Community Development website: Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment (2008 report) Estes Park Area Housing Study (Summer 1999) Housing Market Trends: A deeper look 1. The national market for real estate in the Estes Valley has increased. This trend is expected to accelerate ‘baby boomers’ move into retirement age. 2. The national market means second home ownership has increased. 3. Year-round rental units have become increasingly unavailable. This affects full time working families and short-term seasonal workers. 4. Prices for rental and owner-occupied housing has increased. 5. The only rental housing built since at least the year 2000 has been built by the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA). 6. The advent of internet sites such as VRBO have increased the use of single-family dwellings as short-term use during the summer season. 7. A recent 2008 market study by the EPHA found that employers had unfilled jobs stemming from a lack of workforce housing, and that the trend has become worse since 2005. 8. Development trends. (a) Construction activity since the year 2000 has focused on second homes and retirees. (b) New single-family construction trends toward large homes designed for retirement and often used only part of the year. Occupancy in these dwellings has increased in the last 5-10 years as the ‘baby-boomer’ generation has moved into retirement. (c) Multi-family construction activity since the year 2000 has focused on for-sale units, not rentals. These are often purchased as second-homes for part-time owner use, and are commonly rented for short-term use. Evolution of Regulatory Environment: A deeper look Historic zoning Codes 1. Zoning first adopted in 1947. Included a “Residential” zoning district that allowed two dwellings on lots ½ or larger. 2. Prior to 1947, density relied on plat restrictions. Examples include Stanley Circle, which limited use to one single-family dwelling per lot and prohibited subdivision of property, and the Fort-Morgan Colony, which allowed multiple units. These were privately enforced covenants that were not consistently enforced over the years. 3. In 1955, the R-1 zone district was established that allowed multiple units at 20,000 s.f., or a little smaller than ½ acre. 4. In 1957, letting of rooms was specifically allowed. 5. In 1958, the R-1 zone district allowed multiple dwellings on lots bigger than 13,500 s.f. (.30 acres). 6. In 1966, guest units were allowed in the R district if the main house was at least 800 s.f. 7. In 1986, new zoning code adopted, allowed accessory dwelling units in all residential zoning districts. 8. No specific provision for affordable housing, density bonuses, etc. The zoning code allowance for multiple units on individual lots was intended to provide for the may have allowed for adequate Estes Valley Development Code 1. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) was approved by the Estes Park Town Board in December 1999, and became effective February 1st 2000. 2. The EVDC was a result of the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 3. Changes from previous code: (a) Reduced density. The EVDC included two primary density-reducing zoning changes. i. Elimination of the T-Tourist district, an old county zoning designation that did not have a maximum allowed density. This district was primarily replaced with single-family and low-intensity accommodations zoning. ii. Elimination of the R-S zoning district. (b) Restricted ADUs, reduced overall build out of valley, eliminated RS zone district. Reduced property rights for many properties that were allowed to have second units. (c) Rendered second-units non-conforming. This status restricts the property owners right to rent the second unit, either short-term or long-term. This status also restricts the owners right to expand or modify a second unit, and provides only for basic maintenance. This status also restricts property owners right to rent either unit short- term as a Vacation House. 4. Short-term residential. The EVDC allows most all dwelling units be rented as Vacation Homes. The exception is deed restricted attainable housing units. 5. Regulatory barriers to housing. (a) Properties that are non-conforming to density cannot rebuilt as many units as they now have. For example, a property on Virginia Drive that has three cabins but is less than an acre is considered non-conforming. Such as parcel could not be razed and redeveloped. (b) If vacant for a period of 12 months, non-conforming units cannot be rented because they would have lost their legal non-conformity. (c) ADUs: Requires at least 1.33 times the minimum lot size and are illegal to rent. Less than a 1/3rd of properties in the Estes Valley meet this lot size requirement. (d) Little available land zoned for multi-family development. There are currently two undeveloped multi-family zoned properties in the Estes Valley. These will allow a total of approximately 100 units. (e) Minimum lot size for RM zoned properties is one acre. Many properties, particularly in the Bighorn/Virginia neighborhood, are zoned for multi-family development but are not eligible for such development because they do not meet this minimum lot size. 6. Incentives to build attainable units. Incentives outlined in the development code are rarely used. (a) There are no mandatory requirements to build employee housing units. (b) Employee housing units are allowed in commercial and accommodation zone districts. (c) One caretaker unit is allowed per business. This may or may not be a direct employee. (d) Attainable Housing Bonus. Allows up to 12 units per acre, if at least four are deed restricted. (e) There is no maximum density for dwelling units in the CD district, as long as they are on the second floor. Evolution of Town Role in Community Housing Town’s Past Role in Community Housing 1. Adopted first zoning code in 1947. 2. Funded housing studies in 1990 and 1999. 3. Acted as de facto ‘housing authority’. Example: Lone Pine 4. Voted to allow police officers to live outside the Valley due to rising housing costs. 5. Long-Range Planning: a. Assisted in creation and adoption of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which includes the following Housing Policies: i. Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. ii. Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. iii. Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. iv. Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements. Complete list of Housing Policies Attached. 6. Adopted regulations intended to incentivize the development of attainable (affordable) housing. This may have been an attempt to replace density lost with 2000 comprehensive rezoning to reduce density. Previous zoning codes allowed higher density. 7. Created the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) in the year 2000. Estes Park Housing Authority Role in Community Housing 1. The Housing Authority was created with the mission to create and facilitate housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. 2. Since it’s creation, the EPHA has: a. Acquired affordable units, including the Cleave Street, Lone Tree Village, and The Pines apartments. b. Developed affordable housing units, including Talons Point. c. Facilitated Section 8 voucher program. d. Advocated for affordable housing. Town’s Current Role in Community Housing 1. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. a. Supported revisions to the comprehensive plan to include the “estes park housing study” as an addendum. YEAR? b. Supported retention of existing policies. 2. Financial a. Supports EPHA. b. Supports development review and permit fee waivers. 3. Regulatory. Current development regulations outlined in the EVDC. 4. Role as an Employer a. Provide subsidized housing of Town-owned housing units to Town-employees. b. Offers an employee homeownership assistance program. Options for Town Board Roles in Community Housing 1. Null alternative. Maintain existing development code and housing policies. 2. Financial Options: a. Actively build and manage housing units. This option has met public opposition in the past. For example, in 1995 a public referendum prohibited the Town from providing financial support for the development of the Lone Tree Village apartments, intended to provide housing for low-income residents. b. Utilize Town-owned property for development of workforce housing. For example, the Town could work with the EPHA to re-develop property located on Riverside Drive with seasonal housing. c. Provide additional funding to the EPHA to build and manage housing units. For example, provide low interest loans or reduced water-tap fees for workforce housing. d. Provide financial incentives for the private sector to build units. ii. Provide low interest loans iii. Reduced water-tap fees for workforce housing. 3. Regulatory Options: a. Remove regulatory obstacles ii. Allow “grandfathering” of density so units can be rebuilt and or expanded; iii. Allow rental of accessory dwelling units iv. Provide greater options for accessory dwelling units v. Provide a grace period for inspection of ‘bootlegged’ units for health/safety (other? Eg parking) issues? vi. Remove minimum lot size for RM zone district (eg Bighorn/Spruce area). b. Provide regulatory incentives for the private sector to build and/or manage deed restricted units. i. Additional market rate units could be allowed if some units deed restricted ii. Increase allowance of employee housing units. iii. Allow “employee “units to be rented to anyone, not just employees (as long as 12 month lease) c. Provide regulatory requirements. This option will require of State statute and case law to determine if the Town has this legal authority. i. Require developers and business provide workforce housing units with new developments. ii. Require developers and businesses pay fees dedicated to workforce housing. iii. Require additional fees, such as real estate transfer tax, impact fees, or specific ‘housing tax.’ d. Rezone properties to increase density. i. This option can generate classic “NIMBY” objections. Such rezonings tend to meet localized objections even when developments comply with development code standards and comprehensive plan policies. These can be tough decisions. ii. The existing land use plan and zoning scheme will provide for approximately 100 new multi-family dwellings throughout the Valley. iii. Such rezonings could require deed restricted units. iv. Deed restrictions can be difficult to manage and track.