HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2021-03-16
PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
1:30 p.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The Estes Park Board Planning Commission will participate in the meeting remotely due to the
Declaration of Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020, related to
COVID-19 and provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020. Procedures for
quasi-judicial virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town
Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020, and outlined below.
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/93771272278
Or Join by Telephone:
1. Dial US: +1 833-548-0276 (toll free)
2. Enter Webinar ID: 937 7127 2278 followed by #
The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and recorded and
posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
Public Comment
When the moderator opens up the public comment period for an agenda item, attendees
wishing to speak shall:
1. Click the “Raise Hand” button, if joining online on the Zoom client, or
2. Press *9 and follow the prompts if joining by telephone.
3. If you are watching live on YouTube, please call the number listed above, and mute your
computer audio for the duration of your remarks.
Once you are announced, please state your name and address for the record.
To participate online via Zoom, you must:
• Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer.
• Using earphones with a microphone will significantly improve your audio experience.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
Prepared March 11, 2021
1
NOTE: The Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
1:30 p.m.
1.AGENDA APPROVAL.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
3.CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Planning Commission Minutes dated February 16, 2021
2.Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated February 16, 2021
4.ACTION ITEMS:
1. CODE AMENDMENT: Solar Power Setbacks Planner II Bergeron
2.CODE AMENDMENT: Impervious Lot Coverage Senior Planner Woeber
5.DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT
2.REPORTS
6.ADJOURN
Prepared 03/11/2021
2
3
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 16, 2021
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on Google Meet.
Commission: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser, Commissioners Joe
Elkins, Howard Hanson
Attending: Comstock, Heiser, Hanson
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex
Bergeron, Trustee Barbara MacAlpine, Planning Technician Charlie
Rugaber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Commissioner Elkins
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. This study session was held virtually via
ZOOM and was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel.
Comstock explained that the purpose of this Study Session was to cover the processes and
procedures for the new Comprehensive Plan.
Director Hunt began the conversation by stating that the next step in the process is appointing a
selection committee to pick the consultant. There was an informational meeting for consulting firms
on February 11, and over 20 firms were in attendance. The proposals are due at 2:00 p.m. on
February 25. From February 26 to March 11, the applications will be reviewed by the selection
committee. The interviews will be recorded (but not live-streamed) and available to view after they
have all been completed. This retains the transparency of the process. If any of the Planning
Commission members want to see the candidate's proposal, there is time between March 11 and
April 12. The Town Board will vote on the proposal at their April 13 meeting. Sample Comp Plans
from four communities will be posted on the website for review (www.estes.org/comprehensiveplan).
The advisory committee will focus on the policy direction and has a life span that will last through the
entire rewrite process.
Hunt stressed that Comp Plans should not rely only on the opinions and views of residents but
include visitors and other stakeholder groups.
Vice-Chair Heiser preferred that the Planning Commission have a stronger voice in the advisory
committee over the selection committee.
Highlights of the RFP
• Will set the stage for Corridor plans, which will be one of the steps after the comp plan so that
each corridor can have its own plan.
• NOT looking for Neighborhood Plans
• Analyzing build-out data and infrastructure needs
• Bang the Table, a public engagement consultant, has been retained as the on-line public
Planning Commission Study Session February 19, 2021 –Page 2
engagement platform facilitator ($11,000 for the first year)
•Refine Community Vision: ideas refined into goals, objectives and implementation strategy:
things that need to be called out in the Development Code
•Code rewrite will be the first step after the Comp Plan and be very extensive. Code rewrite 16-
18 months after Comp Plan completion (Fall of 2024)
•Background Infrastructure research (i.e., water system)
•Analytical, informational graphics (not just text)
•Summary of the plan on a poster
•Climate Change
•Wildfires, Flooding and other natural hazards
•Additional Zoning district (open space?)
•Larimer County involvement, along with input from Boulder County, National Park Service and
US Forest Service
•Larimer County will be part of the selection committee and will work with the consulting firm to
adopt a parallel plan
•Thorough list of stakeholders, affirmative outreach
•Proposed completion date of December 31, 2022
•Budget of $164,000 (65% of the $300,000 total minus the Bang the Table budget)
Comments on what role the Planning Commission should have in the process:
•PC heavily involved in the whole process
•How many members of the PC?
•Eleven members seem big. 7-9 is a better working number
•Representation from the entire Estes Valley
•Not too heavy on town-government, need outside involvement
•Clarification on how the quorum rule will work
Vice-Chair Heiser adjourned the study session at 1:03 p.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
_____________________________________
Matt Comstock, Chair
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 16, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado.
Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 16 day of
February 2021.
Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson.
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice Chair Heiser, Commissioner Elkins,
Commissioner Hanson, Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner
Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning Technician
Charlie Rugaber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town
Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Barbara
MacAlpine
Absent: Commissioner Elkins left the meeting at 2:06 p.m.
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 4-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 4-0.
CODE AMENDMENT: Wireless Telecom Facilities
This item was continued from the January 19, 2021 meeting
Senior Planner Woeber requested that this Code Amendment be withdrawn without
prejudice. There are two different use categories for cell towers: Micro-cell and
Towers. The majority of requirements in the Estes Park Development Code refer to the
Larimer County Land Use Codes. Those Codes went through a complete rewrite a few
years ago so the EPDC no longer matches. A special counsel has written a new
chapter on Wireless Facilities for the Town of Estes Park, which will make its way to the
Planning Commission in the near future. (April or May)
5
Estes Park Planning Commission – FEBRUARY 16, 2021 – Page 2
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to Withdraw Without Prejudice this
Code Amendment to a date uncertain. The motion passed 4-0.
OTHER:
•Director Hunt discussed Downtown Building Height and reasons for postponing
the Code Amendment's advancement for the time being. There have been
several public comments received, all of which have been against the proposed
Amendment. Also affecting the decision are impacts of the Loop project,
floodplain issues and downtown parking. He asked for the Commission's input.
Commissioner responses: (summarized)
Commissioner Elkins: we need to take this on, and it needs to be addressed
sooner rather than later.
Vice-Chair Heiser: there will be no engagement if it is not actively being pursued.
Preference is to continue working on it and advancing the needs of the
community. Where does the Town Board stand on this? Data collection is
always changing. Does not see the benefit in postponement and wants to see it
move forward.
Chair Comstock: it is on the Planning Commission to address the Downtown
Plan/building height. Will the new Comp Plan lift the recommendations from the
existing Downtown Plan? Not opposed to getting more information if it helps
make a better decision. Doesn't want this to drag out.
Commissioner Hanson: more discussion and information is needed. No reason
to take it off the table. In favor of getting critical data if that is missing. Would like
a parcel by parcel high-definition map showing exactly what properties would be
included. Is topographic customization possible?
Heiser suggested that an overlay of the Downtown zoning district with a
topographical map would give a good idea of height difference, specifically the
difference between the residential and commercial zones.
Hunt noted that for a 48-foot height proposal, a Special Review with criteria for
design characteristics would be needed.
Trustee MacAlpine noted that the Town Board has not had any discussion on
this.
6
Estes Park Planning Commission – FEBRUARY 16, 2021 – Page 3
It was decided to keep this on the agenda as a discussion item, with code
language available to review in March.
•Attorney Kramer clarified that if three or more Planning Commission members
were appointed to a group, a quorum would not pose a problem.
•The Town Board will be interviewing a Planning Commission applicant in March
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
Matt Comstock, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
7
9
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Chair Matt Comstock
Estes Park Planning Commission (EPPC)
Through: Community Development Director Randy Hunt
From: Alex Bergeron, Planner II
Date: March 16, 2021
RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Park Development Code (EPDC):
§1.9.D.1(b) – Features Allowed Within Building Setbacks
Planning Commission Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a recommendation on a proposed text
amendment to the EPDC regarding the inclusion of photovoltaic system equipment in
the minimum building setback area of established lots.
Code Amendment Objective:
The objective of this proposed Code Amendment is to enable the use of roof-mounted
photovoltaic systems (perhaps better known as “solar panels” or “solar PV systems”) on
structures which would otherwise have them installed if it weren’t for minimum setback
requirements precluding installation.
Proposal:
Revise §1.9.D.1(b) of the EPDC so that the Code’s “Rules of Measurement” related to
“Building and Structure Setbacks from Lot Lines” include the equipment necessary for
the operation of roof-mounted photovoltaic systems in its existing “Features Allowed
Within Building Setbacks” provisions.
Background and Discussion:
Minimum setback standards for buildings and structures are utilized by governments to
help ensure the orderly development of land, to protect sensitive habitats, and to help
protect the public from potential hazards to human health and safety. Indeed, the
concept of setbacks may come to mind when reading the first item listed in EPDC §1.3
(“Purpose and Intent” of the Code), which states that the EPDC is intended to “Provide
for coordinated, harmonious development of the Estes Valley and the Town of Estes
Park, which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best promote health,
safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, as well as efficiency and
economy in the process of development.”
The above statement touches on many aspects relevant to this proposed Code
Amendment. The two most pertinent can be found at the end: efficiency and economy.
According to the United States Department of Energy, collecting and utilizing solar
10
energy onsite can lead to reduced energy bills, increased home values, and reduced
emission of the greenhouse gases which are contributing to climate change.1 Property
owners have responded to evidence of the benefits of solar panels by installing them at
an increasing rate, especially in Colorado given the abundant sunshine the state enjoys
throughout the year. Renewable energy production in Colorado has more than doubled
since 2010,2 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and as demand
for solar energy increases, governments are working to make solar installations easier
in a free market context. In fact, the Climate Smart Larimer County Framework
(published in 2020) identifies removing barriers to installation of solar photovoltaic
systems as one of its recommended actions.3 Specific action to better enable solar
installation for property owners who would like them are occurring elsewhere in our
region, as well. The City of Laramie, Wyoming, for example, has amended its own
development code to allow solar equipment to extend three feet into required setbacks.4
That is what we are proposing to do with this Amendment, and an article on Laramie’s
initiative, and similar action by other communities in the United States, is attached to the
Memo (see Attachment 2: Article - Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage
Renewables – Sustainable Development Code).
The distance of setbacks, measured from property lines into the interior of a property a
set distance, varies among the different zone districts in Estes Park, but they affect all
parcels of real property in the town and are subject to the same Rules of Measurement.
There are currently nine categories of exemption to zone district minimum setback
standards for buildings and other structures (see Exhibit A: Proposed Amendment to
Code Text, pages 3-4). If approved, this Code Amendment would create a tenth
exemption to allow the minimum equipment necessary for roof-mounted solar
photovoltaic systems to extend up to three feet into the minimum setback area of any lot
of record in Estes Park.
Staff Findings:
The text amendments comply with EPDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for
Review), as outlined below:
§3.3.D.1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected. Affirmative. Review of building permit applications for solar photovoltaic
systems has revealed that setback standards regularly impact the ease of system
installation. The hardship is often related to the fact that the 2000 rezoning of many lots
in Estes Park caused them to become legal non-conforming due to minimum lot size,
resulting in setback compliance challenge even for fairly common improvements such
as Solar PV systems (there have been 25 permit applications submitted for solar PV
systems since our electronic permitting system, Community Core, went live in January
2020. This represents 4% of all permit applications).
§3.3.D.2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Not
applicable.
§3.3.D.3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were
11
approved. Affirmative. Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be
significantly impacted regarding their respective services and facilities, if this Code
Amendment is approved.
Reviewing Agency Comments:
The proposed Code Amendment language was referred to affected agencies for review
and comment. Only the Estes Park Utilities Department responded to the referral, and
communicated no objection to the Code Amendment.
Public Notice:
A legal notice was published in Estes Park Trail-Gazette on February 26, 2021.
All comments received in writing will be posted on our website:
https://estespark.colorado.gov/currentapplications
Advantages:
• Approval of the Code Amendment will allow an expanded use of renewable
energy in Estes Park in a free-market context by removing a barrier to system
installation.
Disadvantages:
None identified
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends Approval of the Code Amendment
Finance/Resource Impact:
Little or none.
Level of Public Interest:
Low. No public comments or inquiries have been in received regarding this proposal.
Sample Motions:
I move that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the Code
Amendment, in accordance with the findings as presented.
I move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Code Amendment,
finding that [state findings for denial].
I move to continue the Code Amendment to the next regularly scheduled meeting,
finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A: Proposed Amendment to Code text
2. Article: Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage Renewables – Sustainable
Development Code
12
1https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/benefits-residential-solar-electricity
2 https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CO#tabs-1
3https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2021/cslc_framework_11.16.2020_final_2.pdf
4https://perma.cc/F6VY-WF4H
13
1
§ 1.9 ‐ Rules of Measurement
A. Lot Area Measurement. Lot area refers to the total gross amount of horizontal land area within lot
lines. Public and private rights‐of‐way and streets shall not be included in calculating lot area. No
development plan, subdivision approval, building permit or other land use approval shall be issued for a
lot that does not meet the minimum lot area requirements of this Code, except as may be otherwise
allowed in this Code. See Figure 1‐1.
B. Lot Width Measurement. Lot width refers to the horizontal distance between the side lot lines as
measured along a straight line parallel to the front lot line or the chord thereof. The minimum lot width
shall be measured between the side lot lines along a line that is parallel to the front lot line and located
the minimum front setback distance from the front lot line. Lot width standards shall apply to lots that
do not have a front lot line, i.e., lots that do not abut a street. In these cases, the Decision‐Making Body
shall determine where to measure lot width. See Figure 1‐1.
(Ord. 8‐05 #1)
Figure 1‐1
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;
14
2
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)
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 obtained, nor
a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development standards.
D. Setbacks—Building and Structure Setbacks.
1. Building and Structure Setbacks from Lot Lines.
a. Measurement: Setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the nearest lot
line and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles
to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as
otherwise specifically allowed in this Section. See Figure 1‐2.
b. Features Allowed Within Building Setbacks:
(1) Cornices, canopies, eaves or other similar architectural features, provided
they extend no more than three (3) feet into a required setback or yard;
(2) Driveways and sidewalks, provided that the edge of a driveway shall be set
back at least three (3) feet from an adjacent property line unless owners of
abutting properties agree in writing that the edge may be closer to or abut their
common property line;
(3) Fences or walls subject to height and other restrictions set forth in this Code;
(4) Patios and decks, uncovered and at‐grade, provided they do not extend
more than thirty percent (30%) of the required setback distance to any required
setback. See Figure 1‐2;
(5) Steps to the principal entrance and necessary landings, together with
railings, that comply with the Uniform Building Code, provided they do not
extend more than six (6) feet into the required setback;
15
3
(6) Landscaping;
(7) Trees, vegetation or other features of natural growth; and
(8) Utility lines, wires and associated structures within a utility easement.
(9) Signs that comply with applicable sign regulations.
(10) The minimum amount of equipment necessary for the functional operation
of roof‐mounted photovoltaic systems; provided that such equipment shall be
located as close to an adjacent building or structure as is reasonably practicable
and does not extend more than three (3) feet into the required setback.
(Ord. 8‐05 #1)
(10) Postal boxes.
(Ord. 8‐05 #1)
(11) Parking lots that comply with landscaping standards set forth in §7.5.G,
"Parking Lot Landscaping."
(Ord. 8‐05 #1)
c. Front Setbacks on Corner Lots and Double‐Frontage Lots: For corner lots and double‐
frontage lots, all sides of the lot with street frontage shall be required to establish the
applicable front yard setback. See Figure 1‐2.
(Ord. 8‐05 #1)
d. Intersection and driveway sight visibility: Intersection and driveway sight visibility
shall comply with the requirements of Appendix D, Section IV.C (Intersection and
Driveway Visibility).
(Ord. 18‐01 #1)
2. Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors and Wetlands.
a. Stream and River Corridors. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance
between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth in §7.6.D.2, and the
furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the
setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as
otherwise specifically allowed in §7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1‐2.
16
4
b. Wetlands. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the
delineated wetland edge, as set forth in §7.6.D.3, and the furthermost projection of a
building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be
unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in
§7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1‐2.
E. Height.
1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height means the vertical distance measured
from the mean average elevation of the finished grade ((lowest point elevation + highest point
elevation)/2):
(1) To the highest point of the roof surface, excluding parapet, if a flat roof;
(2) To the deck line of a mansard roof;
(3) To the mean height level between the lowest point of the topmost top plate and highest
ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof; or
(4) Exception: For any building with a steep sloped roof, the highest‐point elevation shall be
measured from average finished grade to the highest point on the highest ridge. For purposes of
this subsection, the term "steep sloped" shall mean any roof with a pitch greater than or equal
to a 12:12 ratio.
(Ord. 28‐17 §1(Exh.))
17
5
2. Line of Measurement. Height shall be measured along a vertical (plumb) line connecting the
horizontal plane of roof height measurement to the horizontal plane of finished grade, as
specified herein.
3. Exemptions from Height Standards. The following features shall be exempt from maximum
building height:
a. Chimneys to the extent required by the applicable building code(s);
b. Skylights, parapet walls, cornices without windows, communications antennas, Micro
Wind Energy Conversion System (MWECS); and
c. Wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent allowed
by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4‐1 and 4‐4 in Chapter 4 and in §5.1.T
of this Code.
(Ord. 17‐17 §1)
(Ord. 18‐01 #1, 2, 10/23/01; Ord. 18‐02 #3, 12/10/02; Ord. 8‐05 #1, 6/14/05; Ord. 11‐16 §1(Exh. A),
4/12/16; Ord. 17‐17 §1(Exh. A), 6/13/17; Ord. 28‐17 §1(Exh.), 10/24/17)
18
2/23/2021 Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage Renewables – Sustainable Development Code
https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/change-height-setbacks-to-encourage-renewables-3/?print=1 1/5
CHAPTER 7.3
OTHER ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS
Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage
Renewables
Kerrigan Owens (author), Jonathan Rosenbloom & Christopher Duerksen
(editors)
INTRODUCTION
Height and set back requirements can frustrate the use and installation of wind and
solar power systems in urban areas. Because solar and wind systems are often installed
on rooftops, they are often considered part of the structure and calculated towards a
buildings’ maximum height. As such, developers building near the maximum allowable
height may not be permitted to install rooftop energy systems. If a developer wanted to
install a renewable system on the roof, she would be required to reduce the overall
height of the interior space to make room for the solar or wind system or seek a
variance. This may reduce the square footage or make development more expensive,
making it more difficult for the developer to meet their financial expectations. To
encourage more developers to incorporate renewable energies this ordinance would
relax the height and setback requirements in relation to wind and solar energy systems.
[1] This ordinance can be drafted in a way to reduce requirements across districts or to
create specific exceptions to height or setbacks.
Another tool being used by local governments is the incorporation of the International
Building Code (IBC).[2] The IRC is updated every three years and includes the best
practices from around the nation.[3] One of the recent additions to the IRC is the “Solar-
Ready Provision” which details how to expedite and increase smaller scale solar units on
homes. Some of these enhancements include constructing homes with minimal rooftop
equipment, orienting buildings in a “north-south” fashion and providing a detailed plan
of the roof so that solar installations can confirm that roof will be able to support the
systems.[4] Several local governments have also begun to require on-site renewable
energy capacity prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy (for more information see
Zero Net Energy Buildings brief).[5]
19
2/23/2021 Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage Renewables – Sustainable Development Code
https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/change-height-setbacks-to-encourage-renewables-3/?print=1 2/5
To further promote renewable energy systems, several local governments permit solar
and wind systems by-right (for more information see the brief Allow Solar Energy
Systems and Wind Turbines by-Right). In addition, Oregon has enacted statewide
legislation known as the “Oregon Solar Installation Specialty Code,” which establishes
setback and height requirements that pre-empt city codes.[6]
EFFECTS
Electrical energy is one of the largest demands of fossil fuels.[7] Burning these fuels
releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere which increases
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, leading to climate change.[8] One way to lower GHG
emissions is to switch to alternative energy production.[9] Relaxing local regulatory
requirements around alternative energy production will encourage more individuals to
choose alternative energies on their own accord without direct government actions.
These alternatives help to decrease air pollution and help improve human health[10] by
mitigating respiratory illnesses that can stem from the burning of fossil fuels.[11] By
relaxing regulations on solar and wind energy systems, citizens are able to choose
systems that help mitigate the effects of climate change while improving and promoting
human health.[12]
EXAMPLES
Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis like most municipalities has height and setback requirements in each of its
zoning districts. These requirements would in many cases frustrate the construction of
wind and solar power systems. However, Minneapolis codified separate ordinances to
govern wind and solar energy systems in all districts.[13] One ordinance sets universal
standards for wind production in all districts. This ordinance specifically governs wind
systems while solar systems are governed by other sections of the code. Wind energy
systems are limited to a height of 15 feet measured from where the turbine is attached
either to the building or to the ground.[14] These attached systems are permitted by
right.[15] On buildings that are over four stories, the wind energy system must be
installed above the fourth story.[16] Free standing systems are permitted on a
conditional basis, and must comply with condition specific standards such as
encroachments and setbacks, specific height requirements per zoning district, etc.[17]
The provision also lists specific aesthetic requirements that the wind systems must meet,
including using compatible materials, colors, and textures of surrounding buildings.[18]
20
2/23/2021 Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage Renewables – Sustainable Development Code
https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/change-height-setbacks-to-encourage-renewables-3/?print=1 3/5
The ordinance for solar systems functions in a similar fashion to the wind system
ordinance and allows solar systems by right within all zoning districts.[19] The solar
ordinance sets height requirements for solar systems to not extend further than three
feet above the ridge level roof and cannot extend further than ten feet above surface
roof. The setback requirement for solar systems is one foot from the perimeter of the
roof, but for any system which does not extend above three feet there is no setback
requirement.[20] For freestanding solar systems, they must be constructed to stand
below twenty feet or to not exceed the principal structure.[21] The ordinance also sets a
requirement that for solar systems within a residential or office district, the system may
not exceed five percent of the total lot area.[22] Furthermore, the ordinance states that
even if the solar system does not meet the above criteria, there is the option of applying
for a permit for conditional use.[23] This application mirrors the above criteria, and
allows for an administrative evaluation of the specific applicant.[24]
To view the wind energy provision see Minneapolis, MN, Zoning Code § 535.710 (2007).
To view the solar energy provision see Minneapolis, MN, Zoning Code § 535.840 (2007).
Laramie, WY
Laramie’s energy code allows for both solar and wind energy systems in all zoning
districts, with no exceptions for homeowners association restrictions.[25] Solar energy
systems are given an additional three feet of space above the maximum building
height.[26] While wind energy systems are allowed to reach a maximum of 75 feet from
the ground.[27] Setback requirements for solar systems may extend three feet into the
area, and systems which exceed the three feet have the option to be permitted for a
conditional use.[28] The setback requirements for wind systems are separated by
freestanding towers, which are required to be set back the distance of the system’s
height. Mounted systems must be setback according to the applicable code found in
Section 15.12.000.[29] These relaxed standards for height and setback help meet the
code’s purpose in decreasing dependence upon non-renewable energy systems.[30]
To view the provision see Laramie, WY, Code of Ordinances § 15.14.030 (A) (1) (2017).
ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES
Seattle, WA, Municipal Code § 23.44.046 (2010) (allows solar collectors specifically to
exceed height restriction by several feet and provides unique setback for solar
collectors).
Watertown, MN, Code of Ordinances § 61-16 (2016) (creates a set of guidelines for the
placement of home solar systems).
21
2/23/2021 Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage Renewables – Sustainable Development Code
https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/change-height-setbacks-to-encourage-renewables-3/?print=1 4/5
Stoughton, WI, Code of Ordinances §78-206 (10) (2009) (provides setback and height
requirements for small wind energy systems).
CITATIONS
[1] Minneapolis, MN., Zoning Code §§ 535.710, 535.840; Seattle, WA., Municipal Code §
23.44.046.
[2] Beren Argetsinger & Benjamin Inskeep, Standards and Requirements for Solar
Equipment, Installation, and Licensing and Certification, Clean Energy States Alliance
(2017) https://perma.cc/JT4C-KAFF . See also Baltimore, MA, Code of Ordinances § 14-
0413 (2014) (adoption of the International Green Construction Code as part of the City’s
building code).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. (citing City of Tuscon Planning and Development Services Department.
“Residential Plan Review: Solar Ready Ordinance, Ordinance No. 10549).
[6] Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, “Oregon Solar Installation
Specialty Code,” October 2010, https://perma.cc/74CK-ERNT.
[7]Andrew E. Dessler, Introduction to Modern Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, 172 (2012).
[8] Rex A. Ewing & Doug Pratt, Got Sun? Go Solar: Harness Nature’s Free Energy to Heat
and Power Your Grid-tied Home, 12-13 (2d ed. 2009); Dessler, supra note 7, at 172.
[9] Rex A. Ewing & Doug Pratt, supra note 8; Dessler, supra note 7, at 172.
[10] See e.g., Wind Energy Benefits, https://perma.cc/7WH6-U44V; See also State
Renewable Energy Resources, https://perma.cc/C564-JMJ7.
[11] Anne E. Gimmer and Kay D. Weeks. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/sustainability-guidelines.pdf page 16;
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. How Do Wind Turbines
Work? https://perma.cc/5FRZ-3T78.
[12] See Jennifer Kuntz, Article: A Guide to Solar Panel Installation at Grand Central
Terminal: Creating a Policy of Sustainable Rehabilitation in Local and National Historic
Preservation, 10 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 315 (2009).
[13] Minneapolis, MN, Zoning Code §§ 535.710, 535.840.
22
2/23/2021 Change Height & Setbacks to Encourage Renewables – Sustainable Development Code
https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/change-height-setbacks-to-encourage-renewables-3/?print=1 5/5
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at 535.750(4).
[19] Id. at 535.840(b)(1).
[20] Id. at 535.840 (b)(2).
[21] Id. at 535.840(c).
[22] Id. at 535.840(c)(2).
[23] Id at 535.860.
[24] Id.
[25] Laramie, WY, Code of Ordinances § 15.14.030.
[26] Id. at 15.14.030 (A) (1) (c).
[27] Id. at § 15.14.030 (B) (2) (a).
[28] Id. at 15.14.030(A)(1)(d).
[29] Id. at 15.14.030(B)(4).
[30] Id. at 15.14.030(A)(1)(a).
Please note, although the above cited and described ordinances have been enacted, each
community should ensure that newly enacted ordinances are within local authority, have not been
preempted, and are consistent with state comprehensive planning laws. Also, the effects described
above are based on existing examples. Those effects may or may not be replicated elsewhere.
Please contact us and let us know your experience.
23
24
Memo
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Park Planning Commission
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: March 16, 2021
RE: Amendments to the Estes Park Development Code
1) Increase “Maximum Lot Coverage” in Four Nonresidential Zoning Districts
2) Amend the Definition of “Impervious Surfaces” and the Definition of “Lot
Coverage.”
Planning Commission Objective:
Review and provide a recommendation to the Board of Trustees for a proposed text amendment to
the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
Code Amendment Objective:
Currently there are four nonresidential zoning districts within the EPDC where the “Maximum Lot
Coverage (%)” is inconsistent with and somewhat limited compared to what is allowable in other
nonresidential zone districts. Currently, those percentages are as follows:
A (Accommodations/Highway Corridor) – 50%
A-1 (Accommodations/Low Intensity) – 30%
CO (Outlying Commercial) – 65%
O (Office) – 50%
Staff proposes increasing all four of these to be 80%.
The CH (Heavy Commercial) and the I-1 (Restricted Industrial) are currently 80%. The CD
(Downtown Commercial) Zoning District has no requirement.
“Lot Coverage,” is used to calculate the maximum allowable coverage for development on a given lot
or parcel. The coverage, per the definition in Chapter 13 of the EPDC, includes all structures,
sidewalks, driveways and parking areas. The EPDC’s definition also includes “porous pavement
and graveled areas.” Another EPDC definition categorizes “porous pavement and graveled areas”
as being “Impervious Surfaces.”
Staff proposes revising the Lot Coverage definition to eliminate “porous pavement and graveled
areas,” along with no longer including “porous pavement and graveled areas” in the definition of
Impervious Surfaces. See Exhibit A.
25
MARCH 16, 2021 EPPC
CODE AMENDMENT, LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGES PAGE 2 OF 3
Background, Discussion:
It is not clear how the authors of the EPDC (formerly Estes Valley Development Code or EVDC)
determined their basis for lot coverage percentages for the nonresidential zoning districts, when the
EVDC was drafted in the late 1990s. The “Impervious Coverage” in the pre-EVDC Estes Park
Municipal Code’s zoning regulations was 80%, with some reduction for steep slopes. The coverage
at that time was defined simply as, “building roof area plus paved area.”
Staff does not see any benefit to having unnecessarily low lot coverage requirements. There do not
appear to have been any significant negative impacts due to the 80% impervious coverage standard,
for development in the Town of Estes Park prior to adoption of the EVDC in 2000. Amending the
EPDC to 80% as proposed is unlikely to cause any concerns, and can provide for a bit more
flexibility in site development.
Drainage and stormwater management issues are the only significant development standard that
could be affected by this change. However, any impactful development in these four zoning districts
is very likely to require Development Plan approval before construction. All Development Plans are
reviewed by our Engineering staff, and if increased lot coverage means that measures such as
detention ponds or runoff conduits are necessary for public safety, they will be required as a
condition of Development Plan approval.
Staff Findings:
The text amendments comply with EPDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezoning and text amendments to the EPDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;”
Staff Finding:
Although the EPDC states this finding is applicable to a proposed “text amendment” such as that
proposed herein, staff notes it would seem to be mostly applicable to a rezoning (zoning map
amendment). There are no specific areas or conditions that would be affected by the proposed
amendment to the EPDC. Staff finds this Standard for Review No. 1 is not applicable to this
Code Amendment.
2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:”
Staff Finding:
There is no specific “development plan” associated with this code amendment. Staff notes
nothing within the proposed code amendment is contrary to any recommendations, policies, or
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide
adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.”
Staff Finding:
Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted regarding
their respective services and facilities, if this Code Amendment is approved. In particular,
Public Works/Engineering division staff have reviewed this proposed change; except for
suggesting specific language for the Definition sections, they expressed no concerns.
Advantages:
26
MARCH 16, 2021 EPPC
CODE AMENDMENT, LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGES PAGE 3 OF 3
• Generally complies with the EPDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review, as
applicable.
• Establishes a consistent and reasonable approach to lot coverage in nonresidential zoning
districts.
• Provides a more realistic classification of porous pavement and gravel, which are pervious rather
than impervious.
Disadvantage:
• Adds slightly to Code length and complexity.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) §3.3.D Code
Amendments, Standards for Review, and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board
of Trustees for a final decision to approve.
Level of Public Interest
Low. Little input or public comment has been received.
Sample Motion:
APPROVAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the text amendment
to the Estes Park Development Code as presented in Exhibit A as recommended by staff.
CONTINUANCE
I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance).
DENIAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees DENY the text amendment to the
Estes Park Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial).
Exhibits:
Exhibit A
(Red font with strikethrough is the existing Code text which staff proposed to delete, the red
underline font is that which would be added.)
EPDC Chapter 4 Zoning Districts, Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Subsection
4.4.C. Density and Dimensional Standards, Table 4 – 5: Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
EPDC Chapter 13 Definitions, Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases,
13.3.126. Impervious Surfaces and 13.3.137. Lot Coverage
27
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Minimum Land
Area per
Accommodation
or Residential
Unit (sq. ft. per
unit)
Minimum Lot Size
– Area (sq ft)
Minimum Lot
Size – Width
(ft.)
Minimum
Building/Structure
Setbacks – Front
(ft.)
Minimum
Building/Structure
Setbacks – Side
(ft.)
Minimum
Building/Structure
Setbacks – Rear
(ft.)
Max.
Building
Height
(ft.)
Max Lot
Coverage
(%)
A
Accommodation
Unit =1,800
[1];Residential
Units: SF =
9,000;2-Family =
6,750;MF =
5,400 (Ord. 16-
10 §1; Ord. 19-
10 §1)
40,000 [2] (Ord.
15-11 §1) 100 [3]
Arterial = 25
[5];All other
streets = 15
15 [6] (Ord. 15-
11 §1)
10 [6]
30 8050
A‐1
10,890 [10]
(Ord. 19-10 §1;
Ord. 16-10 §1)
15,000 [2] (Ord.
15-11 §1) 50 [3]
Arterial = 25 [5];
All other streets
= 15
15 (Ord. 15-11
§1)
10 30 8030
CD
Accommodation
Units Only =
1,800;SF & 2-
Family
(standalone) =
9,000;
Dwelling Units
(1st Floor) 1 unit
per 2,250
square feet of
gross land area
Dwelling Units
(2nd Floor) No
minimum gross
land area per
unit (Ord. 15-03
§3)
Accommodation
uses = 20,000
All other uses =
n/a
SF & 2-
Family
(standalone)
= 25;
MF
(standalone)
= 100;
All other
uses = n/a
Minimum = 8
Maximum = 16
If lot abuts a
residential
property = 10;
All other cases =
0
If lot abuts a
residential
property = 10;
All other cases =
0
30 n/a
CO n/a
Lots fronting
arterials =
40,000 [2];
Outdoor
Commercial
Recreation/
Entertainment =
40,000 [2]
All other lots =
15,000 [2]
Fronting
arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial = 25 [5];
All other streets
=15
15 [6]
15 [6]
30 8065
O
Residential Units
(2nd Floor) 1 Unit
2,250 sq. ft. GFA
of principal use
15,000 [2]
Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial = 25 [5];
All other streets
= 15
15 [6]
15 [6]
30 8050
CH n/a 6,000 [2] 50 15 0 [6]
0 [6]
30 80
I‐1 n/a 15,000 [2]
Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial = 25 [5];
All other streets
= 15
10 [6]
10 [6]
30 80
28
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS §13.2 – Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples
...
126. Impervious Surfaces.
a. Impervious surfaces shall mean those portions of a lot which are covered by development that prevents or
impedes the passage or absorption of stormwater.
b. This includes, but is not limited to principal and accessory buildings or structures, sidewalks, streets,
driveways and parking areas.
c. Porous pavement and graveled areas are included in this definition.Porous pavements and graveled
surfaces which allow for the passage or absorption of stormwater are not to be considered as impervious
surfaces.
…
…
137. Lot Coverage:
a. Lot coverage shall mean those portions of a lot which are covered by development that prevents or
impedes the passage or absorption of stormwater.
b. This includes, but is not limited to, principal and accessory buildings or structures, sidewalks, streets,
driveways and parking areas.
c. Porous pavement and graveled areas are included in this definition.Porous pavements and graveled
surfaces which allow for the passage or absorption of stormwater are not to be considered as impervious
surfaces and do not contribute to lot coverage.
…
29
30
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Park Planning Commission
From: Mike Scholl, Planning Professional, Ayes Associates
Through: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: March 16, 2021
RE: Draft Code Language: Amending the Estes Park Development Code to Provide
for Increased Building Height in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District
Planning Commission Objective:
The following provides a preliminary review of a proposed ordinance to amending the Estes
Park Development Code (EPDC), summarized as follows:
• Revise § 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Section C.4. Density and Dimensional
Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5, Density and Dimensional
Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts to allow for increased building height (three
stories) for buildings in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district.
• Revise § 11.5 – Height Exception for Residential Developments in the CD Zoning District
to provide for design guidance for buildings up to 40 feet (three-stories) for mixed-use
buildings (residential and non-residential.)
• Forthcoming Code language will be provided for the Special Review process to allow 4th-
story buildings in specific circumstances. The currently proposed Code language in this
report addresses the three-story by-right height increase in the Downtown Commercial
District.
Code Amendment Objective:
The Code amendment under consideration would amend the Estes Park Development Code to
allow for greater building height in the CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The purpose
is to allow for greater opportunity for mixed-use development and opportunities to add much
needed housing units. Specifically, building height within the CD Downtown Commercial Zoning
District would be amended from 30 feet to allow buildings up to 40 feet in height for mixed-use
buildings.
Staff is also seeking input and discussion on allowances that allow exclusively multifamily
residential buildings up to 45 feet in height to address workforce housing needs. Within the CD
zoning district, 1st floor residential is not permitted on buildings that front Elkhorn Avenue, so
unless that Code requirement is changed, would only be available in other areas in Downtown
Commercial zoning.
31
In calculating the building height requirements, it is necessary to look at individual floor heights
and how it factors into consideration. Typically, the floor height for a commercial building is
roughly 14 to 16 feet (for new construction), and for residential the floor height is roughly 9 to 10
feet. Building heights are calculated from the mean average elevation of the finished grade
(highest point + lowest point/2) and the mean height between the lowest point of the top plate
and the highest ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel. For a for a flat roof, it is measured from the
lowest point of the topmost plate. At forty feet in height, it provides flexibility in design for a
mixed-use development. Having some flexibility allows for the additional architectural features
that create visual interest and break up the roof line.
This amendment was contemplated and called for in the Estes Park, Colorado Downtown Plan
(adopted Jan. 2018) (see Attachment 4). The plan stated, as a key objective, “…a moderate
increase in density and building height to promote housing development and Downtown
activity.” (p. 52) The plan also included additional discussion regarding design constraints to
minimize the visual impact on the downtown district. Specifically, the plan indicated a need to
include setbacks and building articulation to ensure visual continuity with existing buildings in
the downtown district.
The Downtown Plan also contemplated taller buildings subject to some additional
considerations and design criteria. According to the plan “Buildings up to four stories may be
considered on a case-by-case basis on sites where the additional height is determined to not
significantly impact views, privacy or other factors. The Town should develop a specific list of
criteria and guidelines for review of such projects.” For residential-only projects, the 45-foot
height restriction includes a maximum of four-stories with a fourth-floor setback. Additional
design criteria are included in the draft amendment for §11.5 in the sections following.
Additionally, the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (“EDC”) has advocated for the
availability of workforce housing in Estes Park. In the report, “The Economic Benefits of
Implementing Workforce Housing in the Estes Park,” published in April of 2018 by the EDC,
workforce housing was identified as a critical to the ongoing economic vitality of Estes Park.
32
The Downtown Plan included a map (see Attachment 4, p. 39) indicating certain areas where
increased building height might be appropriate and where height might remain as the Code now
reads. Staff believe this map is a good start, but likely needs more refining before it is used as a
basis to distinguish between two-story areas and areas where buildings may be taller. This
revised map will be available in the April or May Planning Commission meeting.
Preliminary Staff Findings:
The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected;”
Staff Finding:
The amendment to the code is limited to the CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District and
would allow for the potential development of much needed residential units as stated in the
workforce housing report published by the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation.
2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:”
Staff Finding:
There is no specific “development plan” associated with this Code Amendment. Rather, the
amendment addresses specific policy goals from the approved Estes Park Downtown
Strategic Plan.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were
approved.”
Staff Finding:
Town, County, or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted
regarding their respective services and facilities if this Code Amendment is approved.
Advantages:
• Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
• Provides for the opporutnity to create much needed housing units.
Disadvantages:
• Building may detract from the views if not done properly.
Action Recommended:
Review the preliminary proposal for compliance as it relates to existing approved plans and the
Estes Park Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and
provide direction to staff to move forward with a formal Code Amendment. (Note: This is a
discussion item in March; a public hearing and vote will be scheduled upon further discussion.)
Attachments:
33
1. Map CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District
2. Preliminary Draft Modifications - Table 4-5 - Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
3. Preliminary Draft Modifications -§ 11.5 – Height Exception for Residential Developments
in the CD Zoning District
4. Excerpts from Estes Park Downtown Plan (Jan. 23, 2018), pp38-39: “Building Height
and Scale”
5. Excerpt: “Building and Massing” (from draft materials for Estes Park Downtown Plan)
(April 26, 2017).
34
Attachment 1
Map CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District
35
Attachment 2
Proposed Amendment Language:
§ 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts
C. Density and Dimensional Standards.
4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
EXPAND
Zoning
District
Minimum Land
Area per
Accommodation
or Residential
Unit (sq. ft. per
unit)
Minimum Lot Size [7] Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks [4]
[8]
Max.
Bldg Height
(ft.) [9]
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Area (sq ft) Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Side (ft.) Rear (ft.)
CD Accommodation
Units Only =
1,800; SF & 2-
Family
(standalone) =
9,000;
Dwelling Units
(1st Floor) 1 unit
per 2,250 square
feet of gross land
area
Dwelling Units
(2nd or higher
floors) No
minimum gross
land area per unit
(Ord. 15-03 §3)
Accommodation
uses = 5,000
All other uses =
n/a
25 Minimum =
0
Maximum =
10
If lot abuts
a SF
residential
property =
10;
All other
cases = 0
If lot abuts
a SF
residential
property =
10;
All other
cases = 0
40 for mixed use
buildings; 45 for
residential
buildings;
subject to the
provisions
contained in §
11.5
n/a
36
Attachment 3
Proposed Amendment Language:
§ 11.5 - HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CD ZONING
DISTRICT
[Reserved for Future Use]
{INSERT}
A. Purpose. This Section is intended provide design guidelines for projects seeking to build
two, three and four story buildings in the CD Zoning District through new construction or
additions to existing buildings.
B. Eligibility. Proposed developments in the CD (Downtown Commercial) zoning district are
eligible to build to a maximum of 40 feet with an additional 5-foot allowance provided the
building is 100 percent residential use. This Section's height allowance for downtown
residential projects shall not be available and shall not be applied in any zoning district
except the CD zoning district.
C. Development and Design Standards.
1. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Housing units approved under provisions of this
Section shall not be rented, leased, or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30)
days. (see §5.1. B)
2. Buildings shall not exceed four floors.
3. The fourth floor shall include a setback of no less than 8 feet from the property line.
4. Roof design shall reduce the mass and scale of buildings and add visual interest.
Flat roofs shall have parapets to conceal the roof and mechanical equipment from
ground level views.
5. Exterior siding consisting of wood, brick, and/or other materials with natural textures
is encouraged. The use of recycled and ecologically friendly materials is also
encouraged.
6. Exterior building materials shall be of similar type (e.g., wood or masonry) on all
sides of a building, except that embellishments and details proposed for the street
side frontage(s) of the building need not be carried through on other sides.
7. For building projects seeking to the use the height allowance, the following design
guidelines are strongly encouraged:
37
a. To encourage horizontal articulation, and to modulate the apparent size and
scale of a building, a portion(s) of the street facing façade should be stepped
forward or backward from the predominant facade plane of the building.
b. To incorporate vertical articulation and modulate the apparent size and scale
of a building, horizontal detailing shall be included in the overall design.
c. To modulate the apparent size and scale of a building, the street-facing
façade shall include some application of projected architectural elements
from the plane of the facade.
d. To the greatest extent possible, to modulate the apparent size and scale of a
building, the roofline shall include some vertical breaks
38
A VISION FOR A RESILIENT FUTURE
ESTES PARK, COLORADODOWNTOWN PLAN
JANUARY 23, 2018
39
4 CONCEPT & FRAMEWORK
Estes Park, Colorado - Downtown Plan January 23, 2018
38
Building Height and Scale
Buildings between a maximum of two and three stories are recommended for Downtown. However,
upper stories, and in particular the third story of a building, should be modulated to minimize the solar
impacts and perceived mass and scale of a building. Maximum heights of two stories are recommended
adjacent to rivers, sensitive neighborhood edges and topographic/environmental features. Figure 4.6
shows recommended building heights for Downtown.
Buildings up to four stories may be considered on a case by case basis on sites where the additional
height is determined to not significantly impact views, privacy or other factors. The Town should develop
a specific list of criteria and guidelines for review of such projects.
UPPER STORY ARTICULATION
Third story articulation should be required for all Downtown projects. A combination of upper floor
articulation techniques is appropriate, including:
• Stepbacks - The third floor of a building is set back further from the street or another edge than that
of the first and second floor.
• Height Variation - Some components of a building are at a two story scale with other components at
a three-story scale.
• Strategic Location of Three Story Components - Depending on the context, it may be possible to
locate a third story at a location on the site such that it has no visible impact to the street or adjacent
properties. This may include a component of a building at the rear of a site adjacent to a hillside and
away from a street.
Upper story articulation is particularly important where there is a need to address:
• Preserving a Viewshed - Stepbacks of upper floors along a street or other public way may help to
preserve mountain views.
• Maintaining a Lower Scale along the Street - Stepbacks and height variation on upper floors can
help to preserve the perception of a two story scale at the street edge, which is generally consistent
with current Downtown buildings.
• Sensitive Transitions -Third story articulation methods may be appropriate when trying to provide a
sensitive transition in scale to a lower-scaled adjacent use.
• Significant Topographic Change Between Properties - Where topography creates a more intense
grade change between two properties, articulation of upper stories may be necessary. This is
particularly important when a new building is at a higher grade than its low scale residential neighbor.
The juxtaposition of buildings in these two conditions creates a dramatic difference that should be
designed sensitively.
• Maximization of Solar Exposure - To maximize solar exposure of key outdoor spaces or the
sidewalk, height variation and upper floor stepbacks can help to ensure that sunlight shines through.
This is particularly important in winter months.
It is important that a design employs special
features to help articulate the third floor of a
building.
Some components of a building can be at a two-
story scale with other components at a three-story
scale.
35
3540
CONCEPT & FRAMEWORK 4
January 23, 2018 Estes Park, Colorado - Downtown Plan 39
Figure 4.6-Recommended Building Heights
36
3641
ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN PLANLunch & Share Session: Small Town ArchitectureApril 26, 201742
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character •Step backs allow scale of street to remain while preserving access to sunlight43
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Ketchum, IDGraphic by Winter + Co44
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Ketchum, IDGraphic by Winter + CoVariations in Massing: Same floor area, with variations in scale at street edge45
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Massing Studies along West Elkhorn46
47
3/11/2021 CURRENT PROJECTS
Submittal
Date Application Type Project Name Location
Recomm
ending/
Decision
Making
Bodies
Next
Proposed
Meeting
Date
Ex-Parte
Prohibited Staff
8/3/2020 Code Amendment Downtown Building Height discussion only PC 16-Mar RH
10/2/2020 Special Review Cell Tower 1575 S St Vrain TB 23-Mar JW
1/4/2021 Code Amendment Solar Setbacks PC 16-Mar AB
1/15/2021 Code Amendment Impervious Lot Coverage PC 16-Mar JW
2/1/2021 Annexation High Pines Subdivision 1,11 Riverside Dr PC tbd yes AB
3/5/2021 Location and Extent Climbing Rock/Picnic Area 691 S St. Vrain PC 20-Apr AB
3/10/2021 Large Vacation Home Review 925 Elk Ridge Ct PC 20-Apr
key: PC-Planning Commission TB-Town Board BOA-Board of Adjustment TRC-Technical Review Committee
staff: JW-Jeff Woeber RH-Randy Hunt AB-Alex Bergeron AA-Ayres Associates (consultants)
*Scheduled Neighborhood Meetings:Meeting Location Date
48