Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2021-04-20 PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY Tuesday, April 20, 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 April 14, 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, April 20, 2021 1:30 p.m. 1. AGENDA APPROVAL 2. WELCOME NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER 3. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 16, 2021 2. Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated March 16, 2021 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW Director Hunt 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST Open Space Plan Jeffrey Boring 2. DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT Ayres Associates 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Director Hunt 4. REPORTS 7. ADJOURN Prepared 04/14/2021 2 3 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 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 11:30 a.m. This study session was held virtually via ZOOM and was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. Town Administrator Travis Machalek addressed the Planning Commission for the first time since it was reformed as the Estes Park Planning Commission (EPPC) in April of 2020. He spoke on long- term endeavors and changes in the Community Development Department. Staff will work on setting up a joint meeting between the Town Board and the EPPC to discuss the Comprehensive Plan rewrite and the Strategic Plan, which are woven together and rely on each other. He suggested that the EPPC members look at the Town Board Strategic Plan to see how it aligns with the Comp Plan. Feedback on the best way to keep the Town Board and EPPC aligned is welcome. He opened up the discussion for questions from the Commissioners. (Discussion is summarized and not necessarily in chronological order) Vice-Chair Heiser stated that he has felt the EPPC has been doing its own thing and asked what they should be tackling in the next three years while the Comp Plan is rewritten. Moving forward, continuity by way of an annual or biannual meeting with the Town Board ensures all are on board with continuing Code Amendments. The Downtown Plan will be 6-7 years old before the Code rewrites will be completed. Implementing current aspects of the Downtown Plan right now would be helpful and integral to the future work we are about to tackle. TA Machalek answered that the high impact, legitimate issues could and should be tackled now. Structural changes can bridge the gap between TB and EPPC, despite COVID and online meetings. Director Hunt spoke on his 10 page Code Amendment list, which was put together in a memo written in 2017. Setting a target of several amendments per year, depending on staff workload, is a good plan. The ability to implement the Downtown Plan (building height) involves fiscal and regulatory apparatus. A downtown development authority would help launch much of the Plan. Chair Comstock also questioned how to tackle the Code Amendment master list and how the EPPC can start addressing it, both the easy and more time-consuming issues. 4 Planning Commission Study Session March 16, 2021 – Page 2 Town Trustee MacAlpine mentioned that the Town Board hasn't discussed Planning Commission items and suggested that the Code Amendment list be shared with the Town Board. Town Attorney Kramer suggested developing a Code Amendment referral at the Town Board level (formal or informal). The staff would bring a general idea for a Code Amendment to the Board and make sure they get a "thumbs up" from the Town Board to move forward and get a recommendation to the EPPC. That would keep everyone on the right track before putting a lot of time into something. Director Hunt added that the Town Board received the memo in 2017 and gave "permission" to go ahead with those Code Amendment suggestions. The time is overripe to provide the Town Board with specific amendments to move forward, Hunt said. Commissioner Hanson suggested giving the EPPC marching orders for the new Comp Plan. He wondered why an EPPC member needs to apply to the CompPAC committee, which conflicts with the State Statues stating Planning Commission members should make and implement the Comprehensive Plan. Hunt responded that monthly Study Sessions would be primarily dedicated to discussing the Comp Plan and sees the EPPC having an active role in that capacity. Kramer stated that, as a default, State Statutes say it is the Planning Commissions' role to make and adopt the Comp Plan, not implement it; the Town Board has the final decision to approve and adopt the Plan and appoint the advisory committee. Compilation of the Plan is done by staff and consultants. Feedback and input will be taken into consideration, along with community input. A document elaborating on the Town Board, Planning Commission and Comp Plan Advisory Committee roles, responsibilities, and interaction levels can be created. Comprehensive Plan: Director Hunt described the Comp Plan's current stage, which is approving a contract with the chosen consulting firm. Nine proposals were received and trimmed down to four interviews. The April 13 Town Board meeting is set for the approval of a contract. CompPAC hopes to have diversity amongst stakeholders. The Town Board has approved the Bylaws, and Board members Koenig and MacAlpine have been assigned to pick the committee, envisioned as an 11-member body. Hanson noted that none of the consultant interviews included the Planning Commission in their proposals. Hunt responded, saying that there would likely be quarterly meetings with the consultant. Chair Comstock suggested making the Chair of CompPAC a regular attendee at the EPPC Study Sessions. Hunt recommended that every other week is the best rhythm for CompPAC to meet. There has been a meeting with the local Restorative Justice group asking for help in public outreach and assistance with community problems that might arise during the process. A second group, funded by the US Forestry Sevice and private foundations, may come on board to assist with wildfire prevention processes. Trustee MacAlpine mentioned that the new EPPC member's interview had taken place, and the candidate should be approved at the March 23 Town Board meeting. Hunt informed the group that he will be retiring in the Fall. The interview process for his successor will hopefully involve the Planning Commission members. 5 Planning Commission Study Session March 16, 2021Page 3 Chair Comstock adjourned the study session at 12:40 p.m. Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary _____________________________________ Matt Comstock, Chair 6 1 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 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 March 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 joined meeting at 2:00 Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Also attending was Matt Ashby, Ayres Associates consultant. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. PUBLIC COMMENT. None CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 3-0. CODE AMENDMENT: Solar Panel Setbacks Planner II Bergeron reviewed the staff report. He explained that 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 that would otherwise have them installed if it weren’t for minimum setback requirements precluding installation. Approval of the Code Amendment will allow expanded use of renewable energy in Estes Park in a free- market context by removing a barrier to system installation. 7 2 Discussion: Commissioner Hanson compared this Code Amendment to a three-foot roof eave. He noted that HOA’s are not allowed to prohibit or restrict solar systems installation and questioned if that applied to municipalities. Attorney Kramer stated that restrictions do apply to fees but was unsure of State Statute. Hanson considered this amendment as a “band-aid” approach with no harm coming from it. Chair Comstock stated that this amendment might be too limited and should perhaps cover a larger solar energy spectrum. Without structure, people are free to do what they want, suggesting that staff start work on more extensive solar panel code language. There being no guidance from the Town in placing solar panels on private property is concerning. Hunt explained that a building permit is required to install solar panels. Bergeron replied that there is absolutely a need to have more structure and language. The time to make these more extensive changes would be when the Code is rewritten. Public input would be desirable, and this, in addition to limited staff availability, could challenging to do in the near future. This amendment is a partial solution to a current problem. Vice-Chair Heiser agreed that this is a step that solves some immediate problems. As is, this Code Amendment is good to move forward. He also would like this subject to be considered more thoroughly before rewriting the Code. Hunt did not confirm that further research could be achieved this year, but it would be possible if time allows it. PUBLIC COMMENT: None It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the text Amendment to the Estes Park Development Code with the findings as presented. The motion passed 4-0. CODE AMENDMENT: Impervious Lot Coverage Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report. 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. 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 of these to 80%. 8 3 The second part of this Code Amendment was to change the Lot Coverage definition to eliminate “porous pavement and graveled areas” and no longer include “porous pavement and graveled areas” in the description of Impervious Surfaces. Discussion: Vice-Chair Heiser observed that changing the A-1 zone from 30 to 80 percent is a significant change. Most of that land is in the County, not town limits. Woeber did not know the inventory of A-1 properties within the town but will have that answer at the next meeting. Heiser suggested pulling the A-1 zone out of the amendment. Hunt stated that pavers would be treated as porous surfaces and could be based on the paver type. Public Works would likely require a drainage study, which would provide an additional review. Hanson suggested making this into two Code Amendments, making the lot coverage a separate issue. Impervious is absolute; porous is not, stating that he is a little nervous about changing the lot coverage to 80%. Commissioner Elkins stated that any ground cover that is not impervious is more prone to fire. If decreasing parking, vegetative space is increased, adding that the 80% is a good recommendation. Woeber noted that in pre-2000, the percentage was 80%. This is a typical figure with most development codes. Once setbacks, parking and driveway areas are subtracted out, the total numbers come up close to 80% for a commercial property. Hunt stated that there are frequent issues with the lot coverage percentages causing delays or dismissals of projects. There have also been variances issued due to the smaller lot coverage. It is extremely limiting for development. Impervious percentages may lead to offering incentives for zero-scaping (dry landscaping) in the new Code. PUBLIC COMMENT: None It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the text amendment to the Estes Park Development Code with the exception of the A-1 line in table 4.5, as presented in Exhibit A as recommended by staff. The motion passed 4-0. 9 4 OTHER: Downtown Building Height Matt Ashby, Planner with Ayres Associates, reviewed the prepared PowerPoint on Downtown Building Heights. The goal is to explore what the values are and achieving them by answering the following questions: Why? More opportunity for housing What? Draft Code Language – mixed-use buildings up to 40 feet (use by right) How? Process and timeline – now through Fall 2021 Commissioner comments/questions summarized: Think bigger! Think vertical! Maximize the density in already developed areas by going up One of the only mechanisms for redevelopment in the downtown floodplain. Preference for redevelopment over workforce housing Infrastructure needs help, economic incentives Land base elevation use for height calculation Secondary zoning district for geography purposes Two stories of commercial, one residential is desirable Difference between height v story calculation Angles of the sun at different times of the year Ground floor for commercial use only Difference from the Downtown Plan adopted three years ago Height for an entire commercial use building Side lot-line setbacks It was requested that Ayres Associates return for the April 20 meeting for more discussion. Director Hunt informed the Commission that he would be retiring in the Fall. He hopes that the Planning Commission will have a role in selecting his replacement. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Heiser adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m. Matt Comstock, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 10 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Matt Comstock, Chair Town of Estes Park Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: April 20, 2021 RE: Large Vacation Home Review: 925 Elk Ridge Court (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER__LVH Review__ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Consideration of Approval for an existing registered Vacation Home to operate as a Large Vacation Home (9 or more occupants.). Present Situation: The property at this address has been registered as a Vacation Home (VH) with “standard” occupancy limit (8 or fewer occupants at a time) since before March 31, 2017. That date is important, as is continuous registration since, in order to be approved for a Large Vacation Home (LVH) (9 or more occupants.) The Town Clerk’s office confirms that the property’s VH registration is current and in good standing. The subject property is zoned E (Estate Residential), which allows LVH approval by Planning Commission if standards in EPDC are met and appropriate findings of fact made. Proposal: The owners of the property have only recent purchased the property. The previous owners seemingly were satisfied with the 8-and-under limits for a standard VH. The property does have four bedrooms. Per Code (Secs 5.1.B.2.a and 5.1.B.2.b), occupancy of a VH is limited to two persons per bedroom plus two additional, all within the overall limitation of 8 person for a standard VH or more than 8 for a LVH. In the proposed case here, the four bedrooms would allow a maximum of 10 occupants at a time. This 10-person limit is acceptable to the applicants, according to their Statement of Intent (attachment 1.) I would add that additional temporary guests, not staying overnight, are allowable within the 10-person limit, as they would be in any VH or any dwelling – provided of course that everyone behaves themselves and no one violates Town Nuisance regulations or other code and laws. 12 EPDC Sec. 5.1.B contains the current land-use regulations for all VHs in Estes Park, and subsection 5.1.B.3 deals with LVHs in residential zoning districts. EPDC Sec. 5.1.B.3.c.(3) reads as follows: “The minimum lot size for a 9-and-over vacation home shall be one (1) acre, unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding that the vacation home has demonstrated adequate buffering or screening from adjacent and nearby properties, such that a lot size of less than one (1) acre is commensurate with Large Vacation Home use. Appropriate alternative standards for demonstrating adequate buffering or screening shall include, but not be limited to: orientation of the Large Vacation Home on the property away from nearby residential structures, linear separation from other residential structures, separation from other structures by an intervening right-of-way, topographic features such as rock formations or grade differences, and mature vegetation or fencing.” A subsequent section (EPDC 5.1.B.3.c.(4) requires 25-foot setbacks from the existing LVH dwelling to all property lines if the underlying zoning setbacks are smaller. In this case, all setbacks are at or above the 25-foot requirement (see below.) The subject parcel is less than one acre, measuring only 0.45 acres according to the Larimer County Assessor’s records. Thus, a demonstration that adequate buffer ing or screening is required, and if the Planning Commission approves the LVH, a finding must be included that confirms the buffering and/or screening is present and adequate. Staff judges that the screening and buffering in this case are adequate, based on the following circumstances on the property and vicinity: • The house, although on a smallish lot, is more or less centered in the parcel and relatively buffered by distance • The house’s closest approach to a neighboring property is on the south side. However, that side of the property is screened by large mature trees and vegetation, both on the subject lot and on the adjacent lot to the south. The house on the south lot is offset to the west, meaning that windows and visibility/audibility exposure are also offset. • On the north, the ground between the subject house and the northern house is more open. However, the two houses are set at an approximate 45-degree angle to each other, which minimizes exposure via windows and openings. • The adjacent properties to the front (across Elk Ridge Court) and to the rear have houses that are 170 feet and 120 feet away from the subject house respectively, buffering impacts due to distance. • To the extent precedent is helpful, staff would note that previous Planning Commission LVH reviews have approved LVHs on lots of similar sizes, with characteristics similar to the above for distance, screening, etc. Most of those reviews were approved in 2017; the three-plus years since have resulted in few if any impacts noted by neighbors from those LVH properties, to the best of staff’s knowledge. 13 • Finally, as noted, the proposed occupancy in this case is no more than 10. The VH already allows up to 8 occupants; adding two more persons does not loom large in the overall scheme. As noted, the setbacks are all at or above the 25 feet required in subsection (4), so that aspect does not need to be addressed by PC in a separate specific finding. Specifically, by staff’s measure, the only setback close to the 25-foot minimum is on the south side – the side with the most trees and vegetation. Staff is aware of no complaints or concerns with the previous operation of this VH since at least early 2017. With regard to the present request, no public comment has come to our attention. (It should be noted that transition to LVH status does require PAC approval, but a formal public hearing is not required.) Since the request is in accord with all other Code requirements for a LVH, and since the single substandard element – lot size – has compensatory elements that meet the qualifications for a smaller lot in Code, staff is recommending approval of this LVH request. Advantages: • The transition to LVH status seems unlikely to add much in the way of impacts, with only two additional occupants per stay. Disadvantages: • Any expansion of vacation-home use or occupancy in Estes Park has the potential to add impacts to the neighborhood and vicinity. Measures exist through the Nuisance regulations to curb disturbing elements in VH operation, and in severe cases, to revoke a registration altogether. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Large Vacation Home, with the specific finding on lot size as noted in the motion. Budget: N/A; little to no impact expected to Town budget. Level of Public Interest: It appears to be low, judging from the record. Sample Motions: I move that the Planning Commission approve the Large Vacation Home application for 925 Elk Ridge Court as presented, subject to the following: 1. Occupancy is limited to 10 vacation home occupants per stay. 2. The Planning Commission finds that this Large Vacation Home’s location on a lot of less than one acre is offset by adequate screening and/or buffering measures currently in place. 14 I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny the Large Vacation Home application for 925 Elk Ridge Court, finding that [state findings for denial]. I move to continue the Large Vacation Home application for 925 Elk Ridge Court to the next regularly scheduled meeting. [State reasons for continuance] Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent, 925 Elk Ridge Court Large Vacation Home 2. Application, 925 Elk Ridge Court Large Vacation Home 3. Map, 925 Elk Ridge Court 4. Vacation Home Registration (2017), 925 Elk Ridge Court 5. Vacation Home Life Safety Survey inspection results and Certificate of Occupancy, 925 Elk Ridge Court 15 March10,2021TownofEstesParkPlanningDepartmentAttn:KarinSwanlund101MacGregorAve.EstesPark,Co.80517HelloKarin,Pleasefindenclosedanapplicationforalargevacationpropertyvariancerequestfor925ElkRidgeCourt.Thepropertyiscurrentlylicensedtosleep(8)people.Thenewownersofthehome,NathanWarnerandDanaParcher,arerequestingavariancetoallowupto(10)guests tostayintheirhome.Thehomeisa4-bedroom3-bathhomelocatedinamaturedevelopedneighborhood.Thepropertyiswellvegetatedwithtreesandshrubberyonthewest,southandnorthboundariesofthelot.Thishomehascompleteditslifesafetyinspectionanditsmostrecentcodecompliance inspectionasrequiredwhen newownershipoccurs.We lookforwardtohearingfromthePlanningDepartmentastonextstepsandwillwaitforthatcommunication.Regards,PMIEstesPark16 ESTESVALLEYLARGEVACATIONHOMEREVIEWOfficeUseLotSize____________Sidn______RearSideRearZoneDistrict________TOWNCOUNTYMaximumNumberofOccupantsAllowed__________NumberofApprovedParkingSpaces__________StaffRecommendation:APPROVALDENIALScheduledHearingDate_DalELifeclrve20110401SuflinittalDatelOwnertnformaUon___---VacationHome(VII)Afdressf_:zc1%’i.w’â-HomeownersNameBusinessNameMailingAddressPhoneNumberEmailAddressI,ZwAAAc4,c/,g,,%,v&A&L/6’t£23/4s-tJAJW(Ae446/p(39.2’cZ571266-t’75-9V/M6-..caf-if-,z,tfWFf4CV.,,1t7SltelntormationzVHCertificate#3C.56NumberofBe&oomsIfregistrationisstiUinProcess,providedatesubmittedtoTown____________________________NumberofExistingOff-gtreetParkingSpaces-NumberofOccupantsAroposed(Maximumallowedis2perbedroomplus2)/12LocalPropertyManatCtnta4iQi!---Name4PhysicalAddressMailingAddressPhoneNumberEmailAddress_________$150Fee(townANDCounty)_______Copyofpropertysiteplan,ifavailablebwnerCertffkatlonI- -—AsOwner,IcertifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtherecordowneroftheØrpertyRecordOwner_______________________________Datea—FIPlORequiredSetbacks:FrontExistingSetbacks:_____FrontStatementofIntentRequred?ComplieswithEVOC?YESYESNONO----MacmineCcmmuacCluicEstesValleyPlanningCommissionUcoDateAPPROVEDDENIEDU:\CodeCompIiance\VaeationRentaIs\LVHMppIIcationxIsx17 S-IlQT10O3°IIWIDDIn‘ODD.2;rjLO18 19 20 CertificateofOccupancy925ElkRidgeCourtThisSingleFamily Dwellinghasbeen inspectedforcompliancewith SectionR327ofthe2015InternationalResidentialCodeasamendedbytheTownofEstesParkandishereby issuedaCertificateofOccupancyforuseasaVacationHome.BuildingPermitNumber:VHLS-073-18SpecialConditions:NoneMaximum OccupantLoad:8NumberofBedrooms:4Additional DesignatedSleepingAreas:NoneNameandAddressofOwner(s):LoriZimmerman11721IvyStreetThornton,CO80233IChiefBuildingOfficial:ESTESPAR K//COLORADODate://5/7c27/21 rflINSPECTIONRESULTSFtESTESPARKCoLORADODateofInspection11/512019PropertyAcldress*StreetAddress925ElkRklgeCt.Addresshoe2OtyState/Province/RegionEstesParkCOFbstalflipOeOxintry80517USVHLSSPermitVEILS073-18NumberTypeofInspection*7InitialInspectionFRe-InspectionAllinitialinspectionsadd1re-inspectionareincILKiedintheapicalimfeaAllinspectionsperforrimibeyondthesetwowillbeassesseda$1COteeFBRinspecttxi.InspectionStatus*ApprovedInspectionInspectedBy KrisDeLuca.Comments:EXTERIOR7Approvedaddressidentihcation.illumination.FWindowweflsclearance,ladder,EE&ROFExteriorfirepit(wood)shallcomplywithFireDepartmentrequirementsFPrivateseptic systemsrequireI?Handrails,Guardrails,IlluminationInteriorPSmokeAlarmsineachsleepingroom&within15ftofdoorway.17ApprovedCOdetectorwithin15ofsleepingroom,7House/GarageSeperation17Noholesorpenetrationsingaragefirewall.7EmergencyPacketBedroomsBedroom1Bedroom2BedroomSBedroom4Bedroom5EE&ROOKOKOKOKN/ASmokeAlarmOKOKOKOKN/Awithinroom&15ofDoorway22 ApprovedCOOKOKOKOKN/ADetectorwithin15ofDoorwayNANN/AN/AN/AN/AFuelGasAppliances7Inapprovedlocationsordedicatedspaces.7IncompliancevAthrequiredclearancestocombustibles.7Providedvithrequiredcombuslionair.1Connectedtoanapprovedventingsystem.Kitchen17CookstoveAnti-Tipdevice17GFCIrequirementsinelectricaloutlets17FireExtinguisherBathrooms17GFCIrequirementonelectrical outlets.23 TownofEstesPark-BuildingDepartmentVACATIONHOMELIFESAFETYSURVEYINSPECTIONCHECKLISTAddress:qvIV‘IZc\ge-O’hsis1%IAVHLSPermitNumber:073—ibApprovedaddressIdentificationWindowwellsclearance:EmergencyEgressandRescueOpeningsWildfiredefensiblespaceExteriorfirepit(wood)shallcomplywithFireDepartmentrequirements.4Handrails,guardrails,illumination(exterior)SmokeAlarmlocations:Ineachsleepingroom,outsideeachseparatesleepingareaintheimmediatevicinityofthebedrooms,oneachadditionalstoryofthedwelling,Includingbasementsandhabitable attics.Havealarmsbeentestedandbatteriesreplaced?Smokealarmsnotlabeledwithaninstallationdateorthatareover10yearsoldmustbereplaced.ApprovedCOdetectorwithin15’.Thiscanbecombinedinoneunitwithsmokealarm.Extensioncordsshallnotrunthroughwails,ceilings, floorsorunderdoorsBedrooms:checkforeachbedroomII‘EmecgencyEgressandRescueopenings.Minimum widthof20,minimumheightof24”SmokeAlarm(seeabove)COdetector(seeabove)FuelGasApplicances:InapprovedlocationsordedicatedspacesincompliancewithrequiredclearancestocombustiblesProvidedwithrequiredcombustionairConnectedtoanapprovedventingsystemKitchen:Cookstoveanti-tipdeviceGFCIrequirementsinelectricaloutietsFireextinguisher (checkexpirationdate)Bathrooms:GFCIrequirementoneiectricaioutlets\j\Atticaccess:requiredhouseigarageseparationisclearancemaintainedbetweenignitionsourcesandcombustiblematerials?Arethereholesorpenetrationsinthegaragefirewall?(ifyes,repair)Haveyoucreatedanemergencypacketthatincludesphonenumbersanddirectionsincaseofemergencies?NotsIesions:awAM1;pOkj07)//////,.I.IActivityf’esNoNIAPassFailLiBuildingInspectorDatelbU1579Q4°(V-(C24 VacationHomeLifeSafetySurveyRequestFormESTESPARKCOLORADOLifeSafetySurveyVHLS073-18PermitNumber*VacationHomeLifeSafetySurveyInformation:Address:925ElkRidgeCt..-EstesPark.CO,80517,USContactName:LouZimmermanEmail:ekridgegirlhotmail.comPhoneNumber:303-325-1144TypeofInspection:Intial_inspectionAppointmentDate&Time:Tuesday,November5,20199:00am.-11:00a.m.SignaturesignatureonfiletiOVACATIONHOMELIFESAFETYSURVEYINSPECTIONCHECKLISTEXTERIORFApprovedaddressidentification,itluminapon.FExteriorfirepit(od)shallcomplythFireDeparlmentrequirements•Handrails,Guardrails,IlluminationFW,ndowellsc1earance,ladder,EE&ROFPr,vatesepticsysterr.srequireInteriorBedroomsFHouse/GarageSeperationFNoholosorpenetrationsingaragefirell.FEmergencyPacketFEE&ROFSmokeAlarmrequiredineachsleeDingroom&v,ithin15’oiJtsdeofbedroomFApprovedCabonMonoxtdeDetectorthin15outsideofthebedroomES&RO=EmergencyEscapeandRoughOpening.FormoreinformationpleaseclickHERE.FuelGasAppliancesFInapprovedlocationsordedicatedKitchenSpaces.FProvideditbrequiredcombustionair.FCookstoveAnti-TipdevicerGFCIrequremensineectricaloutletsFFireExtinguisherrIncompliancevithrequiredclearancestocombustibles.FConnectedtoanapprovedventingsyster.BathroomsFGFCIrequirementinelectricaloutletsBuildingDepartmentComments25 C (I: Ct -‘--I I, S S S 7-- C, S S Ft f r U) U F)) 0 hi h ‘ID it’ ID -D 1) ft. it C: Ut Es’ ID -C-1 :1 r Sn > ID -Q Li C C a C) C-’ Cv’; v-,1 C -J -F. F. n C (. ‘liz H I— H: - •‘:—_ID —CF S S r —. =—— -C- — — - r C F, C —-——— — —V rS—- C-. —‘—C t jt - —jt. C-——F—’— ‘-H E C — = 2 C —. I — F, o = C C, —2.rio — —2 ErS- (t > C- CE / C-’ r 1 I-) I—) ‘-‘I 7: n -/t -r tIE —H Er 7: I-: -j •0 fl C -‘ -I -J -t t C—’ fl 1% C -4 C .4- Ct 1L Er ---4 ‘C C, & Cc i_I I —-4 ‘-‘C —-I C” N —I I—, -Es F iE I 7 NLflJ-’I C 1 00 C ‘C Cl’ S C 5- -r CE C F fl -c S Q-J26 VacationHomeLifeSafetySurvey—RequestFormESTESPARKCOIORADOLifeSafetySurveyVHLSO73-18PermitNumber*VacationHomeLifeSafetySurveyInformation:Address:925ElkRidgeCl...EstesPark.00.80517.USContactName:LenZininiermanEmail:elkridgegirlhotmail.comPhoneNumber:303-325-1144TypeofInspection:Initial_InspectionAppointmentDate&Time:Tuesday,ttvember5,20199:00am.-11:00am.SignatureSignatureonfileVACATIONHOMELIFESAFETYSURVEYINSPECTIONCHECKLISTEXTERIORrApprovedaddressidentification,rWindowvllscleaiance.ladder.illuninalion.EE&R0rExteriorfirepit(v.ood)shallcomplyFPrivatesepticsystemsrequirewithFireDepartmentrequirementsr1-landrails.Guardrails,IlluminationInteriorrHouse/GarageSeperationrNholesorpenelraic’nsingaragefirewall.rEmergencyPacketBedroomsrEE&ROrSmokeAlarmrequiredineachsleepingroom&within15’outsideofbedroomrApprovedCarbonMonoddeDetectorwithin15’outsideofthebedroomEE&RO=EmergencyEscapeandRoughOpening.FormoreinlormationpleaseclickHERE.FuelGasAppliancesFInapprovedlocationsordedicatedFIncompliancewithrequiredclearancesspaces.tocombustibles.FProvidedwithrequiredcombustionair.rConnectedtoanapprovedventingsystem.KitchenFCookstoveAnti-TipdeviceFGFCIrequirementsinelectricaloutletsFFireExtinguisherBathroomsFGECIreqiirenientinelectricaloullets.BuildingDepartmentComments27 28 1191 Woodstock Drive, Suite 5 PO Box 663 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-6837 evlt@evlandtrust.org www.evlandtrust.org Estes Valley Open Space Plan Frequently Asked Questions – April 13, 2021 What is the Estes Valley Open Space Plan? The Estes Valley Land Trust led a community planning effort to identify the highest remaining conservation and recreation priorities located near Estes Park, Colorado. The plan will be used by the Estes Valley Land Trust to pursue conservation easements with willing landowners. The Estes Valley is composed of small mountain towns with development pressure and high demand for additional recreation access. The Estes Valley Open Space Plan identifies the most important areas of the valley that should be preserved with a permanent conservation easement or acquired for outdoor recreation access. What are the goals outlined in the plan? The Estes Valley Land Trust has conserved nearly 10,000 acres in over 30 years. The primary goal of this Plan is to increase the pace of conservation and conserve another 5,000 acres in the next decade. The land trust has always partnered with private landowners, public agencies, donors, volunteers, developers and the business community to conserve land. The plan recognizes that partnering with other organizations is still the best way to achieve this ambitious goal. Does the plan restrict land uses? No, the plan is not a zoning ordinance, update to the development code or comprehensive plan. The Estes Valley Open Space Plan will not limit a landowner’s use of their land. It simply helps the Estes Valley Land Trust and its partners identify the land areas with the highest conservation values and educates landowners about the opportunity to donate a conservation easement, to preserve sensitive natural resources and wildlife habitat. Does the plan cover public or private land? The plan will cover both public and private land in the Estes Valley and helps identify and prioritize land conservation that links public and private land. For private land, the plan will identify large areas of land with high conservation value, such as important wetlands or wildlife corridors. The land trust will use the identification of these areas to focus our 29 1191 Woodstock Drive, Suite 5 PO Box 663 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-6837 evlt@evlandtrust.org www.evlandtrust.org conservation efforts and educate those landowners about voluntarily conserving land through a conservation easement. Since public land, like Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, is already conserved, the plan also recommends enhancing Forest Service access, such as developing new trailheads. Why is this plan also identifying new outdoor recreation areas? People protect what they cherish and providing access to the outdoors helps instill a strong conservation ethic. With more than 4.5 million visitors recreating in the Estes Valley each year, the demand for additional outdoor recreation is increasing. The Estes Valley Land Trust already holds a few conservation easements that allow public access. These types of projects are of interest to our partners and create new conservation opportunities. Is the land trust pushing public access on private land? No, the vision for additional outdoor recreation involves partnering with a public agency, like Larimer County or the Town of Estes Park. This would be similar to Larimer County’s Hermit Park Open Space or the Town of Estes Park’s Centennial Open Space at Knoll-Willows, both of which are protected with a land trust conservation easement. If a private landowner wishes to provide public access via a donated conservation easement, the land trust would work with them to locate the trail in a manner that does not harm other conservation values. What is the geographic scope of the project? The project area includes the Estes Valley between Rocky Mountain National Park and Drake and Glen Haven into the Tahosa Valley and beyond Allenspark. The land trust currently holds conservation easements in Larimer and Boulder counties. Is the Town of Estes Park involved? The Town was the fiscal agent for the Great Outdoors Colorado grant the Estes Valley Land Trust received. Travis Machalek, Estes Park Town Administrator, served on the project’s Steering Committee. 30 1191 Woodstock Drive, Suite 5 PO Box 663 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-6837 evlt@evlandtrust.org www.evlandtrust.org Are other partners are involved? Financial partners include the Town of Estes Park, Estes Valley Land Trust, Larimer County Natural Resources Department, Estes Valley Board of Realtors and Estes Park Economic Development Corporation. The Steering Committee was composed of representatives of these organizations, as well as individuals selected by the Estes Valley Land Trust, that represent open space, wildlife and outdoor recreation expertise. Why are EDC, Board of Realtors and Housing Authority representatives on the Steering Committee? Habitat loss and fragmentation from new housing, utility and commercial development are the biggest threat to land conservation. Colorado’s Front Range continues to grow and the land trust would like to work with these interests to minimize the impacts to wildlife and natural scenery. Specifically, this plan encourages directing growth away from land with high conservation values. The plan also recognizes the need to provide more workforce housing, additional sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that take pressure off of Rocky Mountain National Park and support for local businesses and a strong economy. Preserving land is compatible with these community goals. What data was used to define conservation and recreation priorities? Wildlife data were provided by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Outdoor recreation data were provided by Larimer County, the Town of Estes Park and Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. Additional data were provided by the Estes Valley Land Trust’s consultant and partners. How was public input collected? Landcover data, such as stream corridors and forests, wildlife data, such as wintering range and recreation data, such as trail locations, were presented at public events and through a website, to solicit public input. A survey was developed to capture specific open space and outdoor recreation interests, such as what types of land are most important for conservation (meadows, forests or riparian areas, for example) and 31 1191 Woodstock Drive, Suite 5 PO Box 663 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-6837 evlt@evlandtrust.org www.evlandtrust.org what kind of recreation uses are most desirable (hiking trails, mountain biking trails, picnic areas, for example). Where are the lands with the highest conservation value? There are unconserved and undeveloped lands with wildlife, scenic, outdoor recreation and historic values throughout the valley. Maps in the plan highlight their general location and the land trust will encourage these landowners to donate perpetual conservation easements to protect these values. What is the project schedule? The planning process kicked off in the summer of 2019. Public engagement and collection of public input took place throughout 2020. The plan was published in March, 2021. How will the plan be implemented? The plan is designed to find common ground with conservation partners and foster a commitment to work together to preserve another 5,000 acres in 10 years. The land trust will encourage our partners to adopt or endorse the plan and help provide resources to implement it. Implementation could look like the donation of numerous conservation easements to protect wildlife habitat in a priority area, identification and construction of a new trailhead to improve Forest Service access, or the leveraging of public funds to purchase land for a new park or open space. 32 33 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Park Planning Commission From: Mike Scholl, Planning Professional, Ayes Associates Through: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: April 20, 2021 RE: Draft Code Language: Amending the Estes Park Development Code: Downtown Building Height Planning Commission Objective: The following provides a review of a proposed ordinance to amend the Estes Park Development Code (EVDC), 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 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 guidelines. • Added language to allow for buildings more than 50 feet subject to Special Review process. 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 50 feet in height. Based on feedback from the March 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, there were a few notable changes to the proposed draft. • Height restriction was modified to allow for buildings up to 50 feet and no more than four stories, subject to design considerations • Requires special review for buildings that exceed 50 feet. 34 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 topmost 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 highest point on the roof surface (deck), not including parapet walls. At fifty 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. (see illustration below) This amendment was contemplated and called for in the Estes Park, Colorado Downtown Plan (adopted Jan. 2018). 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 50-foot height restriction includes a maximum of four-stories with a fourth floor stepback. 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 increasing 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 critical to the ongoing economic vitality of Estes Park. 35 Preliminary 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: 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 – a “changed condition” identified 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 2018 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 EPDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Provides for the opportunity to create much needed housing units. Disadvantages: • Buildings 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. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Map CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District Attachment 2 – Preliminary Draft Modifications - Table 4-5 - Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts 36 Attachment 3 – Preliminary Draft Modifications -§ 11.5 – Height Exception for Residential Developments in the CD Zoning District Attachment 1 Map CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District 37 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 50 feet subject to §11.5; buildings above 50 feet are subject to the Special Review provisions in § 3.5 using S2 procedure n/a 38 Proposed Amendment Language: § 11.5 - HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CD ZONING DISTRICT 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 50 feet. 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 step-back 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. Building projects should demonstrate that they are meeting the design guidelines below: 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. 39 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 8. Projects that exceed 40 feet in height shall provide a viewshed analysis that includes the following: a. A shadow analysis that provides a visual model of how the building will cast its shadow on adjacent public areas during various times of the year. b. A picture or visual as viewed from designated public right of way, sidewalk, or road where the building is visible demonstrating the impact on views of Rocky Mountain National Park and/or other natural features. 40 A VISION FOR A RESILIENT FUTURE ESTES PARK, COLORADODOWNTOWN PLAN JANUARY 23, 2018 3941 42 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 354043 CONCEPT & FRAMEWORK 4 January 23, 2018 Estes Park, Colorado - Downtown Plan 39 Figure 4.6-Recommended Building Heights 36 364144 ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN PLANLunch & Share Session: Small Town ArchitectureApril 26, 20174245 Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character •Step backs allow scale of street to remain while preserving access to sunlight4346 Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Ketchum, IDGraphic by Winter + Co4447 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 edge4548 Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Massing Studies along West Elkhorn4649 50 4/9/2021 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 Parking Regulations PC tbd JW 8/3/2020 Code Amendment Downtown Building Height discussion only PC 20-Apr RH 11/11/2020 Code Amendment Wireless Telecom Facilities PC 18-May JW 1/4/2021 Code Amendment Solar Setbacks TB 27-Apr AB 1/15/2021 Code Amendment Impervious Lot Coverage TB 27-Apr JW 2/1/2021 Annexation High Pines Subdivision 1,11 Riverside Dr PC tbd AB 3/5/2021 Location and Extent Climbing Rock/Picnic Area 691 S St. Vrain PC 18-May AB 3/10/2021 Large Vacation Home Review 925 Elk Ridge Ct PC 20-Apr RH 3/15/2021 Development Plan Stanley Hotel Film Center 333 E Wonderview TRC 11-May yes RH 3/25/2021 Code Amendment Directional Signs TB 27-Apr AB 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 51