Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2020-11-17 PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY Tuesday, November 17, 2020 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 November 10, 2020 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, November 17, 2020 1:30 p.m. 1. AGENDA APPROVAL. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). 3. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20, 2020 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. CODE AMENDMENT: Amended Plat/Boundary Line Adjustment Process Senior Planner Woeber 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Downtown Building Height Director Hunt 2. Potential Change in Planning Commission Meeting Time Chair Comstock 6. REPORTS 1. December 15 2020 Planning Commission CANCELLED due to lack of pressing business – Happy Holidays! 2. Other reports and updates Director Hunt 7. ADJOURN Prepared 11/10/20 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 20, 2020 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 20 day of October 2020. Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice Chair Matthew Heiser, Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Steve Murphree. Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice Chair Heiser, Commissioners Elkins, Hanson, Murphree, Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Barbara MacAlpine Absent: none Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hanson) to approve the agenda and the motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT. None CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda and the motion passed 5-0. AMENDED PLAT: 258/260 STANLEY AVENUE, Mountain Wood Townhomes Town Attorney Kramer noted that he is a neighbor to this project but it does not impact him. Commissioner Heiser disclosed that he does business with this applicant but has had no conversations and has no financial interest. Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report. He explained that when the project was developed, a below-grade patio for use by the unit on Lot 2 ended up being located partially on Lot 1. This was initially approved through a Minor Modification of the Development Plan. The current owners propose a slight rearrangement of the common lot line to contain the patio entirely on Lot 2. This involves a change of 140 square feet being added to Lot 2. Staff recommends the Estes Park Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the Amended Plat. DISCUSSION: Chair Comstock shared his hopes that the Planning Commission can approve the administrative code amendment to allow cases like this to be staff-level decisions. It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Comstock) to recommend the Estes Park Board of Trustees APPROVE the Mountain Wood Townhomes Subdivision Amended Plat, to rearrange an internal lot line as described in the staff report, with findings as recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. MINOR SUBDIVISION: LOT 1, NORTH LAKE SUBDIVISION, Raven Avenue Vice-Chair Heiser disclosed that he had previously sat on the board for Habitat for Humanity. Planner II Bergeron reviewed the staff report. This Minor Subdivision would create a plat for two lots: (a) a western lot containing all of Northlake Condominiums and their common area including parking, and (b) a vacant lot consisting of the remainder of the original parent tract. The proposed plat would correspond to the 1980s-era deed Estes Park Planning Commission – OCTOBER 20, 2020 – Page 2 division, the legality of which is disputed by the Town and the applicant, except that the Northlake Condos (situated on newly-created Lot 1A) would include somewhat more area east of current development so that additional parking can be built there someday. I was noted that approval of this minor subdivision resolves the legal lot dispute. Should the Minor Subdivision of Lot 1, North Lake Subdivision be approved, the applicant proposes to further divide the newly created eastern lot (Lot 2A) into five or six single-family building lots, via a Subdivision process, with Habitat for Humanity building houses, over a period of time. Staff recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision. DISCUSSION: Planner Bergeron noted that the Board of Adjustment approved a density variance of 25 units per acre based on the entire lot's dimension. Director Hunt explained the processes this parcel has gone through to get to this point and that rezoning will not be necessary. Referring to the EVDC Chapter 10.5.D.2.a, Vice-Chair Heiser asked at what stage sidewalks would be required. Considerable discussion was had on this subject. Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, understood that sidewalk installation would be at the Habit for Humanity project stage. This was initially proposed to be an amended plat before it was realized that the lot might not have been legally subdivided as initially thought by the applicant. Dave Emerson, Director of Habitat for Humanity in the Estes Valley, stated that they are planning on five lots with single-family homes that would include sidewalks. It was concluded that the owner of Lot 1A (the Condos) would be responsible for the improvements if a development plan is required for the additional 19 parking spaces, which would be limited to that lot. Any further subdivision of Lot 2A would require the improvements to that entire frontage be guaranteed following the approval of that plat or development plan (if applicable due to a change of product concept). Commissioner Hanson asked for clarification on the increased density intentions for lot 2A. Cory Berg, Van Horn Engineering, answered that the variance on density granted by the Board of Adjustment would apply to Lot 1A which is already built over today's density standards and that development on Lot 2A by Habitat for Humanity would be within permitted density allowances. It was moved and seconded (Comstock/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board APPROVE the Minor Subdivision of Lot 1, North Lake Subdivision Preliminary Plat, with the requirement that public sidewalk improvements for Lot 2A be guaranteed prior to the approval of a Development Plan or further subdivision, in accordance with the findings as presented by staff. The motion passed 4-0. Commissioner Elkins was unavailable. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, MAX Storage, TBD Mountain View Court Commissioner Murphree recused himself from this project as he is personally involved with this project. Planner II Bergeron reviewed the staff report. The owner proposes to construct a 14,800 square-foot, 12-unit self-storage facility. The subject lot is 1.01 acres, or 44,213 square feet, in size. The proposed building improvements are expected to cover 14,800 square feet and parking/drives are anticipated to cover 10,700 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision. DISCUSSION: Heiser questioned the definition of uses for mini self-storage vs. warehouse storage in this situation. Director Hunt explained that RV storage typically defaults to self-storage due to the uniformity of square footage needed. Estes Park Planning Commission – OCTOBER 20, 2020 – Page 3 It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to APPROVE the MAX Storage development plan in accordance with the findings as presented by staff. The motion passed 3-0 with Murphree abstaining and Elkins unavailable. REPORTS: • Downtown Building Height was proposed to the public via a media release and an op-ed in the Trail-Gazette. Consultants are working on a report which should be ready for the November meeting. • The Comprehensive Plan grant has been filed. There were 43 applications submitted in addition to ours. • Planning Technician position should be filled in November. • Commissioner Elkins has an ongoing scheduling conflict with Planning Commission meetings. Options for allowing him to continue to serve include meeting at an alternative meeting time. To change the meeting time, the Commission Bylaws would need to be amended. Attorney Kramer noted that calling a series of special meetings is an option. There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m. Matt Comstock, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Park Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: November 17, 2020 RE: Amendments to the Estes Park Development Code (Continued from 9/15/20) 1) Allow an Amended Plat, a Boundary Adjustment, or a Land Consolidation Plat to be Defined as a “Minor Adjustment,” and to be Processed as a Staff Level Review 2) Increase the time for submitting a Subdivision Plat for Recording from the Current Sixty (60) Days to One Hundred and Eighty (180) Days Planning Commission Objective: Review and provide a recommendation for a proposed text amendment to the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), to allow a Boundary Adjustment, Amended Plat, or Land Consolidation Plat to be defined as a “Minor Adjustment,” and to be processed as a staff level review. The amendment also proposes increasing the time for submitting a subdivision plat for recording from the current 60 days, to 180 days. Code Amendment Objective: Currently the EPDC defines an Amended Plat, Boundary Adjustment, or a Land Consolidation Plat as a Minor Subdivision, requiring Planning Commission review and Board approval. As typically there is little or no impact from these “Minor Adjustment” processes, they can appropriately be reviewed and processed by staff. The amendment would also allow a more realistic time frame for receipt and recordation of Final Subdivision Plats. Staff proposes changes to the EPDC, summarized as: 1. Amend Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.9 Subdivisions, to differentiate a “Minor Subdivision” from a “Minor Adjustment.” A “Minor Adjustment” would be an “Amended Plat,” “Boundary Adjustment,” or a “Land Consolidation Plat.” There are existing definitions in the EPDC of “Boundary Adjustment” and “Land Consolidation Plat.” Staff has added a definition of “Amended Plat” as this is not currently defined in the EPDC. Minor Subdivisions will continue to be limited to subdivisions involving not more than four lots, with each fronting onto an existing street and not requiring extension of public facilities. These Minor Subdivisions are currently defined as “Frontage Lots.” The amendment would redesignate such subdivisions as “Minor Subdivisions,” in accord with NOVEMBER 17, 2020 EPPC CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDED PLAT PROCESS PAGE 2 OF 5 best planning practice. Minor Subdivision would require Planning Commission review and Board approval as they do now. A Minor Adjustment would be a staff level review. 2. Amend Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure, G. Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type, by adding a “Minor Adjustment” category which specifies a required staff review. 3. Amend Chapter 10, Subdivisions, Section 10.2 Applicability/Scope, to differentiate a Minor Subdivision from a Minor Adjustment, consistent with what is proposed for Section 3.9 (see No. 1., above). 4. Amend Chapter 13 Definitions, Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases, by amending the existing definition of Minor Subdivision, to be consistent with the rest of this proposed code amendment (see No. 1., above). 5. Amend Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.9.F.1. Effect of Approval of a Minor Subdivision, and Section 3.9.F.3. Effect of Approval of a Final Subdivision Plat, by increasing the time period to submit a plat for recording, after approval, from the current sixty (60) days, to one hundred and eighty (180) days. Community Development Department Public Notice Policy: This Code Amendment was continued by the Estes Park Planning Commission (EPPC), from September 15 to November 17, 2020. A primary concern expressed by the EPPC was that there was no public notice or public input proposed for a Minor Adjustment. Staff had not initially considered a public notice for a Minor Adjustment. However, staff now proposes adding a department policy where any Minor Adjustment application would involve public notice. Currently, the EPDC requirements for public notice are found within the EPDC Section 3.15 General Notice Provisions. Staff would require the Newspaper Notice requirement and the Written Notice requirement for any Minor Adjustment, noting there are some modifications to that which is required in Section 3.15 for public hearings. Staff’s proposed requirements for Minor Adjustments are as follows:  Newspaper Notice of Minor Adjustment. Notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Estes Park at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Minor Adjustment staff review deadline (deadline is generally six weeks from submittal).  Written Notice of Minor Adjustments. 1. The Community Development Department shall be responsible for mailing written notice at least fifteen (15) days before the Minor Adjustment staff review deadline, to all landowners within a specified boundary perimeter as required in the EPDC Section 3.15. 2. Failure to send or receive this written notice shall not affect the review and decision concerning the Minor Adjustment. 3. Written notice shall be sent by regular USPS mail in a standard business envelope, and shall include a description of the Minor Adjustment, the location of the NOVEMBER 17, 2020 EPPC CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDED PLAT PROCESS PAGE 3 OF 5 property(s) proposed for review, a notice that written comment may also be submitted for the Minor Adjustment at any time prior to the Minor Adjustment staff review deadline, staff contact information, and a procedure for obtaining additional information if desired. 4. The boundary perimeter within which written notice is to be mailed shall be determined to include the following: a. The subject property(s); b. All properties abutting the subject property(s); c. All properties directly across a public street or public right-of-way from the subject property(s), measured by a straight line perpendicular to the street or right-of-way centerline; d. All properties in whole or in part less than or equal to one hundred (100) linear feet from the outermost boundaries of any property included in (a), (b), or (c) of this Section. The width of any intervening public street or public right-of-way shall not be counted against the 100-foot linear measure.  Posting Minor Adjustments on the Town Website All Minor Adjustment applications and submittal documents shall be included in the “Current Application” section of the Town of Estes Park website. This is found under “Community Development, Planning and Zoning.” Background, Discussion: There has been some inconsistency in past years in Community Development’s processing of Amended Plats and similar, where lots or parcels are consolidated (combining two or more into one), or where a lot line or lot lines are slightly adjusted. Staff has found examples where Amended Plats have been processed at staff level. This has not caused any issues that staff is aware of. However, staff recently realized that strict interpretation of the applicable review procedures within the EPDC, Section 3.9 require any of these to be processed as a “Minor Subdivision,” rather than, for example, a “Minor Modification to an Approved Final Plan” as provided for in Section 3.7. Minor Subdivisions require review by the EPPC and Board approval. The technical terms “plan” and “plat” refer to different instruments in typical best planning practice, so the wording and structure in Section 3.7 is a bit careless at best. Any subdivision process that creates two or more new lots from a parent parcel must appropriately go through a review and approval process involving public notice, public meetings, Planning Commission review, and Board approval. However, for Minor Adjustments, that do not involve creation of any additional lots or building sites, there is little or no impact and they can be appropriately processed by staff. This is staff’s recommendation, which matches usual and customary regulatory practice in most North American local jurisdictions. Staff has detailed the revisions to the Chapters as outlined above, in Exhibit A. Staff has other revisions within Chapters 3 and 10, for consistency and clarity. These include a provision for compliance with the requirements within the EPDC’s Appendix B, Submittal Requirements as determined by the Community Development Director. This is due to the EPDC’s Appendix B currently having no specific requirements or references whatsoever to Minor Subdivision, Amended Plat, Boundary Adjustment, or Land Consolidation Plat. Apparently this was an oversight on the part of the original authors of the EPDC. Applying all of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat requirements listed within Appendix B is unnecessary, and many are inapplicable. NOVEMBER 17, 2020 EPPC CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDED PLAT PROCESS PAGE 4 OF 5 The increase from the 60-day submittal time period to 180 days is to provide a better, more reasonable period to submit a plat for recordation after approval. This will allow much more flexibility for both the applicant and for staff, and avoid unnecessary extensions or expirations. Staff recommends the Estes Park Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit A, as well as the Community Development Department policy regarding public notice for Minor Adjustments to the Town Board of Trustees. 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 “development plan” associated with this and in fact it involves subdivision review standards and regulations. Staff notes although there is no development plan being allowed by this Code Amendment, nothing within the 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. Advantages: • Generally complies with the EPDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review, as applicable. • Establishes and clarifies a review procedure for Amended Plats and similar that can streamline the process, which benefits both the Town and the residents of Estes Park. • Provides a more reasonable and realistic time period to submit a plat for recordation. Disadvantages: NOVEMBER 17, 2020 EPPC CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDED PLAT PROCESS PAGE 5 OF 5 • 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, as well as the Community Development Department policy regarding public notice for Minor adjustments, with findings 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). Exhibit: 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 3, Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.9 Subdivisions  EPDC Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure, G. Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type  EPDC Chapter 10, Subdivisions, Section 10.2 Applicability/Scope  EPDC Chapter 13 Definitions, Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases, 235. Subdivision, Minor § 3.9 - Subdivisions A. Purposes. The purpose of the subdivision review process is to ensure compliance with the subdivision standards and provisions of this Code, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Applicability. All subdivisions shall be subject to the approval procedures set forth in this Section. C. Procedure for Approval of Subdivisions (Except Minor Subdivisions and Minor Adjustments) 1. General. Subdivisions are approved in two (2) stages: first, a preliminary subdivision plan is approved, and second, a final subdivision plat is approved and recorded. The Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners is the entity with final approval authority for both preliminary and final subdivision plats, depending on the location of the property. 2. Procedure for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plats. Applications for preliminary subdivision plat approval shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter. 3. Procedure for Approval of Final Subdivision Plats. Applications for final subdivision plat approval shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter, except that Step 4 (EVPC Review and Action) shall not apply. D. Minor Subdivisions and Minor Adjustments. 1. Defined. Minor subdivisions shall be defined as follows: Minor Subdivisions and Minor Adjustments are categorized as follows: a. Frontage Lots Minor Subdivision . Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land into a total of not more than four (4) lots shall also be a minor subdivision, provided that each resulting lot fronts onto an existing street, and that the subdivision entails no extension of public facilities. No more than a total of four (4) lots shall be created out of a lot, tract or parcel or set of contiguous parcels in the same ownership using the minor subdivision procedure. Frontage Lot subdivisions shall be titled as a "Subdivision." (Ord. 18-01 #8; Ord. 8-05 #1) b. Boundary Adjustments . Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines between such lots, tracts or parcels of land and adjacent lots, tracts or parcels of land, which adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes, shall be considered a minor subdivision for review procedure. Boundary Adjustments shall be titled as a "Boundary Line Adjustment" for properties not within a platted subdivision or "Amended Plat" for properties within a platted subdivision. Minor Adjustment. Minor Adjustments are Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, or Land Consolidation Plats: The final map shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: (Ord. 8-05 #1) "Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as shown." (Ord. 8-05 #1) c. Land Consolidation Plats . Unplatted contiguous legal lots approved for single-family residential development can be combined with a land consolidation plat. Land Consolidation Plats shall be titled as a "Land Consolidation Plat." The final plat shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: (Ord. 8-05 #1) "Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes." (Ord. 8-05 #1) (1) Amended Plat. An Amended Plat is an instrument to amend a recorded subdivision plat. An Amended Plat is a revision to a recorded subdivision plat, or a portion of a recorded subdivision plat. An Amended Plat may reconfigure lots, vacate interior lot lines, change or eliminate a platted building envelope, or correct drafting or technical errors. To qualify as an Amended Plat, no additional lots or building sites may be created, nor any lots that do not comply with zoning standards or other requirements of this code. An Amended Plat must not include easement or right-of-way vacation or dedication, involve more than five (5) lots, or necessitate new or modified public improvements; such plats shall be considered final subdivision plats under subsection 3.9.C, above, and shall require a public hearing before the Town Board of Trustees. (2) Boundary Adjustment shall mean the division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land for the sole purpose of adjusting boundary lines between such lots, tracts or parcels of land and adjacent lots, tracts or parcels of land, which adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. (3) Land Consolidation Plat. Unplatted contiguous lots approved for single-family residential development may be combined with a Land Consolidation Plat, provided that the new lot conforms to all requirements of this code. Land Consolidation Plats shall be titled as “Land Consolidation Plat.” The final plat shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: “Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes.” 2. Hazard Areas. Except Land Consolidation Plats, aAreas with geologic hazards as defined by §7.7 of this Code shall not be eligible for the minor subdivision process. (Ord. 18-01 #9; Ord. 8-05 #1) 3. Procedure for Approval of Minor Subdivisions and Minor Adjustments. Applications for minor subdivision or minor adjustment approval shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter. , except that Land Consolidation Plats shall not be subject to review by the Planning Commission. Land Consolidation Plats shall follow the review timeframe established for Final Plats. (Ord. 18-01 #10; Ord. 8-05 #1) 4. Submittal Requirements. Boundary Line Adjustments and Amended Plats A Minor Adjustment shall follow the applicable subdivision submittal requirements within the EPDC Appendix B. II., as determined by the Community Development Director or designee. involving exchange of land shall require deeds describing the resultant parcels, signed and dated by owners, and dated and sealed by a Notary Public, to be submitted with the Mylars. (Ord. 18-01 #11; Ord. 8-05 #1) 5. Modifications and Waivers. The Community Development Director, or designee, shall have authority to grant modifications and/or waive standards set forth in Chapter 10 in conjunction with an Amended Plat, Boundary Adjustment or Land Consolidation Plat. Approval of requested modifications and/or waivers shall require that the Director finds that approval of such modification and/or waiver: (Ord. 8-05 #1) a. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; (Ord. 8-05 #1) b. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those required by this Code; (Ord. 8-05 #1) c. There will be no increase in the intensity of use; and (Ord. 8-05 #1) d. There will be no increase in development and/or demand for services that necessitates compliance with EPVDC standards. (Ord. 8-05 #1) E. Standards for Review. All subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," and all other applicable provisions of this Code. For minor subdivisions, the EVPC shall also find that approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. F. Effects of Approval. 1. Effect of Approval of a Minor Subdivision or Minor Adjustment. Within sixty (60) one hundred and eighty (180) days of the Board's approval of the minor subdivision or minor adjustment, the developer shall submit the minor subdivision or minor adjustment final plat for recording. If the minor subdivision or minor adjustment plat plan is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day one hundred and eighty day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2. Effect of Approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plan. a. Within twelve (12) months from the date of the final approval of a preliminary subdivision plat, the developer shall submit an application for final subdivision plat for either all or at least one (1) phase of the proposed subdivision. b. An approved final subdivision plat for any phase of the preliminary subdivision plan shall extend the life of the preliminary subdivision plan for an additional twelve-month period from the date the final subdivision plat is approved. If the original twelve-month period or any successive twelve-month period expires before a final subdivision plat is approved, then the preliminary plan approval automatically lapses and becomes null and void. c. During the period in which an approved preliminary subdivision plan is effective, no subsequent change or amendment to this Code or any other governing ordinance or plan shall be applied to affect adversely the right of the Applicant to proceed with any aspect of the approved development in accordance with the terms of such preliminary subdivision plat approval. However, the Applicant shall comply with those local laws and regulations adopted subsequent to the approval of such preliminary subdivision if the Estes Valley Planning Commission determines, on the basis of written findings, that compliance is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. 3. Effect of Approval of a Final Subdivision Plat. Within sixty (60) one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of the Board's action on the final subdivision plat, the Applicant shall make all required revisions, if any (see §3.2.E above), and shall submit the final subdivision plat to the Town for recording. If the final plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day one hundred and eighty day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. § 3.2 - Standard Development Review Procedure G. Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type. "V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable "APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to Text) Step 1 Pre- Application Conference Step 2 Neighborhood & Community Meeting Step 3 Application/ Completeness Certification Step 4 Staff Review & Report Step 5 EVPC Action Step 6 Board Action Minor Subdivision (Ord. 18-01 #5 M V A A A A Minor Adjustment V V A A N/A N/A § 10.2 - APPLICABILITY/SCOPE A. General. Prior to subdividing any tract of land in the Estes Valley, including land being annexed into the Town, the subdivider shall comply with all of the standards set forth in this Code and obtain approval pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 3. No building permits shall be issued for any improvement or work on any parcel not subdivided in compliance with this Chapter. No owner or agent of the owner of any land located within an addition or subdivision shall transfer, sell, agree to sell or negotiate to sell any land by reference to, exhibition of or by the use of a plan, plat or map of an addition or subdivision before such plan, plat or map has been approved pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 3 of this Code and recorded in the office of the clerk and recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. B. Minor Subdivisions and Minor Adjustments. Minor Subdivisions and Minor Adjustments are subject to full review and compliance with the applicable standards set forth in Chapter 10 and the applicable submittal requirements set forth in Appendix B,.as determined by the Community Development Director or designee. (Ord. 18-01 #22) 1. Frontage LotsMinor Subdivision. Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land into a total of not more than four (4) lots shall also be considered a minor subdivision, provided that each resulting lot fronts onto an existing street, and that the subdivision entails no extension of public facilities. No more than a total of four (4) lots shall be created out of a lot, tract, parcel or set of contiguous parcels in the same ownership using the minor subdivision procedure. Frontage Lot Minor sSubdivisions shall be titled as a "Subdivision." (Ord. 18-01 #23; Ord. 8-05 #1) 2. Boundary Adjustments Minor Adjustments. Minor Adjustments are Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, or Land Consolidation Plats: Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines between such lots, tracts or parcels of land and adjacent lots, tracts or parcels of land, which adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes, shall be considered a minor subdivision for review procedure. Boundary Adjustments shall be titled as a "Boundary Line Adjustment" for properties not within a platted subdivision, or "Amended Plat" for properties within a platted subdivision. The final map shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: (Ord. 8-05 #1) "Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as shown." (Ord. 8-05 #1) 3. Land Consolidation Plats. Unplatted contiguous legal lots approved for single-family residential development can be combined with a Land Consolidation Plat. Land Consolidation Plats shall be titled as a "Land Consolidation Plat". The final map shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: (Ord. 8-05 #1) "Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes." (Ord. 8-05 #1) (Ord. 18-01 #22, 23, 10/23/01; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) (1) Amended Plat. An instrument to amend a recorded subdivision plat. An Amended Plat is a revision to a recorded subdivision plat, or a portion of a recorded subdivision plat. An Amended Plat may reconfigure lots, vacate interior lot lines, change or eliminate a platted building envelope, or correct drafting or technical errors. To qualify as an Amended Plat, no additional lots or building sites may be created, nor any lots that do not comply with zoning standards or other requirements of this code. An Amended Plat must not include easement or right-of-way vacation or dedication, involve more than five (5) lots, or necessitate new or modified public improvements; such plats shall be considered subdivision plats under subsection 3.9.C., and shall require a public hearing before the Town Board of Trustees. (2) Boundary Adjustment. The division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land for the sole purpose of adjusting boundary lines between such lots, tracts or parcels of land and adjacent lots, tracts or parcels of land, which adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. (3) Land Consolidation Plat. Unplatted contiguous lots approved for single-family residential development may be combined with a Land Consolidation Plat, provided that the new lot conforms to all requirements of this code. Land Consolidation Plats shall be titled as “Land Consolidation Plat.” The final plat shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: “Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes.” CHAPTER 13. – DEFINITIONS § 13.3 - Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases 235. Subdivision, Minor shall mean subdivision for the purposes of boundary adjustments; or shall mean subdivision into a total of not more than four (4) lots, provided that each resulting lot fronts onto an existing dedicated public street and the subdivision entails no extension of municipal facilities. Community Development Planning Building 970-577-3721 planning@estes.org building@estes.org 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG A verbal update will be given regarding Dowtown Building Height www.AyresAssociates.com Ingenuity, Integrity, and Intelligence. BranOctober 30, 2020 Housing Density Costs and Benefits Prepared for the Town of Estes Park ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS Table of Contents Background and Purpose 1 Understanding the Challenge 2 What Does More Density Mean? 3 Density Bonus System 4 The Power of Good Design 6 Conclusion 7 1ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS Background and Purpose Ayres was directed by Town staff to prepare an analysis of the relative costs and benefits of housing density, particularly the efficiencies of greater vertical development in Estes Park The report is motivated in part by the lack of available housing in Estes Park for workforce and the impact on the local economy With a limited number of units and stiff competition, households wishing to live in the Estes Valley pay a premium and many are priced out of the market altogether In addition to a shortage of affordable housing, the prevalence of vacation rentals and vacation homes further depresses the housing supply for local employees The memorandum seeks to explore the possibility of denser vertical housing as a potential solution to some of the housing needs A secondary goal is to help the community better understand the issues and make informed decisions regarding vertical development The memorandum considers several critical factors: • Estes Park is renowned for its views of the Rocky Mountains, which limits locations for vertical development• Estes Park has a demonstrated need for housing, particularly workforce housing• Based on construction methods, low-rise housing would not exceed 65 feet (roughly five stories)• Efficient use of land is critical to address housing needs In addition to reviewing the relative merits of denser housing, the memorandum addresses creative strategies used by other communities, including density bonuses, potential financing options, and other strategies 2ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS Understanding the Challenge Numerous housing studies in the last 10 years indicate a need for housing Most recently, the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation published “The Economic Benefits of Implementing Workforce Housing in the Estes Park” in April of 2018 The report, a follow up to the “2016 – Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment,” reinforced the need for 890 to 1,040 new multi-family residential units to meet the needs of the local workforce Additionally, the report stated that many families were living in rental units above their means and/or in overcrowded housing According to the U S Census, the Area Median Income (“AMI”) for households in Estes Park is $50,833 Assuming that no more than 30 percent of household income should be used for housing costs suggests: Household Income Available for Housing/ Month 60% of AMI $30,500 $762 100% of AMI $50,833 $1,271 150% of AMI $76,250 $1,906 Taking that a step further, according to Redfin, over the past year the average house sold for approximately $280/square foot in Estes Park and the average sale price was $535,000 For a family seeking to live in Estes Park, the average home equates to $107,000 for a 20 percent down payment and a mortgage of $428,000, or roughly $1,863 per month, which excludes taxes and insurance If we extrapolate further, using income to determine maximum mortgage and assume that the buyer commits to a standard 20 percent down payment, we can see the size of homes a household could afford at the various income levels This assumes that there are units available for sale at the value and size estimated The estimates are calculated on a 30-year term at 3 25 percent and it excludes taxes, utilities, and insurance from the monthly payment Available for Housing/ Month Mortgage Value Based on Income Down Payment @ 20% Home Value Home Size @ 280/ Square Foot 60% of AMI $762 $175,100 $43,775 $218,875 782 sq /ft 100% of AMI $1,271 $291,500 $72,875 $364,375 1,301 sq /ft 150% of AMI $1,906 $438,000 $109,500 $547,500 1,955 sq /ft The chart above suggests affordability issues for households even up to 150 percent of the area median income With the possibility of homeownership in the Estes Valley becoming more challenging, there is added pressure on the rental market This has led to substandard units, crowding, and parking problems It has been demonstrated over multiple studies that Estes Park has an insufficient housing supply, which puts negative pressure on economic growth when employees are competing for a limited number of units, placing more upward pressure on cost and pricing households out of the market We seek to explore density as a possible solution to some of the housing challenges 3ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS What Does More Density Mean In Estes Park? Density can take different forms including vertical development, tiny homes, cottage-style development, or clustered homes Each has relative benefits and drawbacks However, this review is intended to look mainly at efficient use of land given that the valley is landlocked, and land comes at a premium Referencing the housing report, assuming that the need is roughly 1,040 new units of rental housing to meet the workforce housing needs in Estes, you would have the following land use considerations: Density Units per Acre Acres of Land Needed to Meet Demand Low 4 to 8 units/acre 130 to 260 acres Medium 16 to 32 units/acre 65 to 32 5 acres Medium-High 64 units/acre 30 6 acres High 100 units/acre 10 4 acres Low and medium density housing uses substantially more land to meet the housing demand and puts more pressure on horizontal infrastructure including roads and utilities Conversely, it is more consistent with the development patterns currently in place and limits the impact on mountain views 100 units per acre translates to approximately 60 to 70 feet in height depending on setbacks, the maximum for mid-rise wood construction Higher density provides a more efficient use of land, but it can impair mountain views and is not consistent with existing development patterns We can look how this might look in the context of Estes Park The concept design below illustrates a 200-unit multi-family building at five stories The site is located at the corner of St Vrain Avenue and Stanley Avenue The illustration is strictly hypothetical and intended to demonstrate what a higher density development would look like in context Ayres also completed an extensive shadow analysis of potential one-, two- and three-story height increases in the downtown The model can be used to review specific projects and their impact on the visual corridor and potential shadowing This is an important consideration when reviewing development projects At left: concept illustration Above: site location 4ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS Density Bonuses and Case Studies Given demand for housing and the economic pressures for greater density, hypothetically, how can Estes Park make density work for it? Currently, Estes Park has an approved density bonus system in place (section 11 4) which allows for up to two times the maximum allowed density (200%) for units attainable for households up to 150 percent of the Area Median Income The bonus is subject to a deed restriction and is only available in the RM-District (Residential- Multifamily) In addition to the density bonus, there is a height incentive available (section 4 3 D 5 ), where projects proposing 100% workforce housing in a given multi-family structure may build to a maximum height of 38 feet, in lieu of the 30 foot maximum height standard allowable in the RM-District These incentives have seen limited use since they were updated in 2017, and further the amount of developable ground in the RM-District is limited Also, the bonus system does not address any design considerations Three examples of Estes’ density bonus system being used by developers include the Grand Estates Apartments, Wind River Apartments, and the Divide and the Meadow condominiums, which collectively are part of the larger (and unfortunately named) Wildfire Development project It is important to note that each Grand Estates Apartments and Wind River were initially denied by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and required appeals to the Town Board The denial for Wind River was done with no findings made by the Planning Commission, and against the professional recommendations of Town staff Additionally, collectively, the projects total 190 new units of approved workforce housing, although to date only the Grand Estates Apartments project, with eight workforce units and eight market rate units, has been completed Recently, Estes Park has gone through a significant transition with the Planning Commission having recently been almost completely reformed This should present and opportunity to provide education to the Planning Commission on the importance of workforce housing and density bonus system The following case studies indicate how density systems have been applied in other similar communities Case Study: Density Bonuses Inclusionary zoning is a general term used to describe programs that provide allowances for greater density in exchange for inclusion of affordable housing units This approach is common in Colorado mountain towns including Telluride, Breckenridge, Durango, and Glenwood Springs Generally, communities have flexibility to negotiate the density allowances and the income restrictions for the affordable units The program is strictly voluntary, and developers can participate at their discretion Notably, many Colorado mountain towns also reserve the units for public employees who may otherwise not be able to live in the town they work in 5ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS Case Study: Cottage Housing Bozeman, Montana, has pioneered cottage-style housing The zoning code allows for smaller homes less than 1,500 sq/ft to be clustered on smaller lots Developers can build up to 12 per cluster; however, when the units are designated as affordable, the 12-unit maximum does not apply More compact housing does limit the need for vertical development, preserving view corridors, but requires good design to ensure greenspace and visual interest Below is another illustration on how a cottage housing development might look in context The concept includes roughly 32 units an the same footprint as the higher density development Case Study: Vancouver, Canada The City of Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada, has been a leader in inventive ideas to support and benefit from denser housing Their density bonus program allows for higher density in exchange for investment in public amenities and affordable housing The program is based on Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”), which refers to the size of the building compared to the use of the land For instance, a 100,000-square- foot building built on one acre or roughly 43,560 square feet would have an FAR of 2 3 In Vancouver, a FAR that exceeds 75 is subject to the density bonus program Fees are assessed based on the total square footage of the project and vary from neighborhood to neighborhood Fees range from $3 33/square foot to $119/square foot For a hypothetical 100,000 square foot building, the developer could be assessed anywhere from $333,000 to $11 9 million Up to 80 percent of the fees can be used for direct public investments with the remaining 20 percent collected as cash-in-lieu The fees are used to support community investments in parks and other public amenities, including affordable housing photo credit: Lukas Kloeppel 6ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS The Power of Good Design Whether it is vertical development, denser cottage style housing, or density bonuses, a critical and often overlooked element is good design Development should be visually interesting, blend in with the surrounding natural environment, and be functional to the end user To achieve good design, it is important to establish a clear framework for developers to achieve a positive impact Enterprise Community, a national non- profit advocate for quality affordable housing suggests the following approach: • Develop a clear mission Be prepared to articulate goals and support developers through the development approval process • Understand the nine design opportunities that can be leveraged: site, massing, landscape, program, circulation, units, systems, materials, and culture • Demonstrate the impact of thoughtful design Measure and share the outcomes of critical design decisions 7ESTES PARK • HOUSING DENSITY COSTS AND BENEFITS Conclusion Estes Park is dealing with a housing issue that will not be solved easily There are challenges in meeting the needs of developers, financers, the community, and most of the residents In consideration, we would recommend the following: • Explore flexibility zoning options and seek opportunities to expand the density bonuses to other zoning districts • Educate the new Planning Commission on the importance of housing density and the density bonus system • Identify protected view corridors and identify areas where additional height may be appropriate • Reach out to other mountain towns in Colorado and elsewhere that have taken steps to address the housing issue through density bonus programs to better understand the impact of these programs • Develop a clear mission for housing and identify the design opportunities that are most critical to Estes Park 11/10/2020 CURRENT PROJECTS Submittal Date Application Type Project Name Location Recomm ending/ Decision Making Bodies Next Proposed Meeting Date Ex-Parte Prohibited Staff 7/1/2020 Code Amendment Amended Plat/BLA review continued PC 17-Nov JW 8/3/2020 Code Amendment Parking Regulations PC tbd JW 8/3/2020 Code Amendment Downtown Building Height discussion only PC 17-Nov RH 8/4/2020 Minor Subdivision Habitat for Humanity 1730 Raven Ave TB 24-Nov yes AB 8/27/2020 Amended Plat Mountain Wood Townhomes 258-260 Stanley Ave TB 24-Nov yes JW 10/2/2020 Special Review*Cell Tower*1575 S St Vrain PC tbd JW 10/2/2020 Development Plan Carriage House 333 E Wonderview TRC tbd yes RH 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 virtual Monopine Cell Tower join.me/810-558-936