HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2021-09-21PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Tuesday, September 21, 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 September 15, 2021 11
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, September 21, 2021
1:30 p.m.
1.AGENDA APPROVAL
2.PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
3.CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2021
2.Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated August 17, 2021
3.New Bylaws template
4.ACTION ITEMS:
1.CODE AMENDMENT
Wireless Telecom Facitilites Senior Planner Woeber
5.DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.Code Amendment ADU Planner II Bergeron
2.Code Amendment RM Director Hunt
3.Code Amendment RE-1 removal Director Hunt
4.Comprehensive Plan Director Hunt
6.REPORTS
Director Hunt
7.ADJOURN
Prepared 09/15/2021
22
33
1
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 17, 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 17 day of
August 2021.
Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene
Centurione.
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice-Chair Heiser, Commissioner
Centurione, Commissioner Elkins, Commissioner Hanson,
Director Randy Hunt, Director Jessica Garner, Senior Planner
Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning Technician
Charlie Rugaber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund,
Acting Attorney Brandon Ditman, Town Board Liaison
Barbara MacAlpine
Absent: none
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Also attending were Matt Ashby
and Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates consultants. He introduced incoming Community
Development Director Jessica Garner, who began her employment on July 26.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 5-0.
ACTION ITEMS
1.MINOR SUBDIVISION 621 Pinewood Lane
Planner Bergeron reviewed the proposal for a minor subdivision. The applicant,
Elaine Winslow, proposes to subdivide the E-1 zoned property to create another lot
of one acre in size suitable for residential development. Both resulting lots would
meet minimum lot size and other dimensional criteria for subdivision within the E-1
Zoning District. The applicant proposes a "no-build" easement to preserve the view
from the existing home on the parent lot and declares limits of disturbance (LOD) for draft44
2
proposed Lot 1 to preserve existing trees. Staff recommended approval of the minor
subdivision.
DISCUSSION:
Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, answered that the access easement on
Pinewood Lane is existing. Planner Bergeron noted that limits of disturbance are
required on the preliminary plat, not the final plat and that not all of the trees in this
area will be taken down.
Owner Elaine Winslow stated that a small 2300 square foot handicapped accessible
home was planned for the new lot and intends to preserve as many trees as
possible.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bart Dannels, neighbor, approved of the lot split and clarified that the road between
the two properties is not a public access road and only goes to his house.
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Centurione) to recommend that the Town
Board APPROVE the Winslow Minor Subdivision, in accordance with the
findings as presented. The motion passed 5-0.
2. CODE AMENDMENT: WIRELESS TELECOM FACILITIES
Senior Planner Woeber
Staff requested this item be continued to the September 21, 2021 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to continue the Code Amendment
to September 21, 2021. The motion passed 4-0 with Centurione absent.
3. CODE AMENDMENT: DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT
Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates, explained that 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 as a use by right.
The purpose is to allow for greater opportunity for mixed-use development and add
much-needed housing units. Specifically, building height within the CD Downtown
Commercial Zoning District would be amended from 30 feet to allow up to 42 feet.
The 42-foot height limit was derived from discussions with developers, the Planning
Commission, and a review of approved downtown plans. At 42 feet, developers can
comfortably build commercially viable three-story mixed-use buildings in the CD
District. The amendment is being drafted such that there are no additional
restrictions on building use. The height limit is intended as a maximum allowable
with no exceptions through special review. The Board of Adjustment could grant
variances in cases for which the proposal meets variance criteria. The guidelines
under consideration would only apply to new construction or additions that exceed
30 feet in height.
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 draft55
3
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. Additionally,
the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation ("EDC") has advocated for
increasing the availability of workforce housing. Updated Purpose Language to
include "the encouragement of reinvestment in downtown buildings to encourage
reinvestment in downtown buildings and encourage upper-story workforce housing
in a walkable, mixed-use context."
DISCUSSION
After discussion in the earlier Study Session, the following proposed sentence was
added to the Purpose Language: The section is also intended to encourage
reinvestment in downtown buildings and encourage upper-story workforce housing
in a walkable, mixed-use context.
The top floor is required to have an 8 foot step back. The setback on the street
frontage of lots is 8 feet, and the plan is to change it to zero. Vice-Chair Heiser
suggested not including this in the code amendment, and Chair Comstock agreed.
Director Garner clarified that the setback would be behind the sidewalk, not from the
curb. Director Hunt saw no reason not to keep the 8-foot setback. Changing
11.5.c.2 to add 8 feet from the façade plane is a workaround for this issue.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bob Leavitt, 740 Rams Horn Drive, questioned why "workforce housing" was not in
the phrasing of the code amendment and is in favor of the 8-foot setback from the
façade.
Two five-minute recesses were taken to get the correct updated language for a
motion.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to recommend the Town Board
APPROVE the Downtown Building Height Code Amendment, with the following
changes to the staff findings: in addition to advancing the ideas of the 2018
downtown plan, this code amendment is consistent with the policies and goals
of the comprehensive plan as it relates to aging building infrastructure, fires and
flood. This amendment will create opportunities for improvement and
redevelopment of the Downtown District, advancing the ideas of maintaining the
downtown core as the hub of Estes Park's economic base, sustaining the tax
base and allowing for more residential units in the downtown zone. Additionally,
changing section 11.5.c.2, adding an 8-foot setback from the façade of the
building. The motion passed 5-0.
draft66
4
REPORTS:
Director Hunt gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan update. There will be a joint
meeting on Thursday, August 26, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. Consultants Logan Simpson has
compiled massive amounts of data which will be summarized and made available to the
public soon. Identification of issues and public input will be ramping up.
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:07 p.m.
Matt Comstock, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
draft77
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 17, 2021
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on Zoom.
Commission: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene
Centurione
Attending: Comstock, Centurione, Elkins, Hanson, Heiser,
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Director Jessica Garner, Senior
Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning
Technician Charlie Rugaber, Town Board Liaison Barbara
MacAlpine, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Elkins
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 11:00 p.m. This study session was held
virtually via ZOOM and was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park
YouTube channel. Jessica Garner, the incoming Director, was introduced.
Mike Scholl, consultant from Ayres Associates, began the discussion by presenting the
Lidar building height data in the downtown corridor. Two buildings are roughly 65 feet,
and a handful are above 30 feet but less than 42 feet. Vice-Chair Heiser asked for
clarification on Short Term Rentals vs. Hotel use above 30 feet. Liaison MacAlpine
asked for wording to encourage residential housing in the downtown corridor. After
considerable discussion, it was decided to add language to the Purpose and Intent
statement of the amendment.
The next CompPac meeting on August 26, facilitated by Logan Simpson, will be a joint
meeting. The Planning Commission is encouraged to attend. Different departments
have been guest speaking at the regular CompPac meetings, discussing their current
and future goals. All meeting recordings are on the town’s YouTube channel and
available for viewing. Public engagement opportunities will pick up in September. Data
collected by Logan Simpson will be available soon.
Upcoming code amendments were discussed. Having available the ability to provide
denser workforce housing development in a new zoning district (RM-2) by allowing
double density. Ayres Associates are looking into development standards related to
parking space ratios, building height and 32 units per acre (examples via video from
other communities). draft88
Planning Commission Study Session August 17, 2021 – Page 2
Vice-Chair Heiser made it known that if any member of the public has concerns about
current issues, please reach out and let those concerns be heard. If there is an issue of
“crisis proportion,” it needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Planner II Bergeron spoke on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and how they could
help resolve the current housing crisis. Proposed changes were reviewed that remove
some barriers to development and allow for a more straightforward process. As it
relates to attached ADU’s, it was stated that it is not intended to create a duplex. An
attached ADU may be up to 49% of the principal dwelling unit’s habitable square
footage (800 feet maximum) and must be fixed to a foundation. Occupancy
requirements were discussed at length. An analysis of how many single-family lots are
currently non-conforming was requested. Allowing tiny homes was discussed, and their
differences from ADUs were distinguished, along with the elimination of minimal width
for a dwelling unit.
Due to time restraints, the Report section of the agenda was tabled.
Chair Comstock adjourned the Study Session at 1:00 p.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
draft99
1010
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Matt Comstock
Estes Park Planning Commission
Through: Jessica Garner, Community Development Director
From: Jessica Garner, Community Development Director
Date: September 21, 2021
RE: Planning Commission Bylaws
(Mark all that apply for later Town Board handling)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Bylaws
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Receive information on the new Planning Commission Bylaws template and approve on
consent.
Present Situation:
The City Clerk’s office has developed a new template for all Boards and Commissions
to use, which includes the Planning Commission.
Proposal:
The new template streamlines the existing language from the Planning Commission’s
template, which was modified and approved in 2020. The new template will be
approved by the Town Board and used by all of the Town’s Boards and Commissions.
This proposed draft is very similar to the conceptual draft language shared with the
Planning Commission on June 15, 2021.
Per Town Policy
Advantages:
• The template will contain consistent language and policies for every Board and
Commission for ease of use.
Disadvantages:
• The Planning Commission recently approved the existing bylaws in 2020, so this
will be a new document to utilize for governance.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends Approval of the new Bylaws template.
1111
Finance/Resource Impact:
None identified.
Level of Public Interest
Low. This is an administrative action that does not change the substance of the existing
rules of governance for the Planning Commission.
Sample Motion:
I move to recommend that the Planning Commission APPROVE the proposed Bylaws
and request that the Town Board APPROVE the Planning Commission Bylaws, finding
that the proposed Bylaws are consistent with governance best practices.
I move to recommend denial of the Planning Commission Bylaws, finding that [state
findings for denial].
I move to continue the Planning Commission Bylaws to the next regularly scheduled
meeting [state reasons for continuing].
Attachments:
1. New Bylaws template
2. Existing Planning Commission Bylaws
1212
ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
BYLAWS
[Adopted 09/2021]
I. ROLE
The Estes Park Planning Commission (EPPC) is established under section 2.1(C) of the
Estes Park Development Code. The EPPC exercises the authority given to it by the
Town Board as outlined below:
1. Perform all of the duties and responsibilities of a municipal planning commission
pursuant to Colorado law;
2. Perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the EPPC as described in the
Estes Park Development Code; and
3. Make recommendations to Town Board regarding the Town’s Comprehensive
Plan, provided that final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan shall be at the
discretion of the Town Board.
Chair in the remainder of this document will refer to the Chair of the EPPC.
II. MEETINGS
A. Regular Meetings. Shall be held the third Tuesday of each month, with additional
meetings scheduled as needed. Regular meetings shall occur at 1:30 PM. Any
item on the agenda which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of
the meeting may be continued until and heard at the next regularly scheduled
meeting or a specially scheduled meeting and shall have priority over any other
matters to be heard and considered.
B. Study Sessions. Study sessions of the EPPC may be scheduled by the Chair or
the Community Development Director as needed. No official action shall be taken
and no quorum shall be required for the study session. The study session shall
be open to the public. Unless requested by the Chair, no public comment shall be
taken in a study session.
C. Special Meetings. May be held at any time upon call by the EPPC, the Chair or
the Community Development Director. Notice of at least three (3) calendar days
shall be given to each member of the EPPC. The time, place, and purpose of the
special meeting shall be specified in the notice to the committee members.
Should a special meeting be scheduled, notification must be provided to the
Board Secretary in an effort to adequately notify the public in accordance with the
State of Colorado Open Meetings Law Section 24-6-402(2)(c) C.R.S.
D. Cancellation of Meetings. Regularly scheduled meetings of the EPPC may be
cancelled or rescheduled upon determination by the Chair. Any cancelled
1313
meeting requires notification to the Board Secretary in an effort to adequately
notify the public.
E. Meeting Procedures. Chair shall preside in accordance with generally accepted
norms for the conduct of parliamentary procedure. The EPPC may overturn a
parliamentary determination of the Chair by majority vote. Robert’s Rules of
Order may be considered as a parliamentary guide.
F. Open Meetings. All meetings and action of the EPPC shall be in full compliance
with state statutes governing open meetings, as amended and incorporated
herein by reference. It is the responsibility of the assigned staff member of
Community Development to be familiar with these statutes and regulations.
G. Attendance by Non-members. Meetings may be attended by persons who are
not members of the EPPC. At the discretion of the Chair, nonmembers may be
allowed to speak at meetings. However, in no event shall nonmembers be
allowed to vote on matters for which a vote is required.
III. MEMBERS AND QUORUM
A. Membership. The EPPC consists of five (5) voting members, as provided in the
Development Code. Appointments of members shall be made by the Town Board
in accordance with Policy 102.
B. Terms. Members shall be appointed to a 6 year term. The terms of the members
shall be staggered so that the terms of an equal number of the members, or as
equal a number as possible, expire on the last day of March each year. There
are no term limitations, and members may be reappointed by the Town Board in
accordance with Policy 102.
C. Vacancies. Vacant positions shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board
for the unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled.
D. Quorum. A quorum for transaction of business of the EPPC shall consist of 3
members of the EPPC. This is the minimum number of members required to be
present to open a meeting and conduct business.
E. Action. Any action by the EPPC shall be by majority vote of the members
attending any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless
otherwise provided by law or ordinance. A tie vote shall constitute failure of the
motion on the floor.
F. Town Board Liaison. The Town Board may appoint one of its members as a
liaison to the EPPC, who shall receive copies of all notices, documents, and
records of proceedings of the EPPC which any member would also receive.
1414
IV. OFFICERS
A. Officers. There shall be a Chair and a Vice Chair for the EPPC.
B. Elections. Officers shall be elected by the members annually, at the first regularly
scheduled meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the EPPC.
Notification of who is elected Chair and Vice Chair will be sent to the Town Clerk.
C. Chair Responsibilities:
1. Preside at all meetings
2. Ensure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency
3. Call special meetings in accordance with the bylaws
4. Authority to cancel a meeting
5. Sign any documents prepared by the EPPC for submission to the Town
Board or town departments
6. Represent the EPPC in dealings with the Town Board or other organizations
7. The Chair has the same right as any other member of the Board to vote on
matters before the EPPC, to move or second a motion, and to speak for or
against proposals
D. Vice-Chair Responsibilities:
1. Assist the Chair as requested
2. Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chair
3. Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chair in the event the
Chair is absent or unable to act
E. Chair Pro Tem. In the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair at a given meeting,
the Commission may elect a voting member to serve as Chair for the duration of
that meeting.
V. STAFF ROLE
Assigned staff member for Community Development is responsible for proper
notification of meeting, preparation and distribution of agenda, assembly of packet and
taking minutes for all meetings.
VI. ATTENDANCE
Regular attendance by the members of the EPPC is expected. In the event any
member misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings or a total of four (4) regular
meetings in a calendar year, the Town Board may remove its appointed member for
neglect of duty and designate a new member to fill the vacancy.
1515
VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Recommendations for amendments to these bylaws may be adopted at any regular or
special meeting of the EPPC by a majority of the membership of the EPPC provided
that notice of such possible amendments is given to all members at least 5 days prior to
the meeting at which action is to be taken. Any amendments shall be subject to
approval by the Town Board.
VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN POLICIES
A. In addition to these bylaws, the EPPC shall operate in compliance with the
adopted Town Board policy on Town Committees, Policy 102, as amended. The
terms of this policy are incorporated into these bylaws by this reference. A copy
of the policy, along with these bylaws, shall be provided to each member at the
time of their appointment.
B. Failure to comply with applicable Town policies may be grounds for an official
reprimand or censure by the EPPC and/or a recommendation to the Town Board
for removal.
IX. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
All members of the EPPC are subject to the standards of conduct under the State of
Colorado Code of Ethics, Sections 24-18-101 et seq., C.R.S., and Article XXIX of the
Colorado Constitution (Amendment 41). At the time of introduction of an individual item
on the EPPC agenda in which the member has a conflict of interest, the member shall
state that he or she has a conflict of interest and then abstain from participating and
voting on the matter. A member having a conflict of interest on any matter shall not
attempt to influence other members of the EPPC at any time with regard to said matter.
Adopted this ___ day of ______________, 2021
ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
By: ________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Town Attorney
1616
00ESTESPARKPLANNINGCOMMISSIONBYLAWS[AdoptedSpring2020]I.ROLETheEstesParkPlanningCommission(“Commission”)isestablishedundersection2.1(C)oftheEstesParkDevelopmentCode.TheCommissionexercisestheauthoritygiventoitbytheTownBoardasoutlinedbelow:1.PerformallofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofamunicipalplanningcommissionpursuanttoColoradolaw;2.PerformallofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofthePlanningCommissionasdescribedintheEstesParkDevelopmentCode;and3.MakerecommendationstoTownBoardregardingtheTown’sComprehensivePlan,providedthatfinaladoptionoftheComprehensivePlanshallbeatthediscretionoftheTownBoard.II.MEETINGSA.RegularMeetings.RegularmeetingsshallbeheldthethirdTuesdayofeachmonth,beginningat1:30PM.Atmeetings,the CommissionshallconsiderallmattersproperlybroughtbeforetheCommissionas scheduleditems.IfanychangeismadetothestartingtimeofaCommissionmeeting,eitherbytheCommunityDevelopmentDirectororbytheCommissionataprevious meeting, Commissionmembersshallbenotifiedofsuchchangeatleastfivedayspriortothemeeting.B.StudySessions.StudysessionsoftheCommissionmaybescheduledbytheCommissionortheCommunityDevelopmentDirectorasneeded.Noofficialaction shallbetakenandnoquorumshallberequiredforthestudysession.The studysessionshallbeopentothepublic.UnlessrequestedbytheChair,nopubliccommentshallbetakeninastudysession.C.SpecialMeetings.Specialmeetingsmaybeheldat any time uponcallbytheChair,theCommission,ortheCommunityDevelopmentDirector. Noticeofatleastthree(3)calendardaysshallbegiventoeach memberoftheCommission.Thetime,place, andpurposeofthespecialmeetingshallbespecifiedinthenoticetothe Commissioners.PublicnoticeofthemeetingshallbegiveninaccordancewithColoradoRevisedStatutesSec.24-6-402(2)(c).D.OpenMeetings.Allmeetingsareopentothepublic.ActionoftheCommissionshallbeinfullcompliancewithColoradostatutesgoverningopenmeetings.III.MEMBERSANDQUORUMA.Membership.TheCommissionconsistsof five(5)votingmembers,asprovidedintheDevelopmentCode.1717
00B.Quorum.Aquorumfortransactionofbusinessshallconsistofthree(3)members.Inameetingwhereaquorumisnotpresent,noactionshall betaken,andallscheduledmailersshallberescheduledforhearingatthenextregularlyscheduledCommissionmeeting,orataspecialmeeting.C.Action.ActionbytheCommission shallbebymajorityvoteofthemembersattendinganyregularorspecialmeetingatwhich aquorumispresent,unlessotherwiseprovidedbylaworordinance.D.Liaison.TheTownBoardmayappointoneofitsmembersasaliaisontotheCommission,whoshallreceive copiesofallnotices,documents,andrecordsofproceedingsoftheCommissionwhichanyCommissionerwouldalsoreceive.IV.OFFICERSA.Officers.Thereshall beaChairandaViceChairfortheCommission. Eachshallserveforaone-yearterm.TheChair andVice-ChairshallbechosenbymajorityvoteofmembersoftheCommission.TheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentPlanningDivisionAdministrativeAssistant,orhisorherdesignee,shallserveasRecordingSecretary.B.Elections.Officersshallbeelectedbythemembersannually,atthefirstregularlyscheduledmeetingofeachyearorassoonthereafteraspracticable.NotificationofwhoiselectedChair andViceChairwillbesenttotheTown Clerk.C.Chairpersonresponsibilities:1.Shallpreside atallmeetingsatwhich(s)heispresent;2.Shallensurethatallmeetingsareconductedwithdecorumandefficiency;3.MaycallspecialmeetingsinaccordancewiththeBylaws;4.ShallsignanydocumentsonbehalfoftheCommission;5.ShallseethatdecisionsoftheCommissionareproperlytaken;6.AsanyothermemberoftheCommission,shallvoteonmattersbeforetheCommission,maymakeorsecondmotions,andmayspeakfororagainstproposals.D.Vice-Chairpersonresponsibilities:Presideovermeetingsand performtheotherdutiesoftheChairintheeventtheChairisabsentorunableto act.E.RecordingSecretaryresponsibilities:1.Ailestthesignatureofthe ChairorViceChaironthedocumentsoftheCommission;2.PrepareandkeeptheminutesofallmeetingsoftheCommissioninanappropriateanddesignatedfile;3.GiveandserveallnoticesrequiredbylawortheseBylaws;4.PreparetheagendainconsultationwiththeChairforallmeetingsoftheCommission;5.BecustodianofCommissionrecords;1818
006.InformtheCommissionofcorrespondencerelatingtobusinessofthe Commissionandattendtosuchcorrespondence.V.MEETINGPROCEDURESA.ParliamentaryProcedure.TheChairshallpresideinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptednormsfortheconductofparliamentaryprocedure.TheCommissionmayoverturnaparhamentarydeterminationoftheChairbymajorityvote.RobertsRulesofOrdermaybeconsideredasaparliamentaryguide.TheTownAttorneyshallserveasaparliamentaryprocedureresource.B.PublicInvitedtobeHeard.TheChairmayallowpersonalappearancesatthebeginningofeachregularmeetingbyanypersondesiringtospeakonamatternotontheagenda.TheCommissionshall nottakeactiononitemspresentedundersuchpersonalappearances.Anystatementmadeshallberelevantto landusemailersandshallbenotmorethan threeminutesperpersoninduration.TheChairshallrequestthatallpersonsso appearingidentifythemselvesbynameandaddress.C.ConsentAgenda.Itemsontheconsentagendamaybeapprovedintheaggregatebyasinglemotion.AnyCommissionermayremoveanyitemfromtheconsentagenda.Removeditemsshallbeheardfollowingthedispositionoftheremainingconsentagenda,andshall bediscussedandvotedonseparately.D.FormalAction.Eachformalactionrequiredbylaworordinanceshallbeembodiedinaformalmotionorresolution.E.ReviewCriteria.Thoseitemstobeconsideredwhichrequirereviewpursuanttoadoptedcriteriashallbeconsideredinthecontextofsuchcriteria.TheCommissionshallstatefindingsbasedonthecriteriawhentakingactiononsuchanitem.F.ChairProTern.IntheeventtheChairandtheViceChairarebothabsentorunabletoactinaregularorspecialmeetingwhereaquorumhasbeenmet,anothermemberoftheCommissionshallbechosenbytheCommissiontoperformtheresponsibilitiesoftheChairforthemeeting.G.TimelyConclusionofMeetings.Regularmeetingsshallendnolaterthan5:00PMunlesstheCommissionapprovesanextensiontothemeetingbyatwo-thirds(2/3)majorityvote.Anyitemontheagendawhichcannotbeheardandconsideredbytheconclusionofthemeetingmay,asprovidedbytheDevelopmentCode,be continueduntilandheardatthenextregularlyscheduledmeeting,oraspecialmeeting,andshallhavepriorityover anyothermatterstobeheardandconsidered.H.CancellationofMeetings.RegularlyscheduledmeetingsoftheCommissionmaybecanceledorrescheduledupondeterminationbytheChair,IntheeventnoapplicationhasbeenreceivedforhearingbytheCommissionat anyregularlyscheduledmeeting,andintheabsenceofother pressingbusiness,theCommunityDevelopmentDirectormaycancelthemeeting.1919
00VI.ATTENDANCEAllmembersshallattendallmeetings,includingspecialmeetings,oftheCommission,ifpossible.Intheeventanymembermissesthree(3)consecutive regular meetingsoratotaloffour(4)regularmeetingsinacalendaryear,theCommission mayreportsuchabsenteeismtotheTownBoard.VII.COMPLIANCEWITHTOWNPOLICIESA.CompliancewithTownPolicies.InadditiontotheseBylaws,theCommissionoperatesunderthetermsoftheTownofEstesParkGovernancePolicy102,asamendedfromtimetotime.ThePolicytermsareincorporatedintotheseBylawsbythisreference.AcopyofthatPolicy,alongwiththeseBylaws,shall beprovidedtoeachmemberatthetimeoftheirappointment.B.VolunteerClassification.ParticipationasamemberoftheCommissionisdoneofone’sownfreewill inthecontextofvolunteerism.VolunteersappointedbytheTownBoardwillactinaccordancetoanyadoptedTownvolunteer manualorpolicy.VIII.CONFLICTOFINTERESTAllmembersoftheCommissionaresubjecttothestandardsofconductundertheStateofColoradoCodeofEthics,Sections24-18-101etseq.,CR5.,andArticleXXIXoftheColoradoConstitution(Amendment41).AtthetimeofintroductionofanindividualitemontheCommissionagendainwhichthememberhasaconflictofinterest,themembershallstatethatheorshehasaconflictofinterestandthenabstainfromparticipatingandvotingonthematter.AmemberhavingaconflictofinterestonanymattershallnotattempttoinfluenceothermembersoftheCommissionat any timewithregardtosaid matter.AdoptedthisdayofMIW_Q’IA,2020ESTESPA BOARDOFTRUSTEESBy:________________ToddJirsa,Ma or2020
2121
Memo
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Park Planning Commission
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: September 21, 2021
RE: Amendment to the Estes Park Development Code to remove existing
“Wireless Telecommunications Facilities” Section, and replace it with an
updated and revised “Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) Chapter
Planning Commission Objective:
Review and provide a recommendation for a proposed text amendment to the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC), to adopt completely new “Wireless Communication Facilities”
(WCF) regulations.
Code Amendment Objective:
This proposed amendment to the EPDC is primarily to adopt new WCF Chapter. The
amendment deletes the existing wireless section within Chapter 5 of the EPDC, and adds a new
Chapter 14. To ensure consistency with the proposed new WCF chapter, other Code sections
require revision as well.
The changes to the EPDC are summarized as follows:
1. Delete the EPDC’s existing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Section within
Chapter 5 Use Regulations, Specifically Section 5.1.T.
2. Add an entirely new Chapter 14 Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF).
3. Certain WCFs would be allowable only with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
With that, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.16 Conditional Use
Permit would be amended to add a reference to the new Chapter 14.
4. Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.2.G. Summary Table, Standard
Development Review by Application Type would be amended. A “Conditional Use
Permit” (CUP) would now require a Neighborhood and Community Meeting.
5. Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Table 4 – 1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
and Table 4 – 4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts would each be
amended where specific types of WCF uses are to be permitted by right or by approval
of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as applicable.
2222
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 EPPC
CODE AMENDMENT, WCF REGULATIONS PAGE 2 OF 4
6. Chapter 13, Definitions will have certain definitions deleted, with WCF related definitions
being included as part of the new Chapter 14.
Background, Discussion:
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) regulations generally apply to facilities that involve
“personal wireless services.” Cellular/mobile (“cell phone”) providers construct and erect the
vast majority of these facilities, which include antennas, base stations, support equipment,
alternative tower structures, and Towers.
The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) was adopted in 2000, and included the current
wireless tower/antenna regulations. From the EVDC’s adoption in 2000, through April 2019, the
EVDC planning area included the Town of Estes Park, along with areas of unincorporated
Larimer County within the Estes Valley. It seemed reasonable when drafting the EVDC to tie
the EVDC wireless regulations to the Larimer County Land Use Code’s wireless regulations.
This was written, under the EVDC and now the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) Section
5.1.T.3., to require the following:
“Compliance with Larimer County Wireless Facilities Siting Regulations. All
telecommunications facilities shall comply with the purpose and standards set forth in
the Larimer County Land Use Code, §16, “Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
Facilities,” including but not limited to the following provisions contained therein:.”
The EPDC Section 5.1.T.3. is attached, as Attachment A. It goes on to require compliance with
numerous very specific Subsections of Larimer County’s §16. This Section would be deleted
with this code amendment.
Larimer County’s wireless regulations that were in place in 2000 were later completely rewritten.
The new §16 was adopted by Larimer County in October 2019. These new County regulations
had no correlation or ties to the previous, which leaves the EPDC’s Section 5.1.T. referencing
and requiring compliance with an obsolete County Code Section.
That situation in and of itself necessitates revising the EPDC’s WCF regulations. Furthermore,
the existing wireless regulations were drafted well over 20 years ago. Much of the technology
and terminology has changed considerably in that time.
The current regulations were drafted by Mr. Brandon Dittman of Kissinger & Fellman, P.C. Mr.
Dittman is Special Counsel retained by the Town for wireless and related matters. As this new
wireless chapter was initially drafted a few years ago, it was recently revised and updated to
ensure consistency with the latest Federal standards.
Staff recommends the Estes Park Planning Commission recommend approval of the language
in Exhibit A 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;”
2323
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 EPPC
CODE AMENDMENT, WCF REGULATIONS PAGE 3 OF 4
Staff Finding:
Although the EPDC states this finding is applicable to a proposed “text amendment” such as
that being proposed, staff notes this finding 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. WCF regulations would be applicable
town wide. 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 Code Amendment. 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 WCF regulations that are in line with current technology, terminology and are
consistent with the latest applicable Federal regulations.
Disadvantages:
• None.
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 code
amendment to the Estes Park Development Code as presented in Exhibit A as recommended
by staff 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).
2424
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 EPPC
CODE AMENDMENT, WCF REGULATIONS PAGE 4 OF 4
DENIAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees DENY the code 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 5, Use Regulations, Section 5.1.T. Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities
EPDC Chapter 14, Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) (Completely new text, not
in red underline font)
EPDC Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.2.G. Summary Table,
Standard Development Review by Application Type
EPDC Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.16 – Conditional Use
Permit
EPDC Chapter 4, Zoning Districts Table 4 – 1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning
Districts
Chapter 4, Zoning Districts Table 4 – 4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Chapter 13, Definitions
2525
CHAPTER 5. - USE REGULATIONS
§ 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
T. Reserved. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. All wireless telecommunications
facilities shall be subject to the following standards:
1. General.
a. All telecommunications facilities shall comply with the standards of this Code, all applicable
standards of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and all applicable requirements of
the Federal Aviation Administration.
b. Building permits for a facility shall not be issued until the facility is approved through the
development plan or special review process.
2. Microcell Antenna Towers.
a. Microcell antenna towers shall be permitted by right in the zoning districts shown in
Tables 4-1 and 4-4, provided that the following conditions are met:
(1)The tower is thirty (30) feet in height or less; and
(2)The tower is placed two hundred (200) feet or less from the right-of-way line of U.S.
Highway 34 or 36 or Colorado Highway 7; and the tower is placed on a lot on which is located
any of the following uses:
(a)Schools;
(b)Hospitals; or
(c)Police or fire station; or
(3)The tower is placed at a public utility substation or within a high-tension power line
easement.
b. Microcell antenna towers that are higher than thirty (30) feet and/or do not satisfy the
locational criteria set forth in paragraph a above shall only be permitted by special review.
3. Compliance with the Larimer County Wireless Facilities Siting Regulations. All
telecommunications facilities shall comply with the purpose and standards set forth in the
Larimer County Land Use Code, §16, "Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities,"
including but not limited to the following provisions contained therein:
a. §16.1.2.B, "Preferred CMRS Facilities";
b. §16.1.2.C, "Facilities on Residential Properties";
c.§16.1.2.D, "Facilities at Historic Sites and Visually Sensitive Areas," except that for historic
sites located within the Town of Estes Park, the Board of Trustees shall be the entity with sole
authority to allow siting of facilities on a historic site or structure. In addition, to the maximum
extent feasible, siting of facilities shall not occur in public open areas or parks.
c. §16.1.2.E, "Radial Spacing";
e. §16.1.2.F, "Temporary CMRS Facilities";
2626
f. §16.1.3, "Requirements and Performance Standards," except that the following standards
shall apply in lieu of the provisions set forth therein:
(1)Wherever reference is made to the "B, C, I and I-1" zoning districts in §16.1.3, the standard
shall be interpreted to apply to all nonresidential zoning districts established in this Code,
except the A-1 Accommodations zoning district;
(2)Wherever reference is made to the "E, E-1, RE, RE-1, R, R-1, R-2, FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1, M,
M-1, A, T, O or AP" zoning districts in §16.1.3, the standards shall be interpreted to apply to
all residential zoning districts and the A-1 Accommodations zoning district established in this
Code;
(3)Wherever reference is made to the decision-making authority of the "Planning Director" in
§16.1.3, the standard or provision shall be interpreted to mean that Staff, as the term "Staff" is
defined in this Code, shall have the decision-making authority at issue; and
(4)Wherever reference is made to Larimer County Board of County Commissioners in §16.1.3,
the standard or provision shall be interpreted to mean that the Board of Trustees shall have
decision-making authority if the proposed facility is located within the jurisdiction of the Town
of Estes Park.
g.§16.1.4, "Application," which shall be required for all proposed wireless telecommunication
facilities subject to development plan review or special review.
h.§16.1.6, "Information Disclosure and Sharing," except that wherever reference is made to
the discretion or decision-making authority of the "Planning Director," the provision shall be
interpreted to mean that Staff, as the term "Staff" is defined in this Code, shall have such
discretion or authority.
4. Outside Experts and Disputes.
a. Siting of wireless telecommunication facilities may involve complex technical issues
that require review and input by outside experts. Staff may require the Applicant to pay the
reasonable costs of a third-party technical study of a proposed facility. Selection of expert(s)
to review the proposal shall be at the sole discretion of the Decision-Making Body.
b. If an Applicant for a wireless telecommunications facility claims that one (1) of more
standards of this Code are inconsistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 or
would prohibit the effective provision of wireless communications within the relevant market
area, the Decision-Making Body may require that the application be reviewed by a qualified
engineer for a determination of whether compliance with one (1) or more standards of this
Code would prohibit effective service. Any costs shall be charged to the Applicant.
2727
Chapter 14 Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs)
§ 14.1 – INTENT AND PURPOSE
In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents, businesses, and other
stakeholders while protecting the public, health, safety, and general welfare of the
community, the Town Board of Trustees finds that these regulations are necessary to:
(a) Provide for the managed development and installation, maintenance,
modification, and removal of wireless communications infrastructure in the Town
with the fewest number of wireless communications facilities (WCFs) to complete
a network without unreasonably discriminating against wireless communications
providers of functionally equivalent services, including all of those who install,
maintain, operate, and remove WCFs;
(b) Promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare by reducing the
visibility of WCFs to the fullest extent possible through techniques including but
not limited to concealment design techniques and undergrounding of WCFs and
the equipment associated therewith;
(c) Encourage the deployment of smaller, less intrusive WCFs to supplement
existing larger WCFs;
(d) Encourage the use of wall-mounted panel antennas;
(e) Encourage roof-mounted antennas only when wall-mounted antennas will not
provide adequate service or are not otherwise feasible;
(f) Encourage the location of Towers in non-residential locations in a manner that
minimizes the total number of Towers needed throughout the community;
(g) Encourage, strongly, the Collocation of WCFs on new and Existing Sites;
(h) Encourage owners and users of Antennas and Towers to locate them, to the
extent possible, in locations where the adverse impact to the community is
minimized;
(i) Enhance the ability of wireless communications service providers to provide such
services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently;
(j) Effectively manage WCFs in the Right-of-Way; and
(k) Manage amateur radio facilities and over-the-air devices in the Town.
2828
§ 14.2 – DEFINITIONS
Alternative Tower Structure means man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light
poles, buildings, and similar alternative design mounting structures that conceal where
technically feasible the presence of WCFs to make them architecturally compatible with
the surrounding area pursuant to this Chapter. A stand-alone pole in the Right-of-Way
that accommodates Small Cell Facilities is considered an Alternative Tower Structure
provided it meets the concealment standards of this Chapter. Alternative Tower
Structures are not considered Towers, for the purposes of this Chapter.
Antenna means any device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic
waves such as, but not limited to panel antennas, reflecting discs, microwave dishes,
whip antennas, directional and non-directional antennas consisting of one or more
elements, multiple antenna configurations, or other similar devices and configurations.
This definition includes exterior apparatus designed for telephone, radio, or television
communications through the sending and/or receiving of wireless communications
signals.
Base Station means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-
licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a
communications network. The definition of Base Station does not include or
encompass a Tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a Tower.
Base Station does include, without limitation:
1. equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private
broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services
and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul that, at the time the
relevant application is filed with the Town under this Code, and has been
reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under
another state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not
built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support; and
2. radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup
power supplied, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological
configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems (“DAS”) and small-cell
networks) that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the Town under
this Code, has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting
process, or under another state or local regulatory review process, even if the
structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support.
The definition of Base Station does not include any structure that, at the time the
relevant application is filed with the Town, does not support or house equipment
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
Camouflage or Camouflage Design Techniques means measures used in the design
and siting of Wireless Communication Facilities so as to minimize or eliminate the visual
impact of such facilities to surrounding uses. A WCF Site utilizes Camouflage Design
Techniques when it (i) is integrated as an architectural feature of an existing structure
such as a cupola, or (ii) is integrated in an outdoor fixture such as a flagpole, while still
2929
appearing to some extent as a WCF. This definition does not include the use of
Concealment design elements so that a facility looks like something other than a
wireless Tower or Base Station.
Collocation:
1. For the purposes of Eligible Facilities Requests, means the mounting or
installation of transmission equipment on an Eligible Support Structure for the
purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for
communications purposes.
2. For the purposes of facilities subject to shot clocks governed by 47 U.S.C. Sec.
332, means attachment of facilities to existing structures, regardless of whether
the structure or location has previously been zoned for wireless facilities.
Concealment means the utilization of elements of stealth design in a facility so that the
facility looks to be something other than a wireless Tower or Base Station. Language
such as “stealth,” “camouflage,” or similar in any permit or other document required by
this Code is included in this definition to the extent such permit or other document
reflects an intent at the time of approval to condition the site’s approval on a design that
looks like something else. Concealment can further include a design which mimics and
is consistent with the nearby natural, or architectural features (such as an artificial tree),
or is incorporated into (including without limitation, being attached to the exterior of such
facility and painted to match it) or replaces existing permitted facilities (including without
limitation, stop signs or other traffic signs or freestanding light standards) so that the
presence of the WCF is not apparent. This definition does not include conditions that
merely minimize visual impact but do not incorporate Concealment design elements so
that the facility looks like something other than a wireless Tower or Base Station.
Eligible Facilities Request means any request for modification of an Existing Tower or
Base Station that does not Substantially Change the physical dimensions of such Tower
or Base Station involving: (i) collocation of new Transmission Equipment, (ii) removal of
Transmission Equipment, or (iii) replacement of Transmission Equipment.
Eligible Support Structure means any Tower or Base Station as defined in this Section,
provided that it is Existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the Town
under this Section.
Equipment Cabinet means cabinet or building used to house equipment used by
telecommunication providers at a Wireless Communications Facility. This definition
does not include relatively small electronic components, such as remote radio units,
radio transceivers, amplifiers, or other devices mounted behind antennas, if they are not
used as physical containers for smaller, distinct devices.
Existing Tower or Base Station means a constructed Tower or Base Station that was
reviewed, approved, and lawfully constructed in accordance with all requirements of
applicable law as of the time it was built, for example, a Tower that exists as a legal,
non-conforming use and was lawfully constructed is Existing for purposes of this
definition.
3030
FAA means the Federal Aviation Administration.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission.
Microcell means a small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15
inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, that is no
more than eleven inches in length.
OTARD means an Over-the-Air Receiving Device.
OTARD Antenna means (i) An antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast
satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, that is one meter or less in
diameter; or (ii) an antenna that is designed to receive video programming services via
multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution services,
instruction television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, and that is
one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; or (iii) an antenna that is
designed to receive television broadcast signals.
OTARD Antenna Structure means any pole, tower, or other structure designed and
intended to support an OTARD Antenna.
Related Accessory Equipment means the Transmission Equipment customarily used
with, and incidental to WCF antennas, including by way of example, coaxial or fiber-
optic cable, regular and backup power supply and remote radio units.
Right-of-Way as used within this Chapter means any public street or road that is
dedicated to public use for vehicular traffic within Town limits, except for those rights-of-
way owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Site, in the context of this Chapter for Towers and Eligible Support Structures, means
the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the Tower or
Eligible Support Structure and any access or utility easements currently related to the
Site. For Alternative Tower Structures, Base Stations and Small Cell Facilities in the
Right-of-Way, a Site is further restricted to that area comprising the base of the
structure and to other Related Accessory Equipment already installed on the ground.
Small Cell Facility means a WCF where each antenna is located inside an enclosure of
no more than three cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed
elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary
enclosure of no more than three cubic feet; and primary equipment enclosures are no
larger than seventeen cubic feet in volume. The following associated equipment may
be located outside of the primary equipment enclosure and, if so located, is not included
in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meter, concealment,
telecommunications demarcation box, ground-based enclosure, backup power systems,
grounding equipment, wiring, power transfer switch and cut-off switch.
Substantial Change means a modification that substantially changes the physical
dimensions of an Eligible Support Structure, if after the modification, the structure meets
any of the following criteria:
3131
1. For Towers other than Alternative Tower Structures, it increases the height of the
Tower by more than ten (10) percent or by the height of one additional antenna
array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20)
feet, whichever is greater, as measured from the top of an existing antenna to the
bottom of a proposed new antenna; for other Eligible Support Structures, it
increases the height of the structure by more than ten percent or more than ten
feet, whichever is greater, as measured from the top of an existing antenna to the
bottom of a proposed new antenna;
2. For Towers, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the Tower that
would protrude from the edge of the Tower more than twenty (20) feet, or more
than the width of the Tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever
is greater; for Eligible Support Structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to
the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by
more than six (6) feet;
3. For any Eligible Support Structure, it involves installation of more than the
standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, as
determined on a case-by-case basis based on the location of the Eligible Support
Structure but not to exceed four cabinets per application; or for Base Stations, it
involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no
pre-existing ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves
installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height
or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure;
4. For any Eligible Support Structure, it entails any excavation or deployment
outside the current Site;
5. For any Eligible Support Structure, it would defeat the Concealment elements of
the Eligible Support Structure by causing a reasonable person to view the
structure’s intended stealth design as no longer effective; or
6. For any Eligible Support Structure, it does not comply with record evidence of
conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification
of the Eligible Support Structure or Base Station equipment, unless the
noncompliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of
cabinets, or new excavation that would not exceed the thresholds identified in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this definition.
Tower means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the sole or
primary purpose of supporting one or more FCC-licensed or authorized antennas and
their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless
communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public
safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services
such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site. The term includes self-
supporting lattice towers, guy towers, monopole towers, radio and television
transmission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone
3232
towers and the like. Alternative Tower Structures are not considered Towers, for the
purposes of this Chapter.
Transmission Equipment means equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC-
licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to,
radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power
supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications
services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as
well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave
backhaul.
Wireless Communications Facility or WCF means a facility used to provide personal
wireless services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(C); or wireless information
services provided to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available
directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or wireless utility monitoring
and control services. A WCF includes an antenna or antennas, including without
limitation, direction, omni-directional and parabolic antennas, base stations, support
equipment, alternative tower structures, and Towers. A WCF does not include a facility
entirely enclosed within a permitted building where the installation does not require a
modification of the exterior of the building; nor does it include a device attached to a
building, used for serving that building only and that is otherwise permitted under other
provisions of the Code. It does not include the support structure to which the WCF or its
components are attached if the use of such structures for WCFs is not the primary use.
The term does not include mobile transmitting devices used by wireless service
subscribers, such as vehicle or hand-held radios/telephones and their associated
transmitting Antennas, nor does it include other facilities specifically excluded from the
coverage of this Section.
§ 14.3 – APPLICABILITY
(a) The requirements set forth in this Section shall apply to all WCF applications for
Base Stations, Alternative Tower Structures, Alternative Tower Structures in the
Right of Way, Towers, Microcells, and Small Cells as defined in this Chapter. The
Staff or Decision-Making Body shall have the authority to waive any requirement,
standard, or process set forth in this Code, if the Staff or Decision-Making Body
makes a determination that the specific requirement, standard, or process is
preempted by federal or state law. Prior to applying the waiver to any pending
application, the Staff or Decision-Making Body shall make a written preemption
determination which shall identify the specific requirement, standard, or process
that is being waived and cite to the specific federal or state law provision that
preempts the specific Town requirement, standard, or process set forth in this
Code.
(b) The requirements set forth in this Section shall not apply to:
1. Amateur radio antenna, OTARD, and residential television reception/antenna
towers except as provided in Operational Standards, Section 14.4 below.
3333
2. Pre-existing WCFs. Any WCF for which a permit has been properly issued prior
to the effective date of this Chapter, shall not be required to meet the
requirements of this Chapter, other than the requirements of Section 14.4.
Changes and additions to pre-existing WCFs (including trading out of antennas
for an equal number of antennas) shall meet applicable requirements of this
Chapter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any modifications qualifying as an
Eligible Facilities Request shall be evaluated under Section 14.5(a)(5) and (8).
3. Miscellaneous Antennas. Antennas used for reception of television, multi-channel
video programming and radio such as OTARD Antennas, television broadcast
band antennas, and broadcast radio antennas, provided they meet any
applicable requirements related to accessory uses contained in this Code and
the requirement that the height be no more than the distance from the base to
the property line. Staff has the authority to approve modifications to the height
restriction related to OTARD Antennas and OTARD Antenna Structures, if in the
reasonable discretion of the Staff, modifications are necessary to comply with
federal law.
§14.4 – OPERATIONAL STANDARDS
(a) Federal Requirements. All WCFs shall meet the current standards and
regulations of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the federal government
with the authority to regulate WCFs. If such standards and regulations are
changed, then the owner of the WCF governed by this Section shall bring such
facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within the
time period mandated by the controlling federal agency. Failure to meet such
revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the
WCF at the owner’s expense.
(b) Radio Frequency Standards. All WCFs shall comply with federal standards for
radio frequency emissions. If concerns regarding compliance with radio
frequency emissions standards for a WCF have been made to the Town, the
Town may request that the owner or operator of the WCF provide information
demonstrating compliance. If such information is not sufficient, in the reasonable
discretion of the Town, to demonstrate compliance, the Town may request and
the owner or operator of the WCF shall submit a project implementation report
which provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency emissions of
all antennas installed at the subject site, and which compares the results with
established federal standards. If, upon review, the Town finds that the facility
does not meet federal standards, the Town may require corrective action within a
reasonable period of time, and if not corrected, may require removal of the WCF
pursuant to subsection (f) below. Any reasonable costs incurred by the Town,
including reasonable consulting costs to verify compliance with these
requirements, shall be paid by the owner or operator.
3434
(c) Signal Interference. All WCFs shall be designed and sited, consistent with
applicable federal regulations, so as not to cause interference with the normal
operation of radio, television, telephone and other communication services
utilized by adjacent residential and non-residential properties; nor shall any such
facilities interfere with any public safety communications. The Applicant shall
provide a written statement (“Signal Interference Letter”) from a qualified radio
frequency engineer, certifying that a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed facilities indicates no potential interference problems and shall allow
the Town to monitor interference levels with public safety communications during
this process.
(d) Legal Access. In all Applications for WCFs outside of the Right-of-Way, an
Applicant must warrant and represent that it owns or has lease rights to the Site.
Where an Applicant wishes to attach to a facility owned and operated by the
Power and Communications Department of the Town, the Applicant shall enter
into an attachment agreement with the Power and Communications Department.
(e) Operation and Maintenance. To ensure the structural integrity of WCFs, the
owner of a WCF shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with standards
contained in applicable local building and safety codes and applicable Power and
Communications Department regulations. If upon inspection, the Town
concludes that a WCF fails to comply with such codes, procedures, standards,
and regulations and constitutes a danger to persons, property or the
environment, then, upon written notice being provided to the owner of the WCF,
the owner shall have 30 days from the date of notice to bring such WCF into
compliance. Upon good cause shown by the owner, the Town’s Chief Building
Official may extend such compliance period not to exceed 90 days from the date
of said notice. If the owner fails to bring such WCF into compliance within said
time period, the Town may remove such WCF at the owner’s expense. If the
WCF poses an immediate danger to persons, property, or the environment the
Town may cause for the WCF to be immediately deactivated or removed. The
Town will provide notice of such immediate deactivation or removal to the
applicant as soon as practicable. No hazardous materials shall be permitted in
association with WCFs, except those necessary for the operations of the WCF
and only in accordance with all applicable laws governing such materials. These
requirements and remedies are cumulative and additional to all other applicable
requirements and remedies.
(f) Abandonment and Removal. If a WCF has not been in use for a period of three
months, the owner of the WCF shall notify the Town of the non-use and shall
indicate whether re-use is expected within the ensuing three months. Any WCF
that is not operated for a continuous period of six months shall be considered
abandoned. The Town, in its sole discretion, may require an abandoned WCF to
be removed. The owner of such WCF shall remove the same within 30 days of
receipt of written notice form the Town. If such WCF is not removed within said
30 days, the Town may remove it at the owner’s expense and any approved
3535
permits for the WCF shall be deemed to have expired. In addition to the
remedies described above, abandoned WCFs are declared to be a nuisance
under Title 8 of the Estes Park Municipal Code, including under sections
8.01.010, 8.04.040, and 8.04.050, and may be removed, abated, or disposed of,
and costs assessed, as provided therein.
§14.5 – DESIGN STANDARDS
(a) The requirements set forth in this Section shall apply to the location and design
of all WCFs governed by this Section as specified below; provided, however, that
the Decision-Making Body may waive these requirements if it determines that the
goals of this Section are better served thereby. To that end, WCFs shall be
designed and located to minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhood
and to maintain the character and appearance of the Town, consistent with other
provisions of this Code.
(b) Camouflage/Concealment. All WCFs and any Transmission Equipment shall, to
the extent possible, use camouflage design techniques including but not limited
to the use of materials, colors, textures, screening, undergrounding, landscaping,
or other design options in order to blend the WCF into the surrounding natural
setting and built environment. Design, materials and colors of WCFs shall be
compatible with the surrounding environment. Designs shall be compatible with
structures and vegetation on the same parcel and adjacent parcels.
1. Camouflage design may be of heightened importance where findings of particular
sensitivity are made (e.g., proximity to historic or aesthetically significant
structures, views, and/or community features). Should the Decision-Making
Body determine that WCFs are located in areas of high visibility, it may condition
its approval to require the WCFs to (where possible) be designed (e.g.,
camouflaged, placed underground, depressed, or located behind earth berms) to
minimize their profile.
2. The camouflage design may include the use of Alternative Tower Structures
should the Decision-Making Body determine that such design meets the intent of
this Code, and other camouflage is either infeasible or would be less effective at
minimizing the noticeability of the WCF.
3. The visible exterior surfaces of all WCFs, such as antennas, vaults, equipment
rooms, equipment enclosures, and tower structures, shall be constructed out of
non-reflective materials.
(c) Hazardous Materials. No hazardous materials shall be permitted in association with
WCFs, except those necessary for the operations of the WCF and only in
accordance with all applicable laws governing such materials.
(d) Siting:
3636
1. No portion of any WCF may extend beyond the property line.
2. Collocation. WCFs shall be designed and constructed to permit the facility to
accommodate WCFs from at least two wireless service providers on the same
WCF, unless the Applicant demonstrates that this is infeasible based upon
construction, engineering and design standards, or the Decision-Making Body
approves an alternative design that meets the purpose of such standards and
results in an aesthetic improvement over a strict interpretation of the standards.
No WCF owner or operator shall unreasonably exclude a competitor from using
the same facility or location. Upon request by Staff, the owner or operator shall
provide evidence explaining why collocation is not possible at a particular facility
or site.
3. WCFs shall be sited in a location that does not reduce the parking for the other
principal uses on the parcel below Code standards.
(e) Lighting. WCFs shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or
other applicable governmental authority, or unless the WCF is mounted on a light
pole or other similar structure primarily used for lighting purposes. If lighting is
required, the Applicant shall present the available lighting alternatives and may
only use the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding
views, in the determination of the Decision-Making Body. Lighting shall be
shielded or directed to the greatest extent possible so as to minimize the amount
of glare and light falling onto nearby properties, particularly residences, in
accordance with Section 7.9 of this Code.
(f) Landscaping and Fencing Requirements.
1. WCFs shall be sited in a manner that does not reduce the landscaped areas for
the other principal uses on the parcel below Code standards.
2. WCFs shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that screen the view of
the WCF from adjacent residential property. The standard buffer shall consist of
the front, side, and rear landscaped setback on the perimeter of the site. Where
the Decision-Making Body requires the Applicant to include additional
landscaping, the Decision-Making Body may require irrigation requirements for
the landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with Section 7.5 of this Code,
including the option of alternatives as provided in Section 7.5.C.2.
3. Where fencing is required by the Decision-Making Body, the fencing material
shall comply with Section 7.5.H of this Code.
4. Notwithstanding provisions in Section 7.5 of this Code, in locations where the
Decision-Making Body determines that the visual impact of the WCF would be
3737
minimal, the landscaping requirement may be reduced or waived altogether by
the Decision-Making Body.
(g) Noise. Noise generated on the site must not exceed the levels permitted in the
Town Municipal Code, except that a WCF owner or operator shall be permitted to
exceed Town Municipal Code noise standards for a reasonable period of time
during repairs, not to exceed two hours without prior authorization from the Town.
(h) Adjacent to Residential Uses. WCFs shall be sited in a manner that evaluates the
proximity of the facility to residential structures and residential zoning district
boundaries. When placed near residential property, the WCF shall be placed
adjacent to the common side yard property line between adjoining residential
properties, such that the WCF minimizes visual impacts equitably among
abutting properties. In the case of a corner lot, the WCF may be placed adjacent
to the common side yard property line between adjoining residential properties,
or on the corner formed by two intersecting streets. If these requirements are not
reasonably feasible from a construction, engineering or design perspective, the
Applicant may submit a written statement to Staff requesting the WCF be exempt
from these requirements. The Decision-Making Body may approve the waiver
request and may impose conditions on said approval as may be necessary to
minimize deviations from the foregoing standards.
(i) Additional design requirements shall be applicable to the various types of WCFs
as specified below:
1. Base Stations. If an Antenna is installed on a structure other than a Tower or
Alternative Tower Structure, such as a Base Station (including, but not limited to
the antennas and accessory equipment) it shall be of a neutral, non-reflective
color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting
structure, or uses other camouflage/concealment design techniques so as to
make the antenna and related facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible,
including for example, without limitation, painting the Antennas and accessory
equipment to match the structure. Additionally, any ground mounted equipment
shall be located in a manner necessary to address both public safety and
aesthetic concerns in the reasonable discretion of the Decision-Making Body,
and may, where appropriate, require a flush-to-grade underground equipment
vault.
2. Alternative Tower Structures not in the Right-of-Way.
a. Alternative Tower Structures shall be designed and constructed to look
like a building, facility, or structure typically found in the area;
b. Be camouflaged/concealed consistent with other existing natural or
manmade features in and near the location where the Alternative Tower
Structure will be located; and
3838
c. Equipment enclosures shall be located out of view as much as practicable.
3. Alternative Tower Structures in the Right-of-Way. Alternative Tower Structures in
the Right-of-Way shall meet all design criteria for Alternative Tower Structures
not in the Right-of-Way plus the following additional criteria:
a. Pole-mounted components of such structures shall be located on or within
an existing utility pole serving another utility; or be located on or within a
new utility pole where other utility distribution lines are aerial, if there are
no reasonable alternatives, the Applicant is authorized to construct the
new utility poles;
b. To the extent reasonably feasible, the Alternative Tower Structure shall be
consistent with the size and shape of the pole-mounted equipment
installed by communications companies on utility poles near the
Alternative Tower Structure;
c. The Alternative Tower Structure shall be designed and sized to minimize
the negative aesthetic impacts to the Right-of-Way;
d. Alternative Tower Structures shall be designed such that antenna
installations on traffic signal standards are placed in a manner so that the
size, appearance, visibility, and function of the signal will not be
considerably altered;
e. Any ground mounted equipment shall be located in a manner necessary to
address both public safety and aesthetic concerns in the reasonable
discretion of the Decision-Making Body, and may, where appropriate and
reasonably feasible based upon technical, construction and engineering
requirements, require a flush-to-grade underground equipment vault; and
f. The Alternative Tower Structure must not alter vehicular circulation or
parking within the Right-of-Way or impede vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian
access or visibility along the Right-of-Way. The Alternative Tower
Structure must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and every
other local, state, and federal law and regulation. No Alternative Tower
Structure may be located or maintained in a manner that causes
unreasonable interference. Unreasonable interference means any use of
the Right-of-Way that disrupts or interferes with its use by the Town, the
general public, or other person authorized to use or be present upon the
Right-of-Way, when there exists an alternative that would result in less
disruption or interference. Unreasonable interference includes any use of
the Right-of-Way that disrupts vehicular or pedestrian traffic, creates
interference with public utilities, or presents a hazard to public health,
safety, or welfare.
3939
g. The Alternative Tower Structure shall not be more than ten feet higher (as
measured from the ground to the top of the pole) than any existing utility
or traffic signal within 1000 feet of the pole or structure;
h. Any such Alternative Tower Structure shall in no case be higher than 40
feet from grade, unless such pole is already existing at a greater height.
Existing poles greater than 40 feet from grade shall not be modified to
extend beyond zoning district height limitations or extended by more than
15% of their original height, whichever is shorter.
i. Any Transmission Equipment placed on an existing Alternative Tower
Structure shall not extend more than 5 feet above the top of such pole;
j. No freestanding WCF shall be within 300 feet of another freestanding
WCF in the Right-of-Way. These separation requirements do not apply to
attachments made to existing Alternative Tower Structures. The Decision-
Making Body may exempt an Applicant from these requirements if the
Applicant demonstrates the need for the WCF and cannot satisfy these
requirements; and
k. Collocations are strongly encouraged and the number of poles within the
Rights-of-Way shall be limited as much as possible.
4. Towers (excluding Alternative Tower Structures and Alternative Tower Structures
in the Right-of-Way).
a. Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish, or, subject to any
applicable FAA standards, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce
visual obtrusiveness as determined by the Town;
b. Tower structures should use existing land forms, vegetation, and
structures to aid in screening the facility from view or blending in with the
surrounding built and natural environment;
c. Monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip in
accordance with best structural engineering design and practice;
d. All Towers shall be enclosed by security fencing or wall at least 6 feet in
height and shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti-climbing
device.
5. Related Accessory Equipment. Accessory equipment for all WCFs shall meet
the following requirements:
4040
a. All buildings, shelter, cabinets, and other accessory components shall be
grouped as closely as technically possible;
b. The total footprint coverage area of the WCF’s accessory equipment shall
not exceed 350 square feet;
c. No related accessory equipment or accessory structure shall exceed 12
feet in height;
d. Accessory equipment, including but not limited to remote radio units, shall
be located out of sight whenever possible by locating behind parapet walls
or within equipment enclosures. Where such alternate locations are not
available, the accessory equipment shall be camouflaged or concealed.
e. Accessory Equipment shall be of a neutral, non-reflective color that is
identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting
structure or uses other camouflage/concealment design techniques so as
to make the equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible, including, for
example, painting the equipment to match the structure.
§14.6 – REVIEW PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
(a) No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any
WCF may occur except after a written request from an applicant, reviewed and
approved by the Decision-Making Body in accordance with this Chapter; after
execution of a license agreement and/or pole attachment agreement with the
Town, if required, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its
owner; and upon issuance of all required building permits. All work done
pursuant to WCF applications must be completed in accordance with all
applicable building and safety requirements as set forth in this Code, applicable
Building Codes, Power and Communications Department Regulations, and any
other applicable regulations. All WCFs except Eligible Facilities Requests which
are reviewed under subsections (b) and (e) of this Section shall be reviewed
pursuant to the following procedures.
1. Submittal Requirements. Each applicant for a WCF shall be required to submit:
a. A completed application form;
b. A submittal fee;
c. A Signal Interference Letter;
d. An inventory of existing sites;
4141
e. A scaled site plan, photo simulation, scaled elevation view and other
supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation, signed and
sealed by appropriate qualified professionals, showing the location and
dimension of all improvements, including information concerning
topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height, setbacks, drives,
parking, fencing, landscaping, adjacent uses, and drainage.
f. Any other information deemed necessary by the Town to determine
compliance with this Section.
2. Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for a WCF shall provide to Staff a
narrative and map description of the applicant’s existing or then currently
proposed WCFs within the Town, and outside of the Town within one mile of its
boundaries. In addition, the applicant shall inform the Town generally of the
areas in which it believes WCFs may need to be located within the next three
years. The inventory list should identify the site name, site address or County
Parcel ID number, and a general description of the Facility (i.e., rooftop Antennas
and ground mounted equipment). This provision is not intended to be a
requirement that the applicant submit its business plan, proprietary information,
or make commitments regarding locations of WCFs within the Town. All
applicants for WCFs are to share general information, assist in the Town’s
infrastructure planning process, and promote Collocation by identifying areas in
which WCFs might be appropriately constructed for multiple users.
3. Applications for Base Stations, Alternative Tower Structures, and Alternative
Tower Structures within Right-of-Way. In all zoning districts, applications for Base
Stations, Alternative Tower Structures, and Alternative Tower Structures within
Right-of-Way, shall be reviewed by Staff for conformance to this Section and
Code using the applicable Development Plan review procedures set forth in this
Code.
4. Applications for Towers. In all zoning districts and planned unit developments, all
other Towers may be permitted only as a Conditional Use. WCFs shall be
reviewed for conformance to all applicable procedures and standards set forth in
Chapters 3 and 14 of this Code. All applications for Towers shall demonstrate
that other alternative design options such as Base Stations or Alternative Tower
Structures are not viable options as determined by the Town.
(b) Review Procedures for Eligible Facilities Requests.
1. Application. In all zoning districts and planned unit developments, Eligible
Facilities Requests for Collocation on or modification of an Existing Tower or
Base Station shall be considered a use by right subject to administrative review.
The Town shall prepare, and from time to time revise and make publicly
available, an application form which shall be limited to the information necessary
4242
for the Town to consider whether an application is an Eligible Facilities Request.
Such information may include, without limitation, whether the request:
a. Would result in a Substantial Change;
b. Violates a generally applicable law, regulations, or other rule codifying
objective standards reasonably related to public health and safety.
The application may not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business
case for the proposed modification or collocation.
2. Type of Review. Upon receipt of an application for an Eligible Facilities Request
pursuant to this Section, Staff shall review such application to determine whether
the application so qualifies.
3. Timeframe for Review. Subject to the tolling provisions of subparagraph d.
below, within 60 days of the date on which an applicant submits an application
seeking approval under this Section, the Town shall approve the Eligible
Facilities Request application unless it determines that the application is not
covered by this Subsection.
4. Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day review period begins to run
when the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement of the
Town and the Applicant, or in cases where Staff determines that the application
is incomplete:
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the Town must provide written
notice to the Applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application,
specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in
the application;
b. The timeframe for review begins running again when the Applicant makes
a supplemental written submission in response to the Town’s notice of
incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the Town will notify the Applicant
within 10 days whether the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices
pursuant to the procedures identified in subparagraph (a) above. In the
case of a second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the Town may
not specify missing information or documents that were not delineated in
the original notice of incompleteness.
5. Failure to Act. In the event the Town fails to act on a request seeking approval
for an Eligible Facilities Request under this Section within the timeframe for
review (accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed granted. The
deemed grant becomes effective when the Applicant notifies the Town in writing
4343
after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the
application has been deemed granted.
6. Interaction with Telecommunications Act Section 332(c)(7). If the Town
determines that the Applicant’s request is not an Eligible Facilities Request as
delineated in this Chapter, the presumptively reasonable timeframe under
Section 332(c)(7), as prescribed by the FCC’s Shot Clock order, will begin to run
from the written issuance of the Town’s decision that the application is not a
covered request. To the extent such information is necessary, the Town may
request additional information from the Applicant to evaluate the application
under Section 332(c)(7) reviews. The Town shall identify the need for any such
additional information together with the notice that the request is not an Eligible
Facilities Request, and if such additional information is requested, the reasonable
time frame under Section 332 (c)(7) will begin to run beginning on the date that
such additional information is received by the Town.
7. Procedures superseded by future federal decisions. The intent of this subsection
(b) is to restate currently applicable federal requirements, and not to create a
redundant set of municipal requirements. Should these federal requirements
materially change, by action of the FCC or a court of competent jurisdiction or in
any other effective manner, such requirements shall apply and shall supersede
the requirements of this subsection.
(c) Abandonment and Removal. Prior to approval, affidavits shall be required from
the owner of the property and from the Applicant acknowledging that each is
responsible for the removal of a WCF that is abandoned or is unused for a period
of six months.
(d) Decision. Any decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for a WCF, shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
in a written record and shall be provided to the applicant within ten (10) days the
decision. If the approval is for a concealed WCF, the written decision shall
specifically identify that the WCF is a concealed facility.
(e) Compliance with Applicable Law. Notwithstanding the approval of an application
for a new WCF or Collocation as described herein, all work done pursuant to
WCF applications must be completed in accordance with all applicable building,
structural, electrical, and safety requirements as set forth in Town Code and any
other applicable laws or regulations. In addition, all WCF applications shall
comply with the following:
1. Comply with any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal agency with
jurisdiction of the WCF;
2. Comply with public easements, covenants, conditions and/or restrictions on or
applicable to the underlying real property;
4444
3. Be maintained in good working condition and to the standards established at the
time of application approval or as otherwise required by applicable law; and
4. Remain free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism. Any
damage shall be repaired as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than
ten calendar days from the time of notification by the Town or after discovery by
the owner or operator of the Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any graffiti on
WCFs located in the rights-of-way or on other Town-owned property may be
removed by the Town at its discretion, and the owner and/or operator of the WCF
shall pay all costs of such removal within thirty (30) days after receipt of an
invoice from the Town.
(f) Compliance Report. Upon request by the Town, the Applicant shall provide a
compliance report within 45 days after installation of a WCF, demonstrating that
as installed and in operation, the WCF complies with all conditions of approval,
applicable Code requirements and standard regulations.
§14.7 – STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL.
(a) It is the intent of the Town to provide for approval of WCFs administratively in
cases where visual impacts are minimized, view corridors are protected, WCFs
utilize appropriate camouflage/concealment design techniques to avoid adverse
impacts on the surrounding area, and WCFs are designed, maintained, and
operated at all times to comply with the provisions of this Chapter and all
applicable law.
(b) WCFs that are not Eligible Facilities Requests shall be evaluated for approval
subject to compliance with the Design Standards of Section 14.5 and the
following criteria:
1. Base Station:
a. Such facilities shall be architecturally compatible with respect to
attachments, and colored to match or blend with the building or
structure to which they are attached;
b. The maximum protrusion of such facilities from the building or structure
face to which they are attached shall be 6 feet;
c. Wall mounted WCFs shall not extend above the roof’s highest point
above grade unless mounted to a penthouse; and
d. Roof mounted WCFs shall be approved only where an Applicant
demonstrates a wall mounted WCF is inadequate to provide service
and evaluated for approval based upon the following criteria:
4545
i. Roof mounted antennas shall extend no more than 12 feet above
the parapet of any flat roof or highest point above grade of a sloped
roof or penthouse to which they are attached;
ii. Roof mounted panel antennas shall extend no more than 7 feet
above the parapet of a flat roof or highest point above grade of a
sloped roof or penthouse to which they are mounted; and
iii. Other roof mounted Transmission Equipment shall extend no more
than 10 feet above any parapet of a flat roof upon which they may
be placed, and shall not be permitted on a sloped roof.
2. Alternative Tower Structures:
a. Such structures shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding
area;
b. Height and size of the proposed alternative tower structure shall be
minimized as much as possible;
c. Such structures shall be sited in a manner that evaluates the proximity of
the facility to residential structures and residential district boundaries;
d. Such structures should take into consideration the uses on adjacent and
nearby properties and the compatibility of the facility to these uses;
e. Such structures shall be compatible with the surrounding topography;
f. Such structures shall be compatible with the surrounding tree coverage
and foliage;
g. The design of the Site shall be compatible with the surrounding built
environment, with particular reference to design characteristics that have
the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness; and
h. Impact on the surrounding area of the proposed ingress and egress, if
any, shall be minimized as much as possible.
3. WCFs within Right-of-Way. An Alternative Tower Structure or Small Cell
Facility may be deployed in the Right-of-Way, including the utilization of a
traffic signal, street light pole, or similar structure within a Right-of-Way or
freestanding structure. Such facilities shall remain subject to the Alternative
Tower Structures standards of approval noted above and subject to the
following criteria below:
4646
a. The pole or structure must not be more than ten feet higher (as measured
from the ground to the top of the pole) than any existing utility or traffic
signal within 1000 feet of the pole or structure.
b. Any new pole for WCFs shall be separated from any other similar pole,
accessory equipment or wireless communication facility in the Right-of-
Way by a distance of at least 300 feet.
c. When placed near a residential property, the WCF shall be placed adjacent
to the common side yard property line between adjoining residential
properties, such that the WCF minimizes visual impacts equitably among
abutting properties. In the case of a corner lot, the WCF may be placed
adjacent to the common side yard property line between adjoining
residential properties, or on the corner formed by two intersecting streets.
d. Collocations are strongly encouraged and the number of poles within the
Right-of-Way should be limited as much as possible.
e. Equipment enclosures shall be located out of view as much as possible.
4. All Other Towers:
a. The height or size of the proposed Tower shall be compliant with the
restrictions of the underlying zoning district;
b. The Tower shall not be located so close to residential structures and
residential district boundaries that it will result in significant negative
impacts to residential activity;
c. The Tower shall be compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and
nearby properties;
d. The Tower shall be compatible with the surrounding topography;
e. The Tower shall be compatible with the surrounding tree coverage and
foliage;
f. The design of the Tower shall be compatible with the surrounding built
environment, with particular reference to design characteristics that have
the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness;
g. The proposed ingress and egress of the Tower shall result in no significant
negative impacts to the surrounding properties;
h. No new Towers shall be permitted unless the Applicant demonstrates to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Town that no existing WCFs can
4747
accommodate the needs that the Applicant proposes to address with its
Tower application. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing
WCF can accommodate these needs may consist of the following:
i. No existing WCFs with a suitable height are located within the
geographic area required to meet the Applicant's engineering
requirements;
ii. Existing WCFs do not have sufficient structural strength to support
Applicant's proposed WCF;
iii. The Applicant's proposed WCFs would not cause electromagnetic
interference with the WCFs on the existing WCFs or the existing WCF
would cause interference with the Applicant's proposed WCF; and
iv. The Applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that
render existing WCFs unsuitable for collocation.
(c) Setbacks and Separation. The following minimum setbacks and separation
requirements shall apply to all WCFs; provided, however, that the Decision-
Making Body may reduce standard setbacks and separation requirements if the
Applicant demonstrates that the goals of this Section can be better met by
reduced setback and separation requirements that protect the public health and
safety, view corridors, or minimize adverse impact. A Tower shall meet the
greatest of the following minimum setbacks from all property lines:
a. The setback for a principal building within the applicable zoning district;
b. Twenty-five percent of the facility height, including WCFs and Related
Accessory Equipment; and
c. The distance of the Tower height, including antennas, to the nearest
habitable structure, unless the applicant demonstrates the Tower would
collapse within a smaller distance with no impacts to surrounding
habitable structures.
4848
G.Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type.Step 1 Pre-Application Conference Step 2 Neighborhood& CommunityMeeting Step 3 Application/ CompletenessCertification Step 4 Staff Review& Report Step 5 EPVPC Action Step 6 Board Action Conditional Use Permit (Ord. 21-10 §1) M N/A M A A A APP "V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable "APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to Text) Table 3.24949
CHAPTER 3. - REVIEW PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
§ 3.16 - Conditional Use Permit
A. Procedures for Approval on Conditional Use Permit. Applications for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit shall follow the standard development approval process set forth
in §3.2 of this Chapter, except for the following modifications.
B. Standards for Review. All applications for a conditional use permit shall demon strate
compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use
Regulations," or Chapter 14, “Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs)” of this Code, as
applicable, and the following requirement:
The application for the proposed conditional use permits mitigates, to the maximum extent
feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services and
the environment.
C. Lapse.
1. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence constru ction
or operation with regard to the conditional use permit approval within one (1) year
of receiving approval of the conditional use permit, or as otherwise explicitly set
forth in the original approval, shall automatically terminate the conditional use
permit.
2. If a legally established conditional use permit is abandoned or discontinued for a
period of one (1) consecutive year or more, then the decision originally approving
such conditional use permit shall automatically terminate.
3. Prior to expiration of a conditional use permit, the property owner may file for a
one year extension. Such extension may be granted by the Community
Development Director upon determination that there have been no changes to the
Estes Valley Park Development Code that would affect the approved conditional
use permit or conditions of approval.
5050
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review “CUP” = Permitted by Conditional Use Permit "—" = Prohibited RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES Wireless Telecommuni- cation Facilities Attached and concealed (stealth) antennas P P P P P P P P §5.1T Antenna towers, microcells P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 — — P/S1 P/S1 §5.1T Wireless Communication Facilities Base Stations, Alternative Tower Structures, Alternative Tower Structures within right-of-way P P P P P P P P Chapter 14 Wireless TelecCommunication Facilities All other Towers CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Chapter 14 Wireless TelecCommunication Facilities 5151
§ 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review “CUP” = Permitted by Conditional Use Permit "—" = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Attached & concealed (stealth) antennas P P P P P P P §5.1.T The antenna shall be sited so that it does not rise more than 10 feet above the height of the structure to which it is attached Antenna towers, temporary P P P P P P P §5.1.T Antenna tower height shall not exceed 30 feet. Antenna towers, microcells P/S1 — P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 §5.1.T Antenna towers, other P P P P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 §5.1.T in the A, A-1, and CD districts, antenna tower height shall not exceed 30 feet and antenna towers shall only be sited at public utility substations or in high-tension power line easements Wireless Communication Facilities Base Stations, Alternative Tower Structures, Alternative Tower Structures within right-of-way P P P P P P P Chapter 14 Wireless TelecCommunication Facilities All other Towers CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Chapter 14 Wireless TelecCommunication Facilities 5252
CHAPTER 13. – DEFINITIONS
§ 13.2 – Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples
49. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities.
a. General Definition : The equipment, physical plant and portion of the property and/or
building used to provide Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS), including but not
limited to cables and wires, conduits, pedestals, antennas, towers, concealed
structures, electronic devices, equipment buildings and cabinets, landscaping, fencing
and screening and parking areas.
b. Exceptions : This use classification does not include the following:
(1) Receive-only antennas and amateur radio facilities that are owned and operated by
a federally licensed amateur radio station operator are not included in this classification.
(2) Radio and television studios, which are classified as "Office" uses.
(3) Radio and television broadcast facilities that are public safety facilities, which are
classified as "Major Utilities."
§ 13.3 - Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases
16. Antenna shall mean an exterior transmitting or receiving device used in
telecommunications that radiates or captures radio signals.
17. Antenna, Attached shall mean an antenna mounted on an existing building, silo,
smokestack, water tower, utility or power pole or a support structure other than an
antenna tower.
18. Antenna, Concealed shall mean an antenna with a support structure that screens
or camouflages the presence of antennas and/or towers from public view, in a manner
appropriate to the site's context and surrounding environment. Examples of concealed
antennas include manmade trees, clock towers, flag poles, light structures, steeples and
similar objects.
20. Antenna Tower shall mean a freestanding structure, including monopole, guyed
and lattice towers, designed and constructed primarily to support antennas and
transmitting and receiving equipment.
52. Commercial Mobile Radio Services Facility shall mean the equipment, physical
plant and portion of the property and/or building used to provide CMRS services,
including but not limited to cables and wires, conduits, pedestals, antennas, towers,
concealed structures, electronic devices, equipment buildings and cabinets,
landscaping, fencing and screening, and parking areas.
53. Commercial Mobile Radio Services Facility, Temporary shall mean a CMRS
facility designed for use while a permanent CMRS facility or network is being designed
or built, or for a special event where many people attending are CMRS users.
5353
153. Microcell shall mean a low power CMRS facility used to provide increased
capacity in high telecommunications demand areas or provide infill coverage in areas
of weak reception, including a separate transmitting and receiving station serving the
facility.
5454
5555
§ 5.2 ‐ ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A. General Standards.
1. Permitted principal uses and approved special review principal uses shall be deemed to
include the accessory uses, structures and activities as set forth in this Section, unless
specifically prohibited.
2. See also §13.2, "Use Classifications," wherein incidental or accessory uses are sometimes
included in the description of a specific principal use. When a use classification or specific use
type definition in §13.2 does include permitted accessory or incidental uses, such accessory or
incidental uses shall be subject to the general standards set forth in this Section, as well as any
use‐specific standards set forth in §5.1 or this Section.
3. All accessory uses, structures and activities shall be subject to the general, dimensional,
operational and use‐specific regulations set forth in this Section, in addition to the same
regulations that apply to principal uses in each district. In the case of any conflict between the
accessory use/structure standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the
standards of this Section shall control.
4. All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following conditions:
a. The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in
connection with the principal use; and
b. The accessory use or structure shall be conducted and/or located on the same zoning
lot as the principal use; and
c. There shall be unity of ownership between the principal use and the accessory use.
(Ord. 15‐03 #1; Ord. 08‐16 § 1, Exh. A)
B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts.
1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures.
a. Listed Accessory Uses/Structures. Table 5‐1 below sets forth what types of accessory
uses and structures are permitted in which residential zones. If a specific accessory use
or structure is permitted in a residential zoning district, the column underneath the
zoning district will be marked with a "Yes." If the accessory use or structure is not
permitted in a particular zoning district, the column will be marked with a "No." If there
is a reference contained in the column entitled "additional requirements," please refer
to the cited section(s) for additional standards that shall apply to the specific accessory
use.
b. Unlisted Accessory Uses or Structures. If an accessory use or structure is not listed in
Table 5‐1 but satisfies all the conditions set forth in §5.2.A.4 above, it may be permitted
subject to compliance with the general, dimensional and operational standards set forth
in this Section.
Table 5‐1
Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts
5656
(Ord. 18‐01 §18; Ord. 15‐03 §1; Ord 6‐06 §1; Ord. 03‐10 §1; Ord. 05‐10 §1; Ord. 21‐10 §1; Ord. 19‐11 §1;
Ord. 08‐17 §1; Ord. 20‐18 §1(Exh. A))
2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the
Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Accessory Dwelling Units.
(1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings shall consist of either living quarters
integrated within the principal single‐family detached dwelling structure on the
lot or with a detached accessory structure on the same lot as the principal
dwelling. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be
used as accessory dwelling units.
(2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed forty‐ninethirty‐
three percent (4933%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal
dwelling unit or eight hundred (800) square feet, whichever is less. An accessory
dwelling unit shallmay contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold
running water, and cooking and food storage facilities, and a sleeping area.
(3) Limit on Tenancy. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as short‐term
rental units or vacation homes, but may be rented for terms of 30 days or
longer.
(4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any
applicable maximum residential density requirement.
(5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling
unit on a lot in addition to the principal single‐family dwelling.
Accessory Use
Residential Zoning District
Additional Requirements
"Yes" = Permitted
"No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit
RE‐1 RE E‐1 E R R‐1 R‐2 RM
Accessory dwelling unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesNo No No §5.2.B.2.a
1.33 times minimum lot area
required Lot shall meet
minimum lot area standard of
zone district
Barns and stables Yes Yes Yes No No No No No None
(Ord. 15‐03 §1)
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
5757
(6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside
in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number that is
allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in
§13.2.C.28 below.
(67) Off‐Street Parking. At least one (1) off‐street parking space shall be
provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit.
(78) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an
accessory dwelling unit.
(89) Lot Area. A Llot which is the site of an accessory dwelling unit shall meet or
exceed area must be one and thirty‐three one‐hundredths (1.33) times the
minimum lot size for area of the zone district in which the lot is located.
(910) Other Regulations.
(a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other
applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards
for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory
dwelling will be located.
(b) All accessory dwelling units shall comply with local building code
requirements.
(c) Accessory dwelling units, being ancillary to and under the same
ownership as the principal dwelling unit on a lot, shall not be sold or
conveyed separate from the principal dwelling unit.
(db) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit
standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the
standards of this Section shall control.
‐‐‐
§ 13.3 ‐ Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases
‐‐‐
3. Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean a second dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single‐family residential
use which is integrated with a single‐family detached dwelling structure or with a detached accessory
structure on the same lot as the principal dwelling which contains independent living facilities for one or
more persons, to include at minimum permanent provisions for sanitation, cooking, and sleepingthat is
located on the same lot as the single‐family detached dwelling. "Accessory Dwelling Unit" does not
include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers.
‐‐‐
5858
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
STR, Zoning Comments
2 messages
Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:56 AMThe Maxwells
To: townclerk@estes.org, kswanlund@estes.org
** Please distribute to all Town Board members and the Planning Commission **
Town Leaders,
Thank you for starting to discuss action around Short Term Rentals in Residential Zones and their impact on resident
housing.
To be honest I've struggled with this from a property owners' rights perspective. STR in residential zones, however,
seems to be such an aberration of the law that it defies and has completely overrun any sort of realistic expectation for
our growth as a community. Locals that live and work here are the consistent backbone and fiber of the town, providing
a baseline that we can fall back on and grow from as the economy and our greater society ebbs and flows. When you
remove that unifying fiber, however, you see hallmarks of our community deteriorate, the most tragic of which is
manifest at our critically important local school district.
In a greatest hits format for your reading pleasure, a couple points to consider...
1)"STRs aren't to blame for the lack of housing! You're targeting us unfairly!!" This is a common theme. "It's not just
us, it's everyone's problem." It reminds me of the Cheeto commercials where the family has Cheeto dust all over them
and denies they're to blame for the Cheetos being eaten when Dad realizes the bag is empty. It's an unfathomable
disconnect. If you search in ANY community around the globe that is dealing with a housing shortage in vacation
communities, STRs are at the heart of the discussion. In EVERY scenario the area has wrestled how to reign in STRs
(businesses by any other word) in residential zones. It's a complete non-starter to argue that STRs are not the absolute
root cause of our housing shortage and are a huge market disruptor. Why build ADUs further diluting our residential
zones when the homes are already here!? Return our residential zones to neighborhoods, not lone families surrounded
by pockets of businesses.
2)"Fees should be levied against hotels and other places that provide lodging." Why stop at hotels? Why stop at
accommodations at all? Why stop at retail? Why not just tax everyone here to help build more housing? Well, obviously
that doesn't make sense. See point #1. Again, a disconnect and disingenuous denial. Hotels/Motels don't take active
long term housing off the market, and that's what has greatly accelerated any shortage that we've seen. If anything, in
a strange twist of reality, hotels pull people away from the STR market and help to reduce the profitability of turning a
residential zoned home into a nightly rental, thereby keeping more homes for families. Weird, right? If STRs are levied
fees, should legitimate accommodations in commercial or accommodations zones get a credit for helping the situation?
I'm kidding...
3)"Fees would make my rental too expensive to operate nightly." That's interesting... welcome to owning and operating
a legitimate business. Fees and taxes are part of doing business, and are regularly levied to offset particular services and
support in a given field. Commercial property tax, which the STR community currently doesn't have to pay, is probably
the most egregious oversight. Commercial property rates would immediately make a lot of theses commercial
undertakings in residential zones known as STRs untenable, and there isn't a good reason that they aren't paying that
amount already based on impact of operation. Unlike nearly all other "at-home" businesses, the majority of STR units
completely make the home uninhabitable by the owner while the business is in operation. It's not an "and" play, it's an
"or" play. That's a commercial business by any reasonable definition, and should be paying commercial property taxes.
Interestingly, some cities have taken this approach and run with it - requiring that the owner be on-site and occupying
the same home while a portion of the home is rented. Boy, that'd change things quick.
4)"We're businesses, and we've invested like a business owner would and you'll be liable if you shut us down" AND "I'm
just helping to pay for my dream, don't punish me." See Point #3 and then see point #1. Interesting juxtaposition.
5959
5) "My home is worth X00,000, it doesn't fit the mold for a starter or low income home." This is an interesting take. If
the nightly rental income wasn't factored into the appraisal, most of the $600k homes in the valley would come back
down to earth in value. I think folks would be surprised to see what families can scrape together when it comes to not
having to commute from the valley just to stock the shelves, to deliver the supplies, to build the homes, to put out the
fires, to patrol our streets, to teach our students. Suffice it to say - people will pay a LOT to secure a home for their
family, but no working family should have to compete against a bidder whose offer is supplemented by nightly income
from a home in a residential zone. The practice actively displaces critical members of our community from all walks of
life.
Lastly, for now, it's clear that there are two groups who are activating and pushing STR owners to speak up. And it's the
two groups that have made the MOST money out of the STR business. Realtors and Property Managers. What's 6% of a
$200,000 increase in valuation because of a rental license? What's 20% of the nightly rate of 800 rentals in town? It's
also abundantly clear that litigation from these groups as a whole or individually is on the horizon - this is the golden
goose, after all. For every email you receive from an STR owner encouraged by their Property Manager or Realtor to "let
their voice be heard", consider the innumerable families that looked at that same home to live and grow in that you'll
never hear from because they were priced out by a buyer supplementing their mortgage with nightly rental income,
pulling the fiber of community apart one thread at a time. Regarding the push for action from those interest groups (for
lack of a better term), I strongly believe that this is precisely why no one has taken action on this since the original cap
implementation. No one wants to anger their friends, and everybody knows a realtor or property manager. That's
understandable. But the situation as it stands is untenable. Building ADUs on 30% of homes in the Estes Valley will just
further dilute our already delicate residential zones. It's time to rip the band-aid off. Deal with the lawsuits (yes, these
groups will file, not because of their interest in the town, but because of money) and get it over with.
Lowering the Res Zone cap, implementing fees based on rental square footage in Res Zones, and future zoning
considerations should all be at play here. Reduce the cap in Residential Zones, sunset licenses at transfer. Use
accommodation, commercial, and commercial outlying zones, etc for nightly rentals - where they should be. Consider a
tiered fee structure inversely related to rental square footage for STRs in Residential Zones. That 1500sqft home under a
normal (not STR income boosted) valuation would provide for a local family - a stable household for parents and children
alike - the future of Estes Park. Nightly stayovers have no place in our residential-zoned neighborhoods. That's where
families should live. That's where kids should play. That's where neighbors should shovel each others driveways and
where where old men with nothing else to do should yell at the kids to get off their lawn.
A lot of emotion goes into this for anyone who is interested in how this town has changed just in the last decade. Look
no further than the school. Look at class sizes. Look at community involvement by young families. The choice is clear.
Aggressively address this immediately, or continue sending our SCHOOL and our COMMUNITY on a race to the bottom
moving further and further away from what we all know to be right for the long term sustainability of our special town.
Thanks all,
Pete & Dana Maxwell
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 8:22 AM
To: Matthew Heiser <mheiser@estes.org>, Howard Hanson <hhanson@estes.org>, Janene Centurione
<jcenturione@estes.org>, Joe Elkins <jelkins@estes.org>, Matt Comstock <mcomstock@estes.org>, Randy Hunt
<rhunt@estes.org>
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-3721
6060
Comments for the
Planning
Commission:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
To the Estes Park Planning Commissioners:
RE: ADU's on Residential Properties
I think you really need to slow this down and think this through more in detail. You
are rushing something that truly needs a lot of consideration among the residential
property owners, like myself. That's why we had Zoning Code to help protect and
control properties. Do I want everyone around me to have an ADU on their property,
NO. Really! And how many do we need? How will you control the amount of ADU's
attached and/or unattached on properties including new/future ADU's and how will
you control impeding the views of other property owners and migration paths of
wildlife?
This is town is of the most beautiful areas of this country and now I feel you want to
make it into a Vail, Aspen, etc. which this town is not.
Please SLOW the process down and get more public input or put it out to a VOTE.
This issue SHOULD NOT be RUSHED!
Christy Jacobs / Estes Park Resident
6161
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Accessory dwellings
1 message
Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:18 AMrobert niemeyer To: "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Hello
I just wanted to say I am in favor of allowing more opportunities for accessory dwellings in Estes Park. I own two
properties . One is .44 acres with a 700 sq ft cabin on the edge of the lot. I rent it out year round . It would be great to
utilize more of the lot and I would also rent it out for worker housing.
My other lot is .41 acres . When we built or home in 1989 916 sq ft is all we could afford. Now we have grandkids and
extended family . It would be great to have additional space separate from our main home. Their would also be a
possibility to rent it out to seasonal workers.
I believe the large lot sizes should be utilized better to help with estes housing shortage.
Regards
Bob Niemeyer
6262
John,
I have to wonder how well-informed your source is, because our count of units built or approved since the 2016 Housing
Needs assessment is approx. 225 units, not 453. Our approved figure include sites like the Lexington Lane property, Wildfire
Homes, Grand Estates Apts., and several on Stanley Drive. Moreover, although the approved figure is 225 units, only a small
number of those have actually been built and occupied - our estimate based on building permit and Cert. of Occupancy
information is less than 60 of the 225. We can show you and your source the data if you wish, and we will also include it in
any future staff reports on housing Code amendments.
I also would question that the need is 1,100. As you know, the 2016 HNA cited a gap of between 1,480 and 1,690 workforce
units. As the statistics I cite above show, we have filled a little of the gap, but not all of it, since 2016. And since the HNA was
completed, the need, at least anecdotally, has been growing faster than the supply. That's not hard data, to be sure, but I see
no data to show that the gap is shrinking.
If you have data that show otherwise, please cite them. If your source has facts on which to base his/her assertion about the
1,100 figure, we'd like to see that information.
All of the above discussion deals with workforce housing only. We also have an attainable housing issue. There is overlap
between attainable housing and workforce housing, but the two are not synonymous. Our data from 2016 and elsewhere
show that we also have an attainable housing gap between demand and supply. The focus on workforce housing is vital, but
we shouldn't assume that is the only housing issue we have.
We do know the ADU issue is PERCEIVED as huge. The facts show something a bit less apocalyptic. Stating, as some have
in 2016 and recently, that allowing ADUs would double density or would double the number of occupants in a structure, is a
straw-man argument and doesn't pass the credibility test. Among other shaky assumptions, this argument assumes ADUs are
not legal now and that we would be reversing course 180 degrees by allowing them. In fact, they have been legal for a long
time - the prohibition is on renting them, not building them. We will be countering this double-density argument vigorously at
the staff level when the proposal is fully formed.
My question for those who don't wish to see ADUs, density options, or other significant efforts, is: What should we do, if NOT
ADUs, denser development, and similar measures? The Town likely can only build 200 or so units on the Fish Hatchery
property, due to floodplain, steep slopes, and infrastructure costs. Possibly another 40-70 could be built on the Town property
on Dry Gulch south of Crossroads. Both Fish Hatchery and Dy Gulch properties would need to be rezoned before
development - not a trivial process, as you know, and a very publicly accessible one. Taller buildings downtown would add a
few dozen units at most. All these would help, but wouldn't cover all the demand. And there's not much else inside Town. Most
County land doesn't have the infrastructure, and by all recent accounts, the County would not approve much additional
density anyway.
So what do we do to solve this problem? At a certain point soon, the folks who urge us to "just say no" will have to tell us what
we ought to "say yes" to - or else acknowledge that they simply don't want to solve the problem.
We will consider aspects such as requiring dwellings associated with an ADU to be owner-occupied, attachment requirements
for ADUs, etc. Those were discussed in 2016 when ADUs came up last time, but weren't looked on favorably. But it's a new
discussion, so we'll see. I expect it will be several months before any ADU or density proposal reaches the vote stage.
Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.
RAH
-----
Randy Hunt
Community Development Director
6363
The ADU matter is huge. You are talking about changing the character of neighborhoods by means of what really does
amount to de facto rezoning. Would this be a planning best practice? Have you talked with other communities that have
ADUs to see how they avoided de facto rezoning, as well as how they are controlling their ADUs?
At least, requiring the owner to live either in his residence or in the ADU is essential. He would be more likely to control the
property that way. If enforcement is by complaint received by the town, then it should not be a great problem to determine
whether the owner is living there. (I think that at least Golden and Broomfield require that the owner live on site.)
And the ADU should be attached to the residence by some means - so it appears that it is a part of the residence. And
workforce housing would not be greatly affected here by requiring some attachment. (And here again the owner would pay
more attention even if the attachment was nothing more than a covered breezeway for instance.)
Thank you. John Phipps
6464
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
ADU changes
1 message
Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:31 PMJodi Roman To: planning@estes.org
Hello,
I am in support of the following changes in Estes Park ADU permitting rules:
1) Allow/permit ADUs in all residential zoning districts
2) Decrease the current lot requirement for ADUs from a 1.3 acre lot size
I believe these changes could be utilized, along with other code wording, to increase current long-term rental possibilities,
to help support much needed staff such as school paraprofessionals, teachers, nursing staff, administrative staff,
restaurant workers, among other people important to the infrastructure of our town.
This is important to me, as my daughter has special needs and paraprofessionals are some of the most important people
in her academic life. They regularly leave Estes Park and subsequently their job here, secondary to being unable to find
or afford long-term housing.
Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
__
Jodi Roman, PT, DPT
6565
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
(no subject)
1 message
Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 4:30 PMphipps To: kswanlund@estes.org
Karin -
Please forward this to the Planning Commissioners:
Commissioners: Please slow down regarding amending the ADU section of the Code. This deserves a lot of attention.
During your last study session it was obvious to me that staff was putting pressure on you to rush this. For one thing,
some of the proposed amendments are confusing.
Thank you. John Phipps 585 W. Wonderview Ave.
6666
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
For Planning Commissioners SS Aug 17
1 message
Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 3:04 PM
Aug 15, 2021
TO: Estes Planning Commissioners via Karin Swanlund
FROM: Sandy Lindquist (homeowner & full-time Town resident on Cherokee Dr)
Please don't rush into a forced imposition of de facto rezoning (existing-residential
density increases with ADUs) without resident stakeholder knowledge and input. Such
unilateral action (still) has no place in our community planning. Effectively eliminating
single-family zoning (now cleverly being called "exclusionary zoning" in Great Reset
times) is a quality-of-life and financial assault on all resident homeowners -- a breach
of long-established expectations and trust.
6767
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Hipocracy
2 messages
Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 6:50 PMD To: planning@estes.org
Planning commissioners,
Over the past several months, during discussion of the coming rewrite of our comprehensive
plan, I have been pleased to hear our Town Trustees, Town Managers, and Staff tell us over and
over again about how much opportunity for public input was going to occur during the Comp Plan
process.
At the same time I was appalled and terribly disappointed to hear members of the planning
department ( Director Hunt and Planner II Bergeron) instruct the the planning commission during
its last meeting on how to expedite the ADU issue and keep it out of public attention by not
discussing anything about ADU's until the very last minute so there would be as little time as
possible for public discussion , understanding, and input. You as a commission did not seem to
find anything improper or unethical about the advice given you by the planning staff. So much for
government in the sunshine.
I assure you that at the present time steps are being taken by the public to ensure that the
public input promised will occur.
Dick Spielman 584 Audubon St. Citizen
6868
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Planning Commission Study Session: ADU Code Change Proposed
2 messages
Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 11:52 AMROBERT AND DIANE ERNS> "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
>
To the Estes Park Planning Commission:
I have read the ADU code changed proposed in the August 17 Planning Commission Study Session Packet.
Before I can make a final decision about this code change, I need the following ques ons answered:
1.According to the Study Session document 5.2 Accessory Uses (Including Home
Occupations) and Accessory Structures, section 13.3 states ”Accessory Dwelling Unit” does
not include mobile homes, recreation vehicles or travel trailers"
a.You do not include Tiny Homes sitting on flat bed trailers here. Is this intentional? Are you
saying that a tiny home on a flatbed trailer is allowed as a detached ADU?
2.The documents states under 5.2.B.2.a(5), that “there shall not be more than one(1) accessory
dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal-family dwelling”
a.Since an attached ADU is integrated within the principal-family dwelling, it sounds like you are
saying that there could be one attached and one detached ADU on the lot. Is this intentional?
This needs to be clarified.
3.It appears that the owner of the principal-family dwelling need not live in the home. So this means
that someone or a corporation could buy the home, rent out the primary residence, rent out the
attached ADU integrated within the primary residence, and then also rent out the detached ADU with
the owner of the property probably living outside of Estes Park. The code change as proposed will
give the green light for further corporate ownership of homes in our residential neighborhoods. Is this
your intention?
Thank you for your considera on.
Diane Ernst
Estes Park
Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 7:03 AM
To: Matt Comstock <mcomstock@estes.org>, Matthew Heiser <mheiser@estes.org>, Howard Hanson
<hhanson@estes.org>, Joe Elkins <jelkins@estes.org>, Janene Centurione <jcenturione@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>
Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
Planning Commissioners,
Forwarded for your information, per request of the sender.
Staff: Please include in Public Comment regarding the ADU amendment.
6969
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
additional dwelling units
1 message
Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 10:49 AMKiteleys
To: "kswanlund@estes.org" <kswanlund@estes.org>
To the Estes Town Board and staff members,
We have owned property in Estes Park for nearly 30 years, and our current home for over 20 years. We are appalled that
you are considering allowing addition dwelling units on virtually every property in Estes, thereby removing the protection
that zoning was intended to provide. How dare you? Isn’t there enough traffic already? Aren’t our town services maxed
out already? Is every lodging room filled every night already? Have you tried to get to the grocery store or post office
lately? Why do you want to give up the charm of a small town and try and turn it into a densely populated city? The few
dollars gained from lodging and property taxes will not even begin to offset the costs of the potential increase in
population. If you really think this is a good idea, we think you’ve fallen for a con job. Take a look at the big picture. Do
not vote to allow additional dwelling units.
Sincerely,
Steve and Cheryl Kiteley
515 Far View Ln.
Estes Park
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
7070
Jul 27,
2021,
5:08 PM
No more single family homes
Larry Jones
to planning@estes.org
Why are you rushing this through. Don’t want to get by public input. That’s the worst
way of changing zoning. Put it up for a vote
Sent from my iPhone
7171
7272
Memo
To: Estes Park Planning Commission
Through: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
From: Ayres Associates
Date: September 21, 2021
RE: Discussion of Workforce Housing Incentives and creation of a RM-2 Zone District
Planning Commission Objective:
The Community Development Department has been researching regulatory incentives to create
more opportunities for homeownership for more households in more parts of Estes Park.
In looking for strategies to increase the supply of attainable housing, staff identified the creation
of a new density bonus zone district as one viable solution. This zone district would apply more
broadly throughout the community with the goal of increasing general housing production and
incentivizing the development of attainable housing. This memorandum provides an overview of
the following:
• Affordable Housing Programs and Incentives used by comparison communities.
• Proposed density bonus RM-2 Zone District and considerations to mitigate impacts.
• Considerations for additional incentives to facilitate the development of housing that is
affordable to the average household in Estes Park.
• Examples of higher density housing development projects in the region.
Background
As Estes continues to grow as a community and tourist destination, the affordability of housing
is becoming an evolving problem that requires new and innovative solutions. In 2016, the Town
of Estes Park completed a Housing Needs Assessment that projected housing needs through
2020. The study found the need for an additional 1,480 to 1,690 housing units to address
current workforce housing shortages and keep pace with future demand. The Town’s
Community Development Department is currently looking into zoning strategies that will
encourage development of workforce housing. As a part of this research, eight communities
were surveyed to gather information on the tools and strategies being utilized to encourage
workforce housing. All the communities surveyed rely on several strategies, including both
“carrots and sticks.” This memo will provide an overview of several of the strategies, with a
primary emphasis on what a new density bonus incentive zone could look like in Estes. A
density bonus offers a regulatory incentive for developers to build more affordable housing by
increasing the allowable residential density and providing incentives to reduce housing costs. In
many mountain communities, increased density was a key part of the solution to the affordability
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
7373
problem. A secondary goal of this memo is to illustrate how higher density housing projects can
be complimentary and aesthetically sensitive to the surrounding area.
Included as an attachment to this memo is a “virtual tour” that provides examples of housing
projects (workforce, market-rate, and blended) in the region. The purpose of the tour is to
showcase what higher densities can look like when done well. The examples included employ a
context sensitive approach, recognizing the existing context and targeting compatibility with
neighboring properties. The tour has been designed to be done virtually through the google links
provided or in person. If you would like to take the tour in person, the addresses of the
developments are included.
Introduction to Incentive-Based Zoning
Incentive-based zoning provides developers with rewards in exchange for inclusion of affordable
housing units in a market rate housing development. Typical incentives used include density
bonuses, parking space reductions and other provisions that help lower developers per-unit
costs and help make inclusion of workforce housing more feasible. By linking the production of
affordable housing to private market development, incentive-based zoning has been
instrumental in increasing the supply of affordable housing while dispersing the affordable units
throughout a community to broaden opportunity and foster mixed-income neighborhoods.
Examples of incentives used within the framework of Workforce Housing Programs include the
following:
Type of Incentive What it is
Density Bonus Allows developers to build more units than the underlying
zoning district permits in return for a requirement to create
a percentage of those units as affordable.
Reduced Parking Requirements Allows parking space efficiency in higher density
developments by reducing the number or size of spaces.
Development Standard Flexibility Reductions may apply to development standards such as
setbacks and landscaping.
Fee Waivers or Reductions Reduces costs by waiving the impact and/or permit fees
that support infrastructure development and municipal
services.
Fee Deferrals Allows delayed payment of impact and/or permit fees. One
approach allows developers to pay fees upon receipt of
certificate of occupancy, rather than upon application for a
building permit, reducing carrying costs.
Fast Track Permitting Streamlines the permitting process for development
projects, reducing developers’ carrying costs (e.g., interest
payments on predevelopment loans and other land and
property taxes).
The workforce housing policies and regulatory procedures of eight communities were surveyed
and are highlighted below. Each example provides Estes Park an interesting concept to
7474
consider. The majority of programs surveyed are mandatory, meaning the program requires that
a specific percentage of the units being developed be earmarked as affordable. The percentage
varies but is typically in the range of 10-25%. Two of the programs surveyed are voluntary and
incentive-based, utilizing several of the incentives listed above. The eight communities included
in the review include Boulder, Broomfield, Eagle County, Denver, Durango, Frisco, Fort Collins,
and Longmont. These communities were selected based on the following criteria: similar
economy or geography as Estes; high housing costs or recent increase in costs; and existence
of a successful workforce housing program with proven results. The chart below summarizes
the tools employed by each of the communities with individual program highlights summarized
in Attachment 1.
7575
Incentives in Estes Park
The most common opportunities for local governments to support the creation of new affordable
housing supply is to facilitate development through regulations, development approvals, and
through incentivizing needed housing. To respond to the diverse housing needs of Estes
residents and keep pace with a growing demand for housing, Estes will need to consider
reasonable modifications to the zoning code. While mandatory programs (inclusionary housing
programs) have much better results with increasing the supply of attainable housing units, Estes
should continue efforts to create meaningful incentives until the Town finds it necessary to shift
to a mandatory program.
The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment made two recommendations regarding density bonus
incentives. The first was to revise the Attainable Housing Density Bonus to allow more than a
50% increase in permitted density. On November 14th, 2017, the Attainable Housing Density
Bonus was amended increasing the density bonus for attainable and workforce housing to
200% above the base entitlement. This bonus only applies to projects zoned RM (Multi-Family
Residential). To date, ____ units have been built using this option.
The second recommendation from the Housing Needs Assessment was to amend the Town
Code to allow for increased density on multi-family sites. This recommendation would allow for
broader application of a density bonus and provide developers an effective and meaningful
incentive to construct more attainable housing units within market-rate housing projects. The
Community Development Department has determined that the most straightforward approach to
accomplishing this would be to create a new zone district (RM-2) within the Development Code
that would allow more units per acre. Developers would have the option to rezone their property
to RM-2 for a two-tiered density bonus option. This process would mirror that of a typical zone
change, where the application would be reviewed by the EVPC and Board for compliance with
the standards and criteria laid out in Chapter 3 of the Development Code. Staff would review the
proposed zoning’s impact and compatibility on adjacent properties and ensure the change is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Below are the proposed density characteristics of the
proposed RM-2 zoning designation.
RM-2 Zoning District
The new zone district, RM-2, would incorporate two tiers of bonuses. The base entitlement
would reflect the RM Zone District which allows 8 units per acre.
The Tier 1 Bonus Option would allow up to sixteen units per acre by-right. At this tier, none of
the 16 units would need to meet the requirements for permanently attainable units. The intent
behind this bonus is to simply increase the supply of housing units.
The Tier 2 Option would allow up to 32 units per acre. At this tier, at least forty percent of all
units that are proposed to be built in the development shall meet the requirements for
permanently attainable units set forth in Chapter _____. The intent behind this bonus is to
increase the supply of attainable housing units. Affordability targets will be the same as those
outlined in the Attainable and Workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance.
Considerations for RM-2
As new developments spring up, impacts can be felt by the entire community – good or bad.
Several tools are available to help mitigate the impact of higher densities. Design guidelines are
the most widely used due to their ability to establish consistent elements across developments,
enhance compatibility, and mitigate the potential impacts of more intense uses. These types of
development standards become increasingly important the larger the development is. A few
7676
example design provisions are outlined below for consideration and further discussion. These
elements are illustrated in the projects included in the Virtual Tour (Attachment 2).
Design Guidelines
Design guidelines help influence a variety of design elements, including building scale, mass,
color, height, material, form and setbacks to ensure the project responds to the patterns of
adjacent buildings.
Building Elements
All building elevations shall employ varied articulation of wall surfaces. Each façade shall be
articulated through the use of at least four of the following techniques:
a. Deep eaves or overhangs;
b. Balconies, porches, or patios;
c. Building elements that provide shelter from natural elements;
d. Offsets, insets, bays, or other similar architectural features to add a variety of depths to
the wall plane;
e. A change in texture or material, provided all exterior wall textures and materials are
consistent with the overall architectural style of the building;
f. Variation in roof planes or roof forms, including dormers or gables; or
g. Variation in window sizes and shapes.
Building Materials
a. Building materials shall be predominantly natural, including but not limited to, wood
siding, wood shakes, logs, stone, brick, or other similar materials.
b. Other materials that imitate natural materials are also acceptable provided their texture,
shape, and size are substantially similar to the natural materials they are imitating and
are not obviously artificial materials.
c. Stucco or steep are acceptable materials when used in combination with other
acceptable materials.
Variety of Materials on All Building Elevations
a. There shall be a variety of quality and type of exterior materials, and their application
shall be generally in balance and proportional on all elevations of the building.
b. Materials that wrap around the building, such as a durable material at the base of the
structure, shall continue around projecting outside exterior corners and end at recessed
inside exterior corners.
Colors
a. The natural color of wood and stone are most desirable for building exteriors.
Building Height
Another important consideration is the maximum building height allowance. In the RM zoning
district, the maximum building height allowed is 30-feet. To be able to accommodate up to 32
units per acre, it is recommended the maximum building height in the RM-2 district be increased
to 40-feet.
Parking
Changes to the existing parking requirements are not included for consideration. Public Works
and Community Development staff are working to determine the parking demand rates for multi-
family residential uses. It is recommended parking requirements waivers for affordable units be
7777
considered during this process. Many communities reduce the total required parking by a
certain rate (ex: 0.6 stalls) for each qualifying affordable unit.
Additional Incentives
As evidenced through the review of the comparison communities, each community employs
several strategies to produce attainable housing. One of the key research takeaways is that if
the incentive package is too weak, developers won’t contribute to the building of attainable
units. Effective programs offer developers a range of cost offsets to achieve affordable housing
for residents and a reasonable ROI for developers.
The RM-2 Zone District is a great starting point for improving the delivery of affordable housing.
Beyond the density bonus, the Town may want to consider additional incentives that developers
may receive in exchange for the creation of attainable units. Such incentives may include the
following:
• Reduction or waiver of various planning/permit fees
• Fast-tracked permit processing
• Adjustments to development standards, including reduced setbacks and parking
requirements, greater height limits, or other standards.
When packaged together, these incentives can have a substantial impact on reducing the
overall cost of construction and can help balance the overall stability of the housing market by
supporting projects that deliver affordable options.
Conclusion and Next Steps
With Planning Commission agreement, the next steps would be to finalize the RM-2 zone
district proposal in the form of proposed code amendment language. The Community
Development Department believes this modification to the Development Code is an important
step in addressing some of the Town’s housing goals. Staff also recognizes that this
modification is not enough and there are other pieces necessary to meet the challenge of
building attainable housing.
Attachments
1. Community Comparison Program Highlights
2. Virtual Tour
7878
Attachment 1
Community Comparison Program Highlights
BOULDER, COLORADO
Boulder first implemented Inclusionary Zoning in 1980. In the five-year period that the program
was voluntary, only one private development contributed affordable units. The city changed to a
mandatory policy in 2000, and in a three-year period, private developers built 150 on-site
affordable units, and another 150 affordable units through in-lieu fees.
Program Requirements:
The program was most recently updated in 2017 and requires all residential development,
regardless of size, to contribute 25% of the total units as permanently affordable housing. Of the
required 25 percent, 80% should be affordable to low/moderate income households with the
remaining 20% affordable to middle income households. A minimum of half the affordable units
must be provided on site. The other half may be met through provision of affordable units off-
site, a cash-in-lieu contribution, dedication of vacant land or a combination of the options.
Incentives:
Boulder passed an affordable housing density bonus which allows for more housing units to be
built than allowed if the proposed project provides more affordable units than is required by the
Inclusionary Housing ordinance (referenced above). The bonuses are offered in the Mixed Use
1 (MU-1) and Residential – Mixed 2 (RMX-2) Zone Districts, which allow 10 units per acre
without the bonus, and 10 additional units per acre to be built with the bonus if at least 40
percent of units (in the entire project) are permanently affordable.
Boulder’s Holiday Neighborhood utilized the RMX-2 density bonus and is included in the Virtual
Tour.
BROOMFIELD, COLORADO
In 2020, the Broomfield City Council approved Ordinance 2100 requiring most new residential
development proposals to pay an Inclusionary Housing Fee. A fee is required for all new
residential for-sale housing projects incorporating 25 or more dwelling units and new residential
rental housing projects with more than three units.
Requirements:
For-sale residential developments have an inclusionary housing obligation equivalent to 10% of
the overall number of units proposed at 80% AMI.
For-rent residential developments have an inclusionary housing obligation equivalent to 20% of
the overall number of units proposed at 60% AMI.
Broomfield makes the following options available to satisfy the requirement:
1. Provide on-site affordable units
2. Donate land to the city, in size and location, approved by the city
3. Develop an alternative agreement in consultation with the Broomfield Housing Authority
with approval of the agreement by City Council
4. A combination of the above.
7979
Incentives:
1. Persons providing dedicated land or on-site affordable units that meet 100% of their
Inclusionary Housing Fee obligation shall be eligible for a waiver of 50% of plan review
and building permit fees associated with the development of affordable units; and a
rebate of 50% of any use tax paid in relation to the development of affordable units.
2. Persons providing dedicated land or on-site affordable units which meets some but not
all of their Inclusionary Housing Fee obligation may be eligible to receive a portion of the
incentives available above. These are reviewed by the city on a case-by-case basis and
any incentive awarded shall be approved by the city council.
DENVER, COLORADO
Denver’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) was enacted in 2002 and revised in 2014. It is
the City’s primary tool to facilitate home-ownership opportunities for people earning between
50% and 95% of area median income (AMI).
Requirements:
The IHO requires all newly constructed for sale housing development projects (detached,
attached or multifamily) of 30 or more units to allocate 10% of the units as affordable. The IHO
defines two types of residential construction products: high-cost structures and standard
structures.
High-cost structures are defined as developments which are: (a) greater than three stories, (b)
elevators are provided, and (c) over 60% of the parking is structured. High-cost structure units
must be affordable to households earning a minimum of 50% AMI and not to exceed 95% AMI,
depending on household size.
Standard structures are those that are less than three stories, and do not have elevators or
structured parking. Standard structure units must be affordable to households earning a
minimum of 50% AMI and not to exceed 80% AMI.
Incentives:
Funding for the IHO comes from the Housing Incentive Program Fund. The Fund was
capitalized with $2,150,000 in City General funds between 2003 and 2005. It collects revenue in
the form of cash in lieu fees, penalties, investment income and transfers. The Fund pays
incentive rebates and administrative expenses associated with the IHO. Incentive rebates are
paid to developers who produce affordable units in accordance with the IHO. The rebates are in
the amount of $5,500 per affordable unit provided, with a maximum of $250,000 per
development, per year.
Creative Program Innovations:
Denver’s revised ordinance enables enhanced flexibility, providing developers more options to
create different size, type or affordability of homes on-site, or even off-site through
partnerships with other developers and non-profits.
DURANGO, COLORADO
The City of Durango enacted Fair Share housing requirements to establish policies requiring
that certain types of new residential developments include a share of affordable and attainable
housing or provide alternative means of compliance. “Affordable” housing is defined as housing
affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% AMI (adjusted for household sizes).
8080
“Attainable” housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes above 80%
AMI but not exceeding 125% AMI (adjusted for household sizes.
Requirements:
Any residential development containing more than 3 units “for sale” or units intended for rent
shall allocate 16% of the units as affordable.
• Requirements include a distribution of price tiers and bedroom sizes.
• Requirements include a mix of the minimum numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms.
• Requirements have minimum floor areas and a mix of detached and attached homes.
• Families who qualify to purchase a “Fair Share Home” must reside or work in La Plata
County.
Alternative Compliance Options:
• In-Lieu Contributions
• Land Donation
Incentives:
Price adjustments for green building features (homes w/ energy-efficient and healthy designs
and materials).
Creative Program Innovation:
The funds raised from in-lieu contribution are directed to a local nonprofit, HomesFund, which
provides mortgage assistance and other services to qualified homebuyers.
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
In order to address the issues of Cost Burdened Households and slow the shift from primary to
secondary home ownership, Eagle County has set the minimum recommended mitigation rate
for Inclusionary Housing in Residential Developments at the higher of 1) 25% of the total
residential units in a Project or 2) 15% of the total residential square footage of a project.
Commercial Development is required to mitigate the impact on Eagle County’s housing stock by
providing Affordable Housing for at least 45% of the new employees generated by the project
that will earn less than 140% of AMI.
Eagle County makes the following options available to satisfy the requirement:
1. Land Donation
2. Off Site Development
3. Payment in Lieu
4. Affordable Housing Credits
Creative Program Innovation
Applicants who build more than the minimum amount of Affordable Housing required by the
Guidelines may be awarded Affordable Housing Credits that can be used to offset future
Affordable Housing obligations.
The commercial development mitigation requirement is also noteworthy, ensuring all
development contributes to affordable housing.
8181
FRISCO, COLORADO
The Town of Frisco has a few very creative incentive-based programs meant to increase the
supply of affordable housing. One of the program’s know as Housing Helps is a deed restriction
acquisition program. The goal is to incentivize real estate buyers and homeowners to deed
restrict their property to maintain and sustain homes for locals in the community. The Town will
pay buyers, businesses, current property owners, and investors to accept a deed restriction on
homes that are currently unrestricted.
The amount that will be paid for a deed restriction will vary depending on the market and how
well the home meets current needs in the community. Recipients may use the funds towards
their down payment. In return, the recipients are required to execute a deed restriction that will
insure the property is used for local housing into perpetuity.
Incentives:
Frisco’s land use regulations provide an incentive for the development of workforce housing
units. The code allows for an unlimited number of additional “bonus” units within a
development as long as 50% of the additional bonus units are deed restricted. It works like this.
Let’s say a property can build 10 residential units based on the density allowed for the zone
district in which the property is located. The Town refers to these units as being allowed
“outright”. The developer proposes 20 units instead of the 10 units allowed outright, for an
additional 10 bonus units. This means that 50% of the bonus units (5 in this case) must be deed
restricted for qualified employees who work at least 30 hours per week in Summit County.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
The City plays an important role facilitating the supply of affordable housing, including allocating
local, state, and federal funding to housing providers, setting policies and regulations, and
coordinating with housing developers and initiatives. Fort Collins does not have a mandatory
affordable housing obligation. Instead, the City offers several incentives that are intended to
reduce the costs to developers, which are listed below.
In order to receive affordable housing development incentives, projects must meet certain
criteria as defined in the Land Use Code.
Incentives:
1. Density Bonus. Affordable housing projects proposed in the Low-Density Mixed-Use
Housing (LMN) zone are eligible to increase the maximum allowed density from 9 to 12
dwelling units per acre.
2. Fee Credit. Affordable housing projects may qualify if providing housing for formerly
homeless individuals, housing for people with disabilities or people earning 30% of the
AMI or less.
3. Impact Fee Delay. Impact fees are typically paid at the time that building permits are
issued. This incentive allows the developer to delay the payment of those impact fees
until a certificate of occupancy is issued, or December 1 of that year, whichever happens
first.
4. Priority Processing. Affordable housing projects are eligible to receive an expedited
development review and permitting process.
8282
LONGMONT, COLORADO
The City of Longmont’s Affordable Housing Incentive Program is one of the oldest and most
comprehensive. 12% of all residential homes must be affordable defined as homes sold at a
price that is affordable to households at or below 80% of the AMI or renting homes at rents that
are affordable to households at or below 60% AMI.
For-sale market developments can use any of the below options to satisfy their requirement;
rental homes can only use the Fee-in-Lieu or Land Donation Option.
1. Provide on-site affordable units
2. Fee in Lieu
3. Off-Site Location
4. Land Dedication
5. A combination of the above.
Incentives:
If the affordable housing minimum requirements are met, developers and property owners may
be eligible to receive expedited development review processing, height/density bonuses of up to
a 20 percent increase in density/height over what is allowed per zoning code and fee waivers.
Some development fees can be reduced in a range from 50 to 75 percent for for-sale units and
from 20 to 50 percent for rental units. Subsidies for water/sewer system development fees also
are available. Projects that provide more than the minimum required affordability may qualify for
a percentage of the fees to be subsidized.
8383
Virtual Housing Tour
Density and Design considerations
for the Town Estes Park
84
The purpose of this self-guided tour is to provide local and regional examples of medium-to
higher-density housing projects. The examples illustrate careful placement and massing of the
density and high-quality design elements that enhance the overall character of the area. Careful
consideration was taken for the placement of parking, drive aisles, and open spaces, all while
taking into account the building footprints and how they relate to street frontages and adjoining
lots.
Ultimately the examples should show how higher densities can maintain consistency with existing
development along the street and illustrate how the scale, mass, and character of buildings can
respect the surrounding context. Design standards establish a baseline for quality development
and are used to guide the design, materials, shared amenities, and accessibility of new
development. Paired with the Town’s Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, standards can
provide a mechanism for incorporating the community values into planned changes to the built
environment of the town.
As you are exploring the different projects, we’d like you think about what housing elements
strike you as interesting, exciting or something that could be tailored to Estes. Use the following
design principles as a framework for evaluating the projects:
1.The development reflects the unique character of the community and the site
2.The development is integrated into the surrounding city fabric
3.The development is designed with internal continuity
4.Parking and driveways are minimized along street frontages
5.Buildings are designed with strong architectural integrity
6.Substantial landscaping is integrated into the project
7.The development respects adjacent uses and neighbors
The following six projects are included in the tour:
1.Holiday Neighborhood, Boulder (Mixed-income Neighborhood)
2.Coto Flats, Breckenridge (Attainable Housing Project)
3.Pinewood Village I & II, Breckenridge (Attainable Housing Project)
4.Parkhouse, Thornton (Market-rate Project)
5.Cortland at 2534, Johnstown (Market-rate Project)
6.Rise at 2534, Johnstown (Market-rate Project)
85
1. HOLIDAY NEIGHBORHOOD, BOULDER (1650 YELLOW PINE AVENUE)
About the Project:
The Holiday Neighborhood is a 333-unit community in Boulder, Colorado, of which 42% of the units
are permanently affordable. Seventy-one units are for sale at 60% of AMI, 18 units are between 40-
60% AMI, and 49 units are for rent at 20-50% of AMI. Ten units in the neighborhood are designated for
people transitioning from chronic homelessness, ten units are for homeless families in emergency or
crisis situations, and ten are for clients of the Boulder County Mental Health Center. The City of
Boulder sold the 27-acre site to BHP at-cost, gave the neighborhood a density bonus for the affordable
housing, and waived most of the site development fees.
The RMX-2 Zone District was created for the Holiday Neighborhood with the intention of facilitating a
high percentage of affordable housing there. The zone allows 10 units per acre without the bonus. The
bonus allows ten additional units per acre to be built if at least 40 percent of units (in the entire
project) are permanently affordable.
Design Highlights:
The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of housing types where attached housing is carefully
integrated with single-family units. Architectural styles, housing types, and floor plans are varied and
mixed together on the same street with a unifying streetscape. The density of the neighborhood is 12
units/ acre.
Explore virtually using google street view: https://goo.gl/maps/EbKQbCZdxDeyyF668
86
2. COTO FLATS, BRECKENRIDGE (15 MCGEE LANE)
About the Project:
The Town of Breckenridge Housing Authority developed COTO Flats on vacant land banked property.
The Town and County are joint owners of this project to house Town and County employees. The on-
site infrastructure and land purchase was funded by the Town’s Housing Fund. This project received
approximately $172,000 in fee waivers. There are 18 units on 1 acre of land. The building consists of 1 -
bedroom apartments that are renter occupied at 80% AMI.
Design Highlights:
The building is broken up into smaller masses with façade articulation, subtle but effective roof height
variations, and similar techniques to give the structure a strong residential character. The varying
colors, materials and textures help add visual interest and the addition of the porch helps provide a
distinctive, residential scale entry.
Explore virtually using google street view: https://goo.gl/maps/BPHsPfvWvnJ92MBn7
87
3. PINEWOOD VILLAGE 1 & 2, BRECKENRIDGE (605 & 837 AIRPORT RD.)
About the Project:
The land that Pinewood Village 1 was developed on is under a land lease between the Town and the
developer who utilized LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) and currently manages the project.
After 50 years, the land will be returned to the Town. The project received approximately $350,000 in
fee waivers. There are 74 units with a density of 18 units per acre. The development is comprised of
1-2-, & 3-bedroom apartments for renters averaging 83.75 AMI.
Pinewood 2 was developed on land that was part of a land trade with the National Forest Service. The
project received 4% LIHTC and cost $9.7 millions. Approximately $335,000 in fees were waived by the
Town. Pinewood Village 2 includes 45 units at 15 units per acre. The development is comprised of
Studio and 1-bedroom apartments for renters at 60% AMI.
Design Highlights:
The two developments incorporate natural materials that are prominent in mountain towns and stick
to more neutral colors. The variation in building elevations is accomplished through the different roof
forms, different sized windows and the materials and textures chosen. The buildings blend well with
the natural environment and are carefully situated on the site.
Explore virtually using google street view: https://goo.gl/maps/CEeigvxTb3dMpw7c7 and
https://goo.gl/maps/YBDqhm7Yz3FEp2at8
88
4. PARKHOUSE APTS, THORTON (14310 GRANT STREET)
About the Project:
Parkhouse is conveniently located close to I-25 and 144th Avenue and is situated directly west of a
commercial shopping center. The development consists of twenty 3-story buildings with an
approximate density of 30 units per acre. The complex consists of a network of sidewalks that connect
the buildings to each other and to the on-site amenities such as the open spaces and pools. To not
compromise the vitality of the area, the development shields the parking by the buildings so that the
housing serves as the project’s public face.
Design Highlights:
The façade geometries carefully control the visual impact of the structures. Balconies, projections, and
varied roof heights provide additional visual interest, along with variation in colors, materials and
textures.
Explore virtually using google street view: https://goo.gl/maps/EFYAtbDUVmNB5vPb6
89
5. CORTLAND AT 2534, JOHNSTOWN (5100 RONALD REAGAN BLVD)
About the Project:
The Cortland apartment complex is conveniently situated next to a commercial center right off I-25
and US Hwy 34. The complex features a pod of ten 3-story mid-rise buildings with a density of
approximately 25-30 units per acre. The apartment complex is well integrated with the surrounding
commercial uses through appropriate building heights and careful massing. The building setbacks
fronting Ronald Reagan Boulevard strategically align with the setbacks of the nearby commercial
buildings.
Design highlights:
All building elevations have varied articulation using balconies, projections, changes in material, and
variation in the roof planes. Parking spaces line the internal access road and are shielded from public
view by the buildings. A pool, greenspace, poolside lounge, and fire pit serve as the central gathering
feature of the development.
Explore virtually using google street view: https://goo.gl/maps/9iUw7RxKcGi5LzY5A
90
6. RISE AT 2534 APTS, JOHNSTOWN (5070 EXPOSITION DR.)
About the Project:
Rise at 2534 is located directly south of the Cortland apartments in Johnstown. The development
features four 4-story apartment buildings that are slighter larger in scale than the Cortland buildings.
The buildings
Design highlights:
Similar to Cortland and Parkhouse, the buildings incorporate anti-monotony measures to avoid the
sterile appearance of large wall planes. A variety of articulation elements such as balconies,
projections, changes in material, and variations in roof form are incorporated into each of the
buildings adding variety and visual interest.
Explore virtually using google street view: https://goo.gl/maps/P2463KxFvF1gxF917
91
8492
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Park Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: September 21, 2021
RE: Draft Code Language: Amending the Estes Park Development Code and
Estes Park Municipal Code to Eliminate the RE-1 (Rural Estate) Zoning
District
Objective:
This Code amendment proposes to eliminate the seldom-used RE-1 (Rural Estate)
Zoning District in the Estes Park Development Code and the Estes Park Municipal
Code.
Note: Although Code language and other specifics are included in this packet, this
concept is still in the discussion stage. Depending on the Planning Commission’s
direction, staff can make this amendment ready for public hearing at any time with one
month’s advance notice. However, there is no specific development proposal nor other
reason at hand that sets a short timeframe for doing so.
Also note that, when and if the amendment is ready for recommendation and adoption,
it will need to be accompanied by a rezoning ordinance that rezones the three (3)
parcels inside the Town currently zoned RE-1 to other zoning district(s). This will require
mailed notice, posting of Development Review signs, neighborhood meetings, and the
other elements that accompany the rezoning process.
Present Situation:
The RE-1 Zoning District’s creation pre-dates the adoption of the former Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) in Nov. 1999 and the wholesale Valley-wide rezoning that
accompanied it. Although not all the history is clear to us, staff has anecdotal evidence
that the District was originally created by Larimer County in the early- to mid-1990s –
before the EVDC, although not by many years. Before Nov. 1999, RE-1 zoning only
applied to land in unincorporated Larimer County, as the Town had no RE-1 or
equivalent zoning district.
From older County and EVDC zoning maps, it appears the RE-1 District remained fairly
unchanged on the map from its creation until the IGA dissolution in 2020. See
8593
Attachment 3 for the Estes Valley Zoning Map as it existed in January 2018 - not long
before the IGA ended on April 1, 2020.
The vast majority of land zoned RE-1 during the Joint Planning Area timeframe was in
unincorporated Estes Valley, as the 2018 Zoning Map shows. Judging from spot-checks
of Town zoning maps over the years, it seems not much land inside Town was ever
zoned RE-1.
Presently, only three parcels inside the Town currently are zoned RE-1. The map below
is a close-up of the Town’s Zoning Map in the upper Fall River corridor, showing all
three of the parcels, which are very near each other. The light greenish-gray color is
RE-1, with three asterisks showing each of the three parcels so zoned.
All three parcels are publicly owned. The westernmost parcel above the Castle
Mountain Road cul-de-sac is owned by the Town and is the site of a large water tank.
The two larger parcels to the east are actually part of Rocky Mountain National Park
and are undeveloped. None of these three parcels are likely to develop – and even if
they were to do so, Town zoning would be either inapplicable (Federal land is not
effectively subject to local zoning) or could easily be rezoned in the case of the Town
property.
Community Development staff has been in touch with the Town Utilities Department and
will soon be discussing with National Park Service staff. No objection or concern about
the proposed zoning changes to these three parcels has been noted. The Town has no
other identified uses for its property; the water tank is serving its purpose. Water tanks
and similar utility infrastructure are an allowed use by right in all zoning districts.
Other parcels measuring 10 acres or more do exist inside the Town in various locations.
Attachment 4 is a list of all the parcels inside the Town measuring 10 acres or more.
8694
There are 27 such parcels - seven are residentially zoned and the other 20 are various
types of commercial zoning. A review of this list reveals the following:
• Approx. 40 percent of the parcels (12 out of 27) are owned by a public or quasi-
public entity (Town, Federal, etc.) – entities that are highly unlikely to propose a
single house on a 10-acre or larger lot;
• As the Comments column shows, nearly all are already developed, and most in
ways that would preclude (re)developing them under single-family 10-acre
zoning.
In theory, any of these 27 properties could someday be rezoned to RE-1 under current
Code. In practice, the odds of that happening are very small. Staff would conclude that
few or none of our current 10-acre-plus parcels in Town would likely need or benefit
from rezoning to RE-1.
Proposal:
The Purpose is twofold:
1. The amendment will remove a zoning district that serves no useful purpose
inside the Town of Estes Park. The RE-1 Zoning District is a residential zoning
district that requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. As noted, there are only three
parcels already zoned RE-1, and all three are easily shifted to other suitable
zoning districts. There aren’t many eligible 10-acre parcels likely to rezone to RE-
1. In this respect, eliminating the RE-1 District could be thought of as
“housekeeping” or decluttering our Code.
2. A second reason is more fundamental. In an environment in which attainable and
workforce housing is a critical need, it is hard to see how a 10-acre lot, single-
family-only zoning district has a role to play in the Town of Estes Park. Candidly,
our Town and vicinity have no shortage of sizeable single-family houses on large
individual lots -i.e., unattainable housing for most citizens or families. Zoning to
allow even more of them, at a time when the critical need is for homes on the
other side of the cost spectrum, seems at best unsustainable and at worst
unconscionable.
An additional point related to the second item is that in many planning textbooks and
research articles and papers, 10-acre-lot residential zoning is identified as sprawl
development. As one of many such articles, see this link to a US Environmental
Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/essential_smart_growth_fixes_rural_0
.pdf (see especially Section 6 [p. 30] forward.)
Staff would like to make clear that nothing in the Town’s proposal to eliminate RE-1
zoning is designed to push the same proposal in unincorporated Estes Valley.
Discussion and decisions about that are the County’s choice and prerogative.
Attachments 1 and 2 are the proposed actual Code language for the Development Code
and the Municipal Code respectively. Both exhibits consist of nothing but struck-through
8795
language; nothing is added except a few conjunctions and commas to keep the
grammar and syntax proper.
Preliminary Staff Findings:
The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for
Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected;”
Staff Finding:
The amendment to the code is limited to eliminating one zoning district that
demonstrably serves no useful purpose in the Town, and may serve to undercut
efforts to resolve our workforce and attainable housing shortage.
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 arising from various adopted
policies, including the 2022 Town Board Strategic Goals and the 2016 Housing
Needs Assessment.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.”
Staff Finding:
Town, County, or other relevant service providers would not be significantly
impacted regarding their respective services and facilities if this Code Amendment
is approved.
Advantages:
• Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for
Review.
• Provides for the opportunity to create much needed housing units by eliminating a
zoning district that could result in less-affordable housing in Town.
Disadvantages:
• Some may feel that removing a large-lot, low-density residential district will
compromise the Town’s image and character as a “small mountain village.” Staff
would suggest that Estes Park no longer has that character, and hasn’t for at least
three decades or more – the clock cannot be turned back.
8896
• Some may feel that “it’s not broken, so why fix it?” Staff would suggest that waiting
until something breaks, and then trying to fix it, isn’t actually planning.
Action Recommended:
Review the preliminary proposal for compliance as it relates to existing development
and the Estes Park Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards
for Review and provide direction to staff to move forward with a formal Code
Amendment. (Note: This is just a discussion item in September; a public hearing and
vote will be scheduled upon further discussion.)
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A: Eliminating RE-1 Zoning District in the Estes Park Development Code
2. Exhibit B: Eliminating RE-1 Zoning District in the Estes Park Municipal Code
3. Estes Valley Zoning Map, January 2018
4. List of parcels inside Town boundaries measuring 10 acres or more
8997
CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS
§ 4.1 - Establishment of Districts
The following zoning districts are hereby established. They may be referred to by their
name or their district letter abbreviations.
A. Residential Zoning Districts.
1. RE-1 Rural Estate
21. RE Rural Estate
32. E-1 Estate
43. E Estate
54. R Residential
65. R-1 Residential
76. R-2 Two-Family Residential
87. RM Multi-Family Residential
(…)
CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
A. List of Districts/Specific Purposes.
1. RE-1 Rural Estate Zoning District. This district is established to protect and
preserve some of the most rural areas of the Estes Valley in which significant
view sheds, woodlands, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, other sensitive
environmental areas and low-density residential development comprise the
predominant land use pattern. This zone implements the "Rural Estate (RE-1)"
future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The district
regulations allow for the development of low-density single-family residential
uses, generally at densities no greater than one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10)
acres.
9098
21. RE Rural Estate Zoning District. This district is established to permit
relatively low-density single-family residential development in areas of the
Estes Valley where this is the established and predominant land use pattern.
This zone implements the "Rural Estate (RE)" future land use designation
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. New residential development is
encouraged to incorporate rural residential conservation designs, such as
clustering and other open space preservation techniques, in order to preserve
the existing rural character and limit development in sensitive environmental
areas such as steep sloped areas. The regulations contained in this district will
permit continued, low-density residential development, generally at densities
no greater than one (1) dwelling unit per two and one-half (2.5) acres.
32. E-1 Estate Zoning District. This district is established to preserve the
predominantly lower density residential uses that have been established in the
Estes Valley. This zone implements the "Estate (E-1)" future land use
designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The district regulations
permit single-family residential uses at densities of one (1) dwelling unit per
acre.
43. E Estate Zoning District. This district is established to encourage moderate
density single-family residential uses in areas of the Estes Valley convenient to
services and the key highway corridors. This zone implements the "Estate (E)"
future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. District
regulations are intended to continue the predominant single-family detached
use, while providing for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway linkages
to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems whenever possible. District
regulations permit single-family residential uses at densities of two (2) dwelling
units per acre, with a minimum lot area of one-half (½) acre.
54. R Single-Family Residential Zoning District. This district is established to
preserve and encourage relatively high-density single-family residential uses
primarily within the Town of Estes Park. This zone implements the "Residential
(R)" future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. District
regulations are intended to continue the predominant single-family detached
use, while providing for additional open space and trail/bikeway linkages to
Downtown Estes Park and existing systems whenever possible. District
regulations permit single-family residential uses at densities of four (4) dwelling
units per acre, with a minimum lot area of one-quarter (¼) acre.
65. R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. This district is established
to provide opportunities for attainable single-family residential development
within the Town of Estes Park and in close proximity to services. Accordingly,
district regulations will allow densities of up to eight (8) dwelling units per acre,
with a minimum lot area of five thousand (5,000) square feet, subject to the
attainable housing limitations in §11.4.C of this Code.
9199
76. R-2 Two-Family Residential. This district is established to encourage
development of relatively denser residential housing, including two-family
dwellings (duplexes) as well as single-family detached housing, primarily within
the town limits of Estes Park. This zone implements the "Two-Family (R-2)"
future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. District
regulations will allow a minimum lot area of eighteen thousand (18,000) square
feet for single-family uses and twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet for
two-family dwellings (duplexes).
87. RM Multi-Family Residential. This district is established to provide
opportunities for multi-family residential development. This zone implements
the "Multi-Family (MF)" future land use designation contained in the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-1
Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulatio
ns (Apply
in All
Districts
Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-
1
R-2 RM
RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS
Household
Living
Single-
family
dwelling
P- P P P P P P P In R-1,
§4.3.D.4
applies
(Ord. 18-
01 §13)
Two-
family
dwelling
— — — — — — P P (Ord. 15-
11 §1)
Multi-
family
dwelling
— — — — — — — P §5.1K
(Ord. 02-
10 §1)
92100
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulatio
ns (Apply
in All
Districts
Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-
1
R-2 RM
Mobile
home park
— — — — — — — S §5.1I
Group Living
Facility,
Large
Senior care
facility
— — — — — S2 S2 S2 §5.1I
Large
group
living
facilities
— — — — — S2 S2 S2 §5.1I
Group Living
Facility,
Small
P P P P P P P P
INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES
Day Care
Center (Ord.
6-06 §1)
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F
Family Home
Day Care,
Large (Ord.
6-06 §1)
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F; As
accessory
to a
principal
residential
use only
Government
Facilities
Public
Safety
Facilities
P P P P P P P P §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review
93101
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulatio
ns (Apply
in All
Districts
Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-
1
R-2 RM
Trail/Trail
Head
P P P P P P P P §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review
Utility,
Major
— — — — — — — — §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review
Utility,
Minor
P P P P P P P P §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review;
Use shall
not include
office,
repair,
storage or
production
facilities
All other
Governme
nt
Facilities
P P P P P P P P §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review
Hospital
— — — — — — — S2
Park and
Recreation
Facilities—
Public
P P P P P P P P §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review
94102
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulatio
ns (Apply
in All
Districts
Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-
1
R-2 RM
Park and
Recreation
Facilities—
Private
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.W,
Specific
Use
Standards
Park and
Ride
Facilities
— — — — — P P P
Religious
Assembly
— — — — — — S2 S2 §5.1.O
(Ord. 19-
11 §1)
Cultural
Institutions
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.V
(Ord. 13-
18 §1(Exh.
A))
Schools
— — — — — — S2 S2 §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review
(Ord. 19-
11 §1;
Ord. 13-
18 §1(Exh.
A))
Senior
Institutional
Living
Continuing
Care
Retirement
Facility
— — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1I
95103
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulatio
ns (Apply
in All
Districts
Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-
1
R-2 RM
Congregat
e Housing
— — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.I
Skilled
Nursing
Facility
— — — — — — — S2 §5.1.I
Transportati
on Facility
Without
Repairs
— — — — — P P P §3.13,
Location &
Extent
Review
ACCOMMODATION USES
Low-
Intensity
Accommo-
dations
Bed and
Breakfast
Inn: 8 and
under
occupants
P P P P P P P P §5.1U
Bed and
Breakfast
Inn: 9 and
over
occupants
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 P §5.1U
Vacation
Home: 8
and under
occupants
P P P P P P P P §5.1B
Vacation
Home: 9
LV LV LV LV L
V
L
V
LV LV §5.1B
(Large
Vacation
96104
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulatio
ns (Apply
in All
Districts
Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-
1
R-2 RM
and over
occupants
Home
Reviews
may be
approved
by
Planning
Commissio
n only,
subject to
specified
criteria)
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES
Wireless
Telecommuni
-
cation
Facilities
Attached
and
concealed
(stealth)
antennas
P P P P P P P P §5.1T
Antenna
towers,
microcells
P/S
1
P/S
1
P/S
1
P/S
1
— — P/S
1
P/S
1
§5.1T
RECREATION USES
Golf Course
P S2 S2 S2 — — — — §5.1C
ACCESSORY USES: SEE §5.2 "ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES."
TEMPORARY USES; SEE §5.2, "TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES."
97105
(Ord 18-01 §13; Ord. 6-06 §1; Ord. 02-10 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1; Ord. 19-11 §1; Ord. 29-16 §1; Ord.
09-17 §1; Ord. 17-17 §1; Ord. 31-17 §1(Exh. A); Ord. 05-18 §1(Exh. A); Ord. 13-18 §1(Exh. A);
Ord. 05-19 , §1(Exh. A))
C. Density/Dimensional Standards.
(…)
4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning
Districts.
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Max. Net
Density
(units/acre
)
Minimum Lot
Standards [1] [4]
(Ord. 25-07 §1)
Minimum
Building/Structure
Property Line
Setbacks [2] [7]
(Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord.
15-11 §1)
Max.
Buildin
g
Height
(ft.) [8]
Min.
Buildin
g
Width
(ft.)
Area
(sq ft.)
Width
(ft.)
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rea
r
(ft.)
RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20
RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20
E-1 1 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 30 20
E 2 ½ Ac. [3] 75 25-
arterials
; 15-
other
streets
10 15 30 20
R 4 ¼ Ac 60 25-
arterials
; 15-
other
streets
10 15 30 20
R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20
Formatted Table
98106
Zoning
District
Max. Net
Density
(units/acre
)
Minimum Lot
Standards [1] [4]
(Ord. 25-07 §1)
Minimum
Building/Structure
Property Line
Setbacks [2] [7]
(Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord.
15-11 §1)
Max.
Buildin
g
Height
(ft.) [8]
Min.
Buildin
g
Width
(ft.)
Area
(sq ft.)
Width
(ft.)
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rea
r
(ft.)
R-2 4 Single-
family =
18,000;
Duplex =
27,000
60 25-
arterials
; 15-
other
streets
10 10 30 20
RM (Or
d. 18-01
§14)
Residential
Uses: Max
= 8 and
Min = 3
Senior
Institutiona
l Living
Uses: Max
= 24
5,400 sq.
ft./unit [6]
(Ord. 25-
07 §1;
Ord. 15-11
§1; Ord.
24-16 §1;
Ord. 20-17
§1)
Senior
Institution
al Living
Uses: ½
Ac.
60;
Lots
Greater
than
100,00
0 sq.
ft.: 200
25-
arterials
; 15-
other
streets
10
(Ord
. 15-
11
§1)
10 30
[9](Ord.
24-16
§1; Ord.
20-17
§1)
20 [5]
Notes to Table 4-2
(1) (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential
subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1.
(b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space
developments.
(c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing.
(d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes.
(Ord. 2-02 §1)
(2) See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02
§1)
99107
(3) If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set
forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities."
(4) Reserved.
(Ord. 27-17 §1(Exh.))
(5) Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park.
(6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively.
(Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 24-16 §1)
(7) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site
dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the
dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The
setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1)
(8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which addresses measurement of maximum height of buildings. (Ord. 18-02 §3; Ord. 20-
17 §1)
(9) Maximum height for multi-family buildings in the RM Zoning District shall be thirty-eight (38) feet, for
developments that comply with the provisions of Sec. 4.3.D.5 (Attainable Housing Incentive) or Sec. 4.3.D.6
(Workforce Housing Incentive) of this Code. (Ord. 20-17 §1)
(Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1; Ord.
24-16 §1; Ord. 20-17 §1)
D. Additional Zoning District Standards.
(…)
Table 4-3
Minimum Private Open Areas
Zoning
District
Minimum Private Open
Areas
(% of Gross Land Area)
Adjusted Minimum Lot Size/Area (Ord. 2-
02 #4)
RE-1 30 7.00 acres
RE 30 1.75 acres
E-1 15 0.85 acres
E 15 0.43 acres
R 15 0.21 acres
Formatted Table
100108
Zoning
District
Minimum Private Open
Areas
(% of Gross Land Area)
Adjusted Minimum Lot Size/Area (Ord. 2-
02 #4)
R-1 15 4,250 square feet
R-2 15 Single-Family = 15,300 square feet;
Duplex = 22,950 square feet
RM 15 No Reduction in Minimum Lot Size
2. Lot Size.
(…)
b. Exception for Lots with Private Water/Sewer . The minimum lot
size for lots serviced by private wells or private septic systems shall be
two (2) acres in all districts, except the RE-1 zoning district.
(…)
CHAPTER 5. - USE REGULATIONS
§ 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
(…)
F. Day Care Centers and Large Family Home Day Care. Day care centers and large
family home day care shall be subject to the following standards:
(…)
5. Day care centers in the E, E-1, and RE and RE-1 residential zoning districts shall be
adjacent to an arterial street.
(…)
§ 5.2 - ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS)
AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
(…)
101109
B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts.
1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures.
(…)
Accessory
Use
Residential Zoning District Additional
Requirements
"Yes" = Permitted
"No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
Accessory
dwelling unit
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.B.2.a
1.33 times
minimum lot area
required
Barns and
stables
Yes Yes Yes No No No No No None
(Ord. 15-03 §1)
Day care
center (Ord.
6-06 §1)
No No No No No No No Yes §5.1.F; §5.1.O; as
accessory to a
permitted
religious
assembly use
Family home
day care,
small (Ord. 6-
06 §1)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.d
Home Occupation
As accessory to a
principal
residential use
only
Fences and
walls
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §7.5.H
Garages,
carports, and
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.d
and §7.11
102110
Accessory
Use
Residential Zoning District Additional
Requirements
"Yes" = Permitted
"No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
off-street
parking areas
used to serve
the residents
of the
property
Golf
clubhouses,
including
space for the
sale of golf or
other sporting
equipment,
food and
refreshments
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No As accessory uses
to golf courses
only
Home
occupation
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.e
(Ord 18-01 §18)
Kitchen,
Accessory
(Ord. 08-17
§1)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No §5.2.B.2.f
(Ord. 03-10 §1)
Kitchen,
Outdoor
(Ord. 08-17
§1)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Micro wind
energy
conversion
systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.g
(Ord. 05-10 §1)
103111
Accessory
Use
Residential Zoning District Additional
Requirements
"Yes" = Permitted
"No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
Office
(Ord. 20-
18 §1)
No No No No No No No S2 §5.2.B.2.i
Private
greenhouses
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes •
Private
schools
No No No No No No Yes
(Ord.
19-
11
§1)
Yes As accessory to a
permitted
religious
assembly use
only;
§5.1.O
Satellite dish
antennas 39
inches (1
meter) or less
in diameter
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Accessory to a
principal
residential use
only
•To the maximum
extent feasible,
but only where
there is no
impairment to
acceptable signal
quality, such
satellite dish
antenna shall be
located in the rear
yard of the
residential use
Satellite dish
antennas
greater than
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes •Accessory to a
principal
residential use
104112
Accessory
Use
Residential Zoning District Additional
Requirements
"Yes" = Permitted
"No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
39 inches (1
meter) in
diameter
only
•To the maximum
extent feasible,
but only where
there is no
substantial
impairment to
acceptable signal
quality, such
satellite dish
antenna shall be
located in the rear
yard of the
residential use.
•To the maximum
extent feasible,
the satellite dish
antenna shall be
screened from
view from
adjacent public
rights-of-way
(including trails)
Small wind
energy
conservation
systems (Ord.
21-10 §1)
CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP §5.2.B.2.h
Solar
collector
(Ord. 11-11
§1)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Square footage of
ground-mounted
solar collectors
shall be calculated
as the area of the
105113
Accessory
Use
Residential Zoning District Additional
Requirements
"Yes" = Permitted
"No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
solar panels, not
the structure
footprint.
Storage or
parking of
trucks, cars,
or major
recreational
equipment,
including but
not limited to
boats, boat
trailers,
camping
trailers,
motorized
homes, and
house trailers
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.h
Swimming
pools/hot tubs
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(…)
CHAPTER 7. - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
§ 7.1 - SLOPE PROTECTION STANDARDS
A. Density Calculation for Residential and Accommodation Development on
Steep Slopes in Excess of 12%.
106114
1. Applicability. These density calculation provisions shall apply to all new
residential and accommodation development in the Estes Valley, except for the
following:
a. Single-family residential development on a lot created and approved
for such use prior to the effective date of this Code.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
b. Development within the RE-1 Zoning District.
(Ord. 18-02 #1)
2. General Rule. Notwithstanding the maximum densities permitted by the
underlying zoning district, the minimum lot area for new residential and
accommodation development on parcels containing slopes twelve percent
(12%) or greater shall be determined by the following formulas:
a. All Residential Zoning Districts (Except RM) : For each percentage
point by which average slope exceeds twelve percent (12%), the base
zone minimum lot area requirement shall be increased by one
thousand (1,000) square feet, as shown in Table 7-1 below.
Table 7-1
Density Calculation/Lot Area Adjustment for Steep Slopes by Zoning District
Zoning
District
Base Minimum Lot
Area
Adjusted Minimum Lot Area (Square Feet)
@ "x"% Slope
15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
RE-1 10 acres No Slope Adjustment Required
RE 2.5 acres 111,900 116,900 121,900 126,900 131,900
E-1 1 acre 46,560 51,560 56,560 61,560 66,560
E ½ acre 24,780 29,780 34,780 39,780 44,780
R ¼ acre 13,890 18,890 23,890 28,890 33,890
R-1 5,000 sf 8,000 13,000 18,000 23,000 28,000
R-2 (SF) 18,000 sf 21,000 26,000 31,000 36,000 41,000
Formatted Table
107115
Zoning
District
Base Minimum Lot
Area
Adjusted Minimum Lot Area (Square Feet)
@ "x"% Slope
15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
R-2 (2-F) 27,000 sf 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
(…)
CHAPTER 10. SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
(…)
§ 10.4 – LOTS
(…)
C. Flag or Flagpole Lots. Flag lots (also known as flagpole lots) may be allowed subject
to the following standards:
1. Permitted Zoning Districts. Flag lots shall be allowed only in the RE-1, RE, E-
1, E, R and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts.
(…)
§ 10.5 - SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS
(…)
D. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails.
(…)
2. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be required as follows:
a. Sidewalks shall be required on one (1) side of any public or private
street in all zoning districts, except in the RE-1 and RE Zoning Districts.
Sidewalks may not be required where unusual topographic or
environmental conditions make installation infeasible or would result in
a significant adverse impact on sensitive natural resources.
108116
b. In all zoning districts, including the RE-1 and RE Zoning Districts,
sidewalks on both sides of a street may be required along roads where
the EVPC determines there will be significant pedestrian usage.
c. In all residential zoning districts, including the RE-1 and RE Zoning
Districts, when a residential lot abuts an arterial street, sidewalks shall
be provided to provide public access and connection to adjacent
properties.
(…)
CHAPTER 11. – INCENTIVES
(…)
§ 11.3 - OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENTS
(…)
B. Eligibility. Residential open space developments are permitted in the RE-1, RE and
E-1 zoning districts.
(…)
E. Development and Design Standards
(…)
2. Lot Size.
a. General Rule. Subject to the exceptions listed below, the minimum lot
sizes for single-family detached lots within approved open space
developments shall be as follows:
Zoning District Minimum Lot Size/Area for Single-Family Detached Lots
RE-1 2.5 acres
RE 1.0 acres
E-1 0.5 acres
Formatted Table
109117
(…)
4. Open Areas.
a. Minimum Amounts Required . Open space developments shall
provide the following minimum amount of private and/or public open
areas:
Zoning District Minimum Open Areas (% of Gross Land Area)
RE-1 70%
RE 50%
E-1 40%
Formatted Table
110118
Title 5 - Business Regulations and Licenses
(…)
Chapter 5.20 - Business Licenses
(…)
5.20.110 - Additional provisions for vacation homes and bed and
breakfast inns.
(…)
(b) Residential zone vacation home cap.
(1) Vacation home licenses in residential zoning districts (designated for the
purposes of this Section as zoning districts E, E-1, R, R-1, R-2, RE, RE-1, and RM)
shall be held at a maximum total ("cap") of 322 licenses in effect at any given
time. This cap shall be reviewed annually by the Town Board, in or near the
month of April. Applications received at any time such that their approval
would cause the cap to be exceeded shall be held and kept on file in the order
they are received and deemed complete by the Town Clerk's Office.
Applications held on such list (the "waitlist") shall be issued during the calendar
year as licenses may become available.
(…)
Title 17 – Zoning
(…)
17.66.130 - Sign regulations in all single-family residential zones (R-1,
R, E-1, E, RE, RE-1).
111119
CUMULUS DR
L
ARKSPURRDC O N C O R D L NBIGHORNDR
RAVE
N
A
V
E
BOYD LN OTIS LNFIRAVEGRAVES AVE
RIVERSIDEDRMOCCASINCIRC L E D R
C LAR A D R
D A V I S S T
FALLRIVERRD
UPPE R HIGHDR SUMMI
TDRE WON D E R V I E W A VE
VIRGINIA DR
E ELKHORN
A
V
E
RAMSHORNRDH I L L CRESTLNK E R R R D
LIT
T
L
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
RDNOBLE LNLITTLEV
ALLEYDR4THSTC O U N T Y R O AD61HIGH PINE DR
WINDCLIFF
D
R
BLUEBIRDLN
WINDHAM DR EAGLEROCKDRS U NDANCECIR
ZIOLACT
S U M MI
TLNFISHCREEKWAYN SAINT VRAIN AV
E
WWONDERVIEWAVE
NOBLE LNWILDFIRER D
EAGLECLIFFRD
DEVON DR
C E N TENNIAL
DRWIN
DH A M
L
NBLUEBIRD LN DRYGULCHRDREUNI
ONLNLAND E R S AVE
HIGH DR
L A K E S H O R E D R
PROSPECT AVE
BIRCH AVEGL ACIER
V
IEW LN
RAMBLING DR
NORTH RIDG ELNRA NGEVIEWRD
COUNTRY CLUB
DRHIGH ST
G O L F C O U R SERD
CASTLEM OUNTAINRDWPEAKVIEWDRMANFORDAVE
RAINBOWDRHIGHDR
CLEAVE ST
S T A NL E Y C IR C LE DRPEAK VIEW DR
BRODIE AVE
PO
WE
R
PLANT KORAL CTBROOK DR
LAKEWOODCTSPRUCEAVEPINEWOOD LNRIVERSIDELN BAILEY LNLUMPYRIDGERDCLIFFRD
G R IF F IT H C T 3RDSTTYROL
E
RNEL N
BIGTHOMPSONAVE
H BARGRDMCCREERY LNC H EROKEEDRCHICKADEELN ELMAVENOTA
IA
H
RDSPRINGST
PA
W
N
E
E
D
R
B E A C H L N
M IN D ST
STONEGATE DR
COYOTERUN
C ANYO N R IV E R R D
1STSTCIRCLE D R5THSTLO NG STRLCOLEMANR D
TRAILBLAZERWAYASPENDRBROADVIEW R D
SOUTH LN
SUNNY LN
SU
N
S
E
T
L
NLOTT STSUN
R
I
SECTD A R C Y D R
ASSO CIATIO
NDR
FAR VIEW LN
BAKERDRBLU E B ELL D R JUNIPERLNH OLIDAY LN2NDST
PAW NEE LN
RAMSHORNDRSAMPSONCTWILDLIFE L
N
MORAINE AV
E
H I G H L A N D L N
CHEROKEECT
DUNRAVEN ST
P R O S P E C T O R L N
COMANCHE ST
MEEKER DR
P I O N E E R L N CHASM DR
PINE LN
VE N NERRANCHRD
PONDEROSALN
CARING L N
SANBORN DR
PROSP
ECT PARKDR
ACACIA DR
I N D IAN TRL
WOODSTOC KDRCYTE W O RTHRDASPENVALLEYRDSANBORNDRK A L EY C OT TAG E RD W
NOR
T
H
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
HONDIUS WAY
COMMUNITY DRWILLOW LN
PA RKVIEWLN
PINE MEADOWDRCIRR
U
S
L
N
JA
C
O
B
R
D
C
OLUM
BI
N
E
DRMACCRACKENLN
EAGLECL
I
FFD
R SSAINTVRAINAVEWHISPERINGPINESDRLOWERBROADVIEW AVALON DRMILLSDR
MILLSDR
COOKOUTWAYC R AGSDRCRAGS DREAGLECL I FF CI RCLEDRELM RDMOSSROCKDRROCKRIDGERDJUNIPERDRUPLANDSCIRUPLANDSCIRSTANLEY
CIRCLEDR
POWELLY LNLAUREL LNCREEKSIDE C T
FI
SHCREEKRD LARKSPURAVEHUMMINGBIRDDR
C U R R YLNNORTH LN
PINE KNOLL DR
P INEKNOLL D R
SW S T E A M E R P KWYA U D U B O N ST
FALLRIV
ERLN
SUTTON LN
P ONDEROS A DR
OV ERLOOK
C
TBEL L E VUE DR
HI
GHWAY66 HIGHWAY66CHASM DRLORYLNM
C
G
R
A
W
R
A
N
C
H
RD
PUMADRPUMADR
ASPENA
V
E ASPENAVEF ISH HATCHERYRD
MESAD R
MESADR
WIND
RIV
E
RTRL
K I O WADR
KIOWADRMOUNTAINSIDEDR
J
UNGFRA
UTR
L RO C KCANYONRDCIRCLED RCIRCLEDR
E V E R G REENLN
LONGS DR
SE R ENITYLN
R ID G E R D
RIDGERD
SADDLEBACKLN
ASSOCIA T IONDRJOELES
T
E
SDR
TANAGERRDFAIRWAYC LUBCIRWELKHORN AVE
PUZZLEGRASSCIRTRANQ U ILLN
M O RAINEAVEMORAINE AVEBIG
HORN
TRL
U
T
E
LN
U T E LNCLIFFLN PTARMIG
A
N
T
R
L
P T A R M I G AN T RL
RAVEN CIRRAVEN CIR
HIGHWAY
7 FLOWERLNDAVIDDR
W IN D H A M CTDUNRAVENLND O LL A R L A K E DR
MOONTRAILWAY
BLACKSQUIRRELDR
FAITHWAY
T
U
N
N
E
L
R
D
TUNNEL RDWILDWOOD DRSLEEPYHOLLOWRD
GAILLAR
D
I
ARDBAKERDRFAMILYLNS A IN T FRANCISWAYVISTAVIEWLLOYDLN
SPIRIT
L
N
DEER PA T H CTCARYSPLSILVER TREE LNPINEWOOD LNSOLOMONDR HIGHA C R ES DRSUNNYMEAD LNM O ONRIDGER DRANCH C IRM E A DOWCI
RDEKKERC IR
OURAYDR
CEDAR LN
HAYBARN HILL RD
ASPEN G L ENCA
M
PGROUNDRD
L I T TLEBEA V E R D R
H ER M IT PAR K RD
H E RMITPARKRDRIVERSIDE DR
HUMMING
BI
R
D LN
CENTER LN
NIMBUS DR
UPPER HIGH DR
IVY ST
ELK ISLAND WAY
DRIFTWOOD AVEUPPER VENNER RD
WOODLAND CT
BR
A
E
S
I
D
E
L
N
CANYON COVE LN
MOC
C
A
S
I
N
PINE CONE WAYMOUNTAINSIDE DR
UT
E
C
T EVERGREEN POINT RDUPPER LARKSPUR RD
EAGLE LNBIRDIE LNBLUE SPRUCE DRCOLUMBINE AVEFAWN CTCTTHUNDER LNPAR LNROCK CANYON RD
ROCKWOOD CIRVAIL CTB
A
K
E
R
D
R STEAMER CTTIMBERMOUNTAIN LN
MOUNTAINVIEW CTGRAY HAWK CT
WILLOWSTONE DRCRESTVIEWCT
LOOKOUT STLO
W
E
R
CO
O
K
O
U
T FAIRWAY CLUB LNCONIFER LN
ASPEN
BRAN
C
H
C
T MOUNTAIN VIEW LNPROSPECTESTATES CTPONDEROSA DR
EA
S
T
L
NCAMELOT CTWALLACE LN
BIERSTADT LNBROOK CTSUNRISE CTWAPITI PLF
E
R
N
O
D
E
S
S
A
L
N
WILLO
W
S
T
O
N
E
CT
AVAL
O
N
DR
STEELE CT
PI
K
A
L
N
WAPITI CIR
WILDWOOD LNRESPONSIBILITY
DR MONIDA CTBIRCH AVEF
A
I
R
W
A
Y
L
NGIANT TRACK RDBROOK DRJUNCO LNSUMMERSETLNLAUREL LN
ELKMEADOW CTKINNIKINNIC CTBROOK LN
SKYLINE D
R
MIDDLE HIGH DR
UNIVERSITY DRTANAGER RDRANGE VIEW CTKENDALL DR
LAWNLNPECK LNTURQUOISE TRLBLUE MIST LNDALLMAN DRPROSPECT PARK DR
WILLOW CTELK RIDGE CTSTAGELINE RD
HALLETTHEIGHTS DRN SHARON CTOUTPOST LN
SIOUX
C
T WESTON LNSUNRISE LN
RAVEN CT
FALCON LN
SU
T
T
O
N
L
N
WILDERNESS LNPROSPECTVILLAGE DRWESTVIEW LN
KAL
E
Y
COT
T
A
G
E
R
D
E
KE
R
R
R
D
COLUMBINE AVE
TWIN DRGIANT TRACK RD
SAINT VRAIN LN
SPUR LNBRADLEY LNBUCKAROOCTN MORRIS CTS SHARON CTR
O
C
K
W
O
O
D
LN
S
CLOVER LN
MISTY MANOR DR
HIGHW
A
Y
3
6
S MORRIS CTNORT
H
C
T
SO
U
T
H
C
T
ASPEN TREE DRSCR
A
B
B
I
T
WA
Y CRAGS CTFILBEY CTRE
S
P
E
C
T
L
N
HONDIUS CT
DOLLAR LAKE DR
BROADVIEW LN
BO
D
Y
D
R
G
R
E
E
N
P
I
N
E
C
T
6TH GREEN LNS SAINT VRAIN AVEKALLENBERG DR
ROCKWOOD LN E
DEL LN
SHADOWMOUNTAIN C
T
CT RIDGE VIEW LNROCKWOOD LN WEAGLE CLIFF LNSIERRA SAGE LN
G
O
V
E
R
N
O
R
S
L
N
PROMONTORY DRASPEN LNDR
CHALET RIDGE CTSLEEPY HOLLOW CTL
A
K
O
T
A
C
T HALBACH LND
R
RIVERRO
C
K
CIR OLYMPUS LN EASPENCLIFF
CT GEM LAKE TRLGLACIER DR
CARRIAGE DRHIGHVISTADRS
S
A
I
N
T
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
E
HIGHVISTALNCEDAR RIDGE CIRSUNNY ACRES CTBERTHOUD DALE LN
PINE
R
IVER
LN
SHADY LNPARK LNPROSPECT HIGHLANDS RD
MCGRAW RANCH RD
MA
CG
R
EGO
R
A
V
E
UTILITY DRDRIPPING SPRINGS LN
R
A
M
S
H
O
R
N
R
DCHASE PINE
RIVER CT
HIGH PINES DROLYMPUS LN WROCKWOODLN NBERTHOUD DALE LN
S
T
A
R
W
A
Y
HOT SPUR LN
R
I
D
G
E
L
NUPPERHIGH DRTHUNDERMOUNTAIN LNPARK RIVER
P
L
C
H
R
I
S
T
M
A
S
TR
E
E
L
N
OLYMPIAN LN
FIN
D
L
EYCTH O M E S TEA D LN
SUMMERSETCTOLDMANMO UNTAINLN
VIRGINIALN
VIRGINIAD
R
NSAINTVRAINAVE
STANLEYAVEWIE S T D R
COURTNE Y LN
V A LLEY VIE
WRDFALLRIVERCTFALLRIVERDRBL U E SPRUCEDR
UPPERHIG
H
DR
TANAGER RD
LARKS
P
URRDMILLSL N
ALPINECIR
HI G H W A Y66CHIEFS HEAD RD
PTA
R
MI
GANLNLOCHVALEYPSILONLNNAR CISSUS
D
R
A VALNMARMOT DR LAU RELL
NCHAR-FALLRIVE RC
T
D E ERM OUNTAINMARIGOLD LN
F A R V I E W D R
OLD R A N G E R DRKEN W O OD
LNIVY LNFRIENDS
HIPLN MINERAL RD
EAGLECLIFFDRWIN
D
CLIF
F
DRTERRACE LNCLIFF RD
A SPE N K N O LLDRS ILVERWINDCIRR O C KLNF E L L OWSHIPBEARLA KERDSN U G G LERSCO V E DRFLOWERCIR MESADRLONGHOUSE W AYC
E
D
A
RCLIFFDRZERMATTTRLEIGERTRLN
IMBUS
DRTEDDYSTEETHDRDORSE Y DRB I G H O R N TRL
SILVERSAGECTMA
RIPOSACT
S
AIN
T
M
OR
IT
Z
TRLSUTTON LN CULV E R R D
S HADCT
W PRO SPECTMOUN TAINRDPROSP E C T MOU N T AINDR
PR O SPECTM O U N TAINCTM
A
R
Y
S
L
A
KERD ACAC IA D R
BAL
DPATECTLONG VIEW DRFISHCREEKRDPONDEROSAAVEWHISPERINGPIN E S D RARAPAHORDBRISTLECONECT UPLANDSCIRFISHCREEKRDGRAHAM LNJOHNSE
N
L
N
W INDH A M D
RSKE T C H B
OXLNMATTHEW CIR
COMMUNITY DRPROSPECTMOUNTAINRDVIL L A G E G R EENLNMORGAN
ST
VALLEY RD
JAMES STMARYSL
A
K
E
RD
HIL
L
RDMEADOW LNRIVERSIDE DR
HIGH VISTA LNM ID D L E BROA D V I E W
STRONG AVEHONDIUSCIRMACGREGOR LNCRAB-LONE PINE DRAP
P
LELNR
ED TAIL HAW K D R
PTARMIGAN
L
N
KIO
W
A
T
R
A
I
L PINEW
OOD
S C O T T AVE
PROSPECT ESTATES CT
E
L
K
HOL
L
OWC
T
R A N GEVIEWRDGRA
N
I
TELNMUM M Y L N
CHIQUITALNCHAPINLNCHAPINLNBIGHORNDRBIG
H
O
R
N
D
R
F
R
E
ELANDELKTRAILCTVISTA L N
PONDEROSA DR
DANDIEWAYBLUEVALLEYDR
FISH CREEK RD
ROCKWOOD LN
R
O
C
K
W
O
O
D
L
NBROADVIEW LNKIOWACTGRE Y F O XD R
RAMBLINGDRR OCKWELLST
WRIVERSIDEDRST
FAWNLNERIVERSIDEDRBLACK CANYON DRWEST LNNORTH LN
EAST LNHOMESTEADER
L
N
PANORAMACIRLAKEFRONTS T
G
R
A
N
DESTATES D R
HILL
S
I
DELNSPRU C E DR STEA
M
ER D R
HONDIUS LNLARKS
P
U
R
LNUPPER HEINZ PKWY
HIGHVIE
WHEINZPKWYUPPER BROADVIEW
TURQUOI S ETRL
AXMINSTER LNPRO
S
P
ECTMOUNT
AIN
RD
JUNIPER DRTALL PINES DRPINE
KNOLLLN
L
EXI
NGTONLNLEXINGTONLNLEXINGTON LNMORGANST
MARCUS LN S SAINT VRAIN AVEFALL RIVER RD
HIGH
W
A
Y
3
6
HO
N
E
S
T
Y
P
L
STORM LNRAINBO
W
D
R
B
E
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
HI D E A WAYLN
LITTLEP
R
O
SPECT
R
D
LIGHTNING
R
D
MORAINE PARK C A M P GROUNDRDDEVILSGULCHRDASPEN BROOKD RASP ENG ROVECIR
LITTLE B E A V E R DR
ROOFTOPWAY
MARYS LAKE RD
R-1
R-1
As
p
e
n
Br
o
o
kEastFork FishCreekBuc
k
C
r
e
e
k
Wind RiverFishCreekBigH
o
rn
C
reekEastFo rkF ish Creek
BlackCanyonCreek
B i g T hom psonRiver
B i g T h o m p s o n River
WindRiverG la c ie r C r e e kGlacierCreek B
lackCanyon
C
r
eek
B igThomps onRiver
FallRiver
FishC reek
Beaver Brook
Aspen
Brook
Fall River
F ish C r e ekBig ThompsonRiv e r
FallRiver
LAKEESTES
MARYSLAKE
LILYLAKE
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-1
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CH
CH
CH
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
EE
E
E
EE
EE
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
I-1
I-1
I-1
I-1
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
RE-1
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2R-2
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1
O
O
O
O
O
O
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RMRM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
£¤36
£¤34
£¤36
£¤34
£¤34
£¤36
UV7
UV66
Important Disclaimer:
This map shall be used to identify the boundaries of the zoning districts shown hereon. These boundaries followproperty boundaries as delineated on this map.
This map shall not be used to:Establish specific legal lots lots of record, or individual parcel boundaries; orEstablish property descriptions for legal conveyance of parcels of land.
Individual property boundaries are subject to frequent change, and recent changes may not be reflected on this map.
Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park cannot anticipate and do not assume responsibility or liability forsubsequent, secondary use of this map.
No representation or warranty is made as to the completeness or accuracy of this map for any use other thanthe intended use of identifying zoning district boundaries.
Estes ValleyOfficial Zoning Map
Printed: 4/7/2018
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Multi-Family Residental
Two Family: 27,000 sqft min. (R-2)
Multi-Family: 3-8 du/acre (RM)Commercial
Commercial Outlying (CO)
Commercial Downtown (CD)
Commercial Heavy (CH)
Office (O)
Single Family Residental
Rural Estate: 10 acre min. (RE-1)
Rural Estate: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE)
Estate: 1 acre min. (E-1)
Estate: 1/2 acre min. (E)
Residential: 1/4 acre min. (R)
Residential: 5000 sqft min. (R-1)Adopted Nov. 3, 1999 Revised Jan 8, 2018
Accomodations
Accomodations (A-1)
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Boundary
Town BoundaryPlanned Unit Development
Existing Open SpacePrivatePublic
Industrial
Restricted Industrial (I-1)
Stanley History District
Accomodations (A)[
File: Zoning42x53.mxd
112120
Attachment 4
Address Zoning Acres Comments
1. 650 Elk Trail Ct. E-1 10.5 Town-owned open space
2. 555 Prospect Ave. RM 10.5 Estes Park Health (hospital)
3. 1501 David Dr. RM 12.3 privately owned
4. 465 W. Wonderview Ave. E-1 12.4 'Rockside LLP'
5. 961 Old Ranger Rd. RE 16.0 privately owned
6. 1901 Ptarmigan Tr. RM 17.5 Good Samaritan Society
7. 1950 Fall River Rd. E-1 33.0 privately owned
1. 640 Elm Rd. I-1 10.3 Town (landfill, recycle)
2. 1050 Marys Lake Rd. A 10.5 Spruce Lake RV Park
3. 189 Twin Owls Ln. A 13.1 Black Canyon Inn
4. 451 E. Wonderview Ave. CO 13.9 Stanley Village S.C.
5. 3501 Fall River Rd. A 14.4 Della Terra
6. 1260 Fall River Rd. A 16.8 Streamside
7. 380 Community Dr. CO 17.0 Community Center EVRPD
8. 1001 N. Saint Vrain Ave. CO 17.3 FED - Bur. of Reclamation
9. 600 W. Elkhorn Ave. CO 22.0 Elkhorn Lodge
10. 370 Fish Creek Rd. CO 27.7 FED - Bur. of Reclamation
11. 1520 Fall River Rd. A 28.9 Castle Mtn. Lodge
12. 1665 Highway 66 A 30.7 Elk Meadow RV Park
13. 333-A E. Wonderview Ave. A 34.4 Stanley Hotel Lot 1 campus
14. 2225 Fall River Rd. A-1 35.0 privately owned
15. 1601 Brodie Ave. CO 37.0 Estes Park R-3 School District
16. 400 N. Saint Vrain Ave. CO 39.8 FED - Bur. of Reclamation
17. 1600 Fish Hatchery Rd. A 42.1 Harmony Foundation
18. 220 4th St. CO 49.0 Fairgrounds
19. 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd. A-1 75.5 Town owned tract
20. 1480 Golf Course Rd. CO 181.0 EP Golf Course
113121
114122