The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Building Code Committee 1969-03-26RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Building Code Committee March 26,1969 Committee:Chairman Steele;Trustees Dannels and Petrocine Attending:Chairman Steele;Trustees Dannels and Petrocine Also Attending:Building Inspector Mowery and Town Administrator Hill The Committee reviewed the attached letter,dated March 21,1969,re garding building height limitations.This matter was tabled until the next Committee meeting. The Committee instructed the Building Inspector to have the department pick up repaired at Dry Gulch Motors as per their bid of $245.00 Building Inspector Mowery reported on a recent meeting he had with the Field Representative of the U.S.Building Officials Conference regard ing Estes Park’s fire zones.The Building Inspector was instructed to present details of proposed changes in the fire zones at the next meeting. A non-conforming use now existing in a R-2 zone was discussed.The Building Inspector was instructed to inforce the Municipal Code. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned. Dale G.Hill,Town Administrator (*1..—....ae.g S (r ,...S ,I’•••---‘: APR 14 lu .1 U i’:- BDA OT ?::s 0 TRAFTON BEAN &ASSOCIATES 737 29TH STREET,BOULDER,COLORADO,80302 303,442-6654 Mr.Dale Hill P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,Colorado Subject:Maximum Height Controls Dear Dale: In reply to your phonecall last week,this memo may provide some back ground concerning possible amendments for the Estes Park Zoning Ordinance in regard to maximum height restrictions.As mentioned to you,there are a variely of ways of controlHng building heights so that town officials Tn Estes Park may wish to consider several possibilities before determining which approach might seem best for the town. The criteria for establishing maximum height controls include the following: 1.Light and Air This is the historic precedent for limiting the height of buildings, since light to adjoining structures (at least during part of the day) and the circulation of air could be affected by high buildings situated close to lower structures. 2.Parking and Traffic Congestion The concentration of many people either living or working in high buildings naturally creates a major traffic generator and resulting problems of many cars circulating and parking near the structure. Other Zoning requrements regarding off—street parking and special traffic control measures may help to minimize these problems. March21,1969 0 0 3.Protection of Views The blocking of views from existing buildings toward mountains and attractive landscaped areas could become a major issue in the devel opment of high—rise buildings.This particular problem k very difficult to control through zoning,however,since the location of a building in relation to its surroundings varies from one location to another. 4.Fire Protection Though most high buildings should be required by building code standards to install special water storage tanks at the top of the buildings for fire protection purposes,a need for having sufficient water pressure to reach the upper portions of the high buildings might be critical in certain out lying areas. 5.Variety Mixing bu;lding heights,when properly done,can offer desirable variety in the appearance of a community.The difficulty though is that frequently the maximum height permitted by the zoning becomes the average which is followed instead of being the height used only occasionally.In other words, attaining a variety of height of buildings is most desirable in theory,but due to varyng property interests and resulting ideas for land use,the varia tion in height frequently either does not occur or results in a very unattractive pattern. Fixed Heights Requirement The normal pattern for restricting building heights would be to add paragraphs to each zoning distrct establishing a maximum building height for each district. For example,a new paragraph 12.6—C—5 might read as follows:“Maximum Building Height.No buildings shall exceed 30 ft.in height.”Possible maximum 1ight ranges might be as follows:E —1,25 ft.to 30 ft.;R—1,25 ft.to 30 ft.; R —2,25 ft.to 40 ft.;R —3,25 ft.to 40 ft.;C —2,40 ft.to 50 ft.;C —1,40 ft. to 60 ft.;1—1,30 ft.to 40 ft.;U District,no requirement.The ranges indicated are to give town officials an idea of typical maximum height requirements for similar communities. Relation lo Yard Requirements Instead of establishing an absolute figure for building heights in each district,the town could adopt a procedure requiting larger yard dimensions,particularly side yards,in relation to the height of the building.For example,in the R—1 District, Paragraph 12.6-D—2 might read as follows:“Yards.For every building there shall be at least one foot of front yard,one foot of rear yard,and one foot of side yard on each side of the building for every two feet of building height,provided that in no event shall any front or rear yard be less than 15 ft.,nor any side yard on each 2 side of the building less than 10 ft.”In other words,whenever a building height exceeds 20 ft.according to this method,the side yard requirement would need to be increased;when a building exceeded 30 ft.,the front and rear yard minimum distances also would need to be increased propor tionately.Should this method of height control be used,other proportions, such as 3 to 1 and 4 to 1,might be used for zoning districts where increased density of use might be permitted. Building Height Overlay Th;s method of controlling building heights would be somewhat independent of normal zoning requirements in establishing individual areas within the commun ity where varying maximum height standards would be used.For example, certain blocks in the central shopping area might be selected as on area where buildings could be constructed as high as 60 ft.;adjoining blocks might allow construction to a maximum height of 40 ft.;and other areas in outlying sections might be limited to 30 ft.The areas so designated by this method probably would not be the same as the boundaries used to divide normal zoning districts. This method of “overlaying”special height requirements would be comparable to procedures which require a greater front yard setback along “major highways” than are required along other streets and roads,without regard for the particular zoning district involved.Special flood plain regulations also follow this pro cedure in that these requirements are not directly a part of separate zoning district requirements. After members of the planning commission and board of trustees have had a chance to think about this subject further,we would be glad to assist with specific text changes in accordance with local preferences.Ernie Hariwell,as town attorney, should also be involved in the discussions and the preparation of any amendment to be certain the town follows sound legal procedures. Sincerely, /z Irafton Bean TB/sc cc:E.G.Hariwell,Attorney