The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-09-20Prepared: September 6, 2016 * Revised: STUDY SESSION AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 20, 2016 Noon Town Board Room 12:00 Lunch Chair Hull 12:05 Review of Minutes (5) Chair Hull 12:10 Review of EVDC Special Review criteria (30) Planner Gonzales 12:40 Discussion regarding amendment to EVDC - Director Hunt & Senior Accessory Dwelling Units (30) Planner Chilcott 1:10 Adjourn to meeting Chair Hull Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 11:45 a.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. Prepared: September 6, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION September 20, 2016 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated August 16, 2016 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adoption of the 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff requests to continue to October 18, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (Continued from August meeting) Director Hunt and Senior Planner Chilcott 6. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Temple Residence Variance, 1337 Clara Drive heard September 13, 2016 2. Bruell Residence Variance, 2061 E Hwy 36 heard September 13, 2016 3. Lazy B Variance, 1665 Hwy 66 heard September 13, 2016 4. Appointment of Rex Poggenpohl as new member of BOA B. Estes Park Town Board 1. Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver approved August 23, 2016 2. EVDC Amendment related to concurrent submittal and timing of review approved August 23, 2016 C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. Hearing on September 19, 2016 for EVDC Amendment related to concurrent submittal and timing of review D. Community Development Update 1. Downtown Neighborhood Plan update 2. Floodplain Mapping Update E. Other 7. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. SPECIAL REVIEW PROCESS EXAMPLE 1. Permitted by Special Review YES or NO? 2. What type of Special Review, S1 (Planning Commission Level) or S2 (PC and Board Level)? 3. S1 and S2 must address the Review Criteria Standards below: For purposes of the Special Use Review, the application narrative shall describe the following, as applicable: 1. The proposed use and its operations; 2. Traffic generation; 3. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping, and surfacing; 4. Any effects on off-site parking; 5. Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design; 6. Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur; 7. Crime prevention measures; 8. Noxious odors; 9. Lighting; 10. Effects on air and water quality; 11. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as: a. Glare. This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding; b. Noise; c. Dust; and d. Vibration; 12. Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities; 13. Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and maintenance; and 14. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources, cultural resources, sensitive lands, or other significant natural resource. 4. if S1, in addition to the Special Use Review Criteria Standards, the following standards apply to (example: Religious Institutions Use) where they are allowed through the S1 Special Use Review procedure: (Example: Religious Institutions) In addition to the standards in Section XXXX (Special Use Review Criteria Standards), the following apply to Religious Institutions where they are allowed through the S1 Special Use Review procedure: A. The principal place of assembly has seating for no more than 300 persons. Those religious institutions that do not meet this standard shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. B. Street access: Proposed religious institutions shall have direct access to a street with a functional classification of Local Street or greater. C. Size: Proposed religious institutions shall be no larger than 10,000 SF of Gross Floor Area. If larger than 10,000 SF GFA, then shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. 5. If S2, in addition to the Special Use Review Criteria Standards, the following standards apply to Religious Institutions Use where they are allowed through the S2 Special Use Review procedure: (Example: Religious Institutions) In addition to Section XXXX (Religious Institutions S1 standards), the following apply to Religious Institutions where they are subject to a S2 Special Use Review: A. This section is applicable to those religious institutions where the principal place of assembly can accommodate more than 300 individuals. B. This section is applicable to those religious institutions where the Gross Floor Area of the principal building is over 10,000 SF. C. Religious institutions shall have direct access to a street with a functional classification of Arterial Street or greater. Other Special Review Criteria Examples 1. The proposed use shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2, The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use shall be compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, air pollution, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity. Reasonable conditions may be placed on uses by special review to protect the public health, safety and welfare by mitigating impacts to achieve compatibility and complementary design, especially where a nonresidential use is located adjacent to a residential use; 3. The site shall be physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed land use; 4. The proposed land use shall not adversely affect traffic flow or parking in the neighborhood; and 5. The location of other approved uses by special review in the neighborhood shall be determined so that a concentration and/or cumulative effect of such uses can be evaluated. 6. Except as otherwise noted, the use will comply with the minimum zoning requirements of the zoning district in which the use is to be established, and will also comply with all other applicable requirements; 7. The use will be compatible with the surrounding area. In determining compatibility, the Board should consider the location of structures and other improvements on the site; the size, height and massing of the structures; the number and arrangement of structures; the design of structures and other site features; the proposed removal or addition of vegetation; the extent of site disturbance, including, but not limited to, any grading and changes to natural topography; and the nature and intensity of the activities that will take place on the site. In determining the surrounding area, the Board should consider the unique location and environment of the proposed use; assess the relevant area that the use is expected to impact; and take note of important features in the area including, but not limited to, scenic vistas, mountainous terrain, agricultural lands and activities, sensitive environmental areas, and the characteristics of nearby development and neighborhoods; B. The use will not result in an over-intensive use of land or excessive depletion of natural resources. In evaluating the intensity of the use, the Board should consider the extent of the proposed development in relation to parcel size and the natural landscape/topography; the area of impermeable surface; the amount of blasting, grading, or other alteration of the natural topography; the elimination or disruption of agricultural lands; the effect on significant natural areas and environmental resources; the disturbance of plant and animal habitat, and wildlife migration corridors; the relationship of the proposed development to natural hazards; and available mitigation measures such as the preservation of open lands, the addition or restoration of natural features and screening, the reduction or rearrangement of structures and land disturbance, and the use of sustainable construction techniques, resource use, and transportation management; 9. The use will not have a material adverse effect on community capital improvement programs; 10. The use will not require a level of community facilities and services greater than that which is available; 11. The use will support a multimodal transportation system and not result in significant negative impacts to the transportation system or traffic hazards; 12. The use will be adequately buffered or screened to mitigate any undue visual impacts of the use; 13. The use will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of the County; and 14. The use will establish an appropriate balance between current and future economic, environmental, and societal needs by minimizing the consumption and inefficient use of energy, materials, minerals, water, land, and other finite resources. 15. The use will not result in unreasonable risk of harm to people or property — both onsite and in the surrounding area — from natural hazards. Development or activity associated with the use must avoid natural hazards, including those on the subject property and those originating off-site with a reasonable likelihood of affecting the subject property. Natural hazards include, without limitation, expansive soils or claystone, subsiding soils, soil creep areas, or questionable soils where the safe-sustaining power of the soils is in doubt; landslides, mudslides, mudfalls, debris fans, unstable slopes, and rockfalls; flash flooding corridors, alluvial fans, floodways, floodplains, and flood-prone areas; and avalanche corridors; all as identified in the Comprehensive Plan Geologic Hazard and Constraint Areas Map or through the Special Review or Limited Impact Special Review process using the best available information. Best available information includes, without limitation, updated topographic or geologic data, Colorado Geologic Survey landslide or earth/debris flow data, interim floodplain mapping data, and creek planning studies. SPECIAL REVIEW EXAMPLES IN OTHER COMMUNITIES City of Greeley, Colorado Uses by Special Review — Uses by special review (designated by "S" in the Table of Principal Land Uses) possess characteristics that require a public hearing to determine if the uses have the potential to adversely affect other land uses, transportation systems, public facilities or the like in the surrounding neighborhood. Decisions on use by special review requests shall be made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may require conditions of approval necessary to eliminate, or mitigate to an acceptable level, any potentially adverse effects of the proposed use by special review. (See the illustration below for a description of the use by special review process.) 18.20.070 - Use by special review criteria. (a) Uses by special review are independent uses or accessory to principal uses which can be conducted in a manner that is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or detrimental to the character of the surrounding area, but can be of such a nature as to require public review. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate use by special review requests, along with the criteria and requirements in Subsections (b) and (c) and design review standards in Chapter 18.46: (1) The proposed use shall be consistent with the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; (2) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use shall be compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity. Reasonable conditions may be placed on uses by special review to protect the public health, safety and welfare by mitigating impacts to achieve compatibility and complementary design, especially where a nonresidential use is located adjacent to a residential use; (3) The site shall be physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed land use; (4) The proposed land use shall not adversely affect traffic flow or parking in the neighborhood; and (5) The location of other approved uses by special review in the neighborhood shall be determined so that a concentration and/or cumulative effect of such uses can be evaluated. (b) Use by special review applications shall also be reviewed to ensure that all of the applicable development standards of Chapter 18.38, Zoning District Development Standards, have been met, as well as any applicable overlay district provisions. (c) In addition to those criteria and requirements listed in Subsections (a) and (b), special review applications shall meet all applicable General Performance Standards found in Chapter 18.40, Parking Standards in Chapter 18.42, Landscaping and Buffering Standards in Chapter 18.44, all applicable Design Review Performance Standards in Chapter 18.46 and if applicable, Overlay Districts in Chapter 18.34, Areas of Ecological Significance in Chapter 18.48, Accessory and Temporary Uses, Hillside Standards in Chapter 18.50 and Structures and Buildings in Chapter 18.52. (d) Applications for use by special review for oil and gas operations shall also be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.56, Oil and Gas Operations 18.20.100 - Revocation of permit. (a) Use by special review approval may be revoked by the Planning Commission upon a finding of any one (1) or more of the following grounds: (1) That the use by special review was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud; or (2) That one (1) or more of the conditions upon which such approval was granted is not currently met. (b) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider revocation of the use by special review permit. Notice of the hearing shall be given in accordance with Chapter 18.18, Notice. The applicant or property owner to whom the use by special review has been issued shall be notified of the hearing and shall have an opportunity to present information regarding the use by special review at the hearing. The Commission may take action to revoke the use by special review approval after conducting the public hearing. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the Commission's decision. Such decision shall be considered final, unless appealed under the provisions of Chapter 18.24, Appeals. (Ord. 65, 2002 §1; Ord. 27, 1998 §1) City of Boulder, Colorado 4-600 Uses Permitted by Special Review and Limited Impact Special Review A land use designated as a special use in a zoning district is one that — because of its inherent nature, extent and external effects — may be allowed to establish if subject to Special Review to assure the use is located, designed, and operated in harmony with neighboring development and the surrounding area and does not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. The purpose of the review process is to determine the compatibility of the use with the site and surrounding land and uses and the adequacy of services. Public review is necessary because the effect of a special use on the surrounding environment cannot be determined adequately in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. During the review process, the county considers location, design, configuration, intensity, and impacts by comparing the proposal to the code criteria, intergovernmental agreements, established hazard areas, parcel specific conditions, site context and any other applicable regulations to assure that the use can operate in a sustainable way with minimal danger or impact to the users, the natural environment, or the developed environment. A. A use permitted by Special Review may be established in a zoning district only upon approval of the Board, after review by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions and mitigation measures. B. A use permitted through Limited Impact Special Review may be established in a zoning district only upon approval of the Board subject to conditions and mitigation measures. 4-601 Review Criteria A. A use will be permitted by Special Review or Limited Impact Special Review only if the Board finds that the proposed use meets the following criteria as applicable: 1. Except as otherwise noted, the use will comply with the minimum zoning requirements of the zoning district in which the use is to be established, and will also comply with all other applicable requirements; 2. The use will be compatible with the surrounding area. In determining compatibility, the Board should consider the location of structures and other improvements on the site; the size, height and massing of the structures; the number and arrangement of structures; the design of structures and other site features; the proposed removal or addition of vegetation; the extent of site disturbance, including, but not limited to, any grading and changes to natural topography; and the nature and intensity of the activities that will take place on the site. In determining the surrounding area, the Board should consider the unique location and environment of the proposed use; assess the relevant area that the use is expected to impact; and take note of important features in the area including, but not limited to, scenic vistas, historic townsites and rural communities, mountainous terrain, agricultural lands and activities, sensitive environmental areas, and the characteristics of nearby development and neighborhoods; 3. The use will be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; 4. The use will not result in an over-intensive use of land or excessive depletion of natural resources. In evaluating the intensity of the use, the Board should consider the extent of the proposed development in relation to parcel size and the natural landscape/topography; the area of impermeable surface; the amount of blasting, grading, or other alteration of the natural topography; the elimination or disruption of agricultural lands; the effect on significant natural areas and environmental resources; the disturbance of plant and animal habitat, and wildlife migration corridors; the relationship of the proposed development to natural hazards; and available mitigation measures such as the preservation of open lands, the addition or restoration of natural features and screening, the reduction or rearrangement of structures and land disturbance, and the use of sustainable construction techniques, resource use, and transportation management; 5. The use will not have a material adverse effect on community capital improvement programs; 6. The use will not require a level of community facilities and services greater than that which is available; 7. The use will support a multimodal transportation system and not result in significant negative impacts to the transportation system or traffic hazards; 8. The use will not cause significant air, odor, water, or noise pollution; 9. The use will be adequately buffered or screened to mitigate any undue visual impacts of the use; 10. The use will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Boulder County; and 11. The use will establish an appropriate balance between current and future economic, environmental, and societal needs by minimizing the consumption and inefficient use of energy, materials, minerals, water, land, and other finite resources. 12. The use will not result in unreasonable risk of harm to people or property — both onsite and in the surrounding area — from natural hazards. Development or activity associated with the use must avoid natural hazards, including those on the subject property and those originating off-site with a reasonable likelihood of affecting the subject property. Natural hazards include, without limitation, expansive soils or claystone, subsiding soils, soil creep areas, or questionable soils where the safe-sustaining power of the soils is in doubt; landslides, mudslides, mudfalls, debris fans, unstable slopes, and rockfalls; flash flooding corridors, alluvial fans, floodways, floodplains, and flood-prone areas; and avalanche corridors; all as identified in the Comprehensive Plan Geologic Hazard and Constraint Areas Map or through the Special Review or Limited Impact Special Review process using the best available information. Best available information includes, without limitation, updated topographic or geologic data, Colorado Geologic Survey landslide or earth/debris flow data, interim floodplain mapping data, and creek planning studies. B. If the proposed use is approved or conditionally approved, the Board may impose such conditions and safeguards to insure compliance with the requirements, standards, and conditions of this Section 4-600. Where development or activity associated with the proposed use cannot completely avoid one or more natural hazard, whether because no other site on the subject property can be reasonably designated or developed for the use or because the proposed site is the best location due to the need to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts under other applicable review criteria, the use may be conditionally approved only if one or more measures will satisfactorily mitigate all significant natural hazard risk posed by the proposed use to the subject property and to the surrounding area. The violation of any condition, safeguard, or commitment of record shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of the Special Review approval by the Board, after a public hearing held in accordance with provisions of Paragraph 3-205(C). C. An application for a use by Special Review shall include a development agreement which must be submitted and approved by the Board. 4-138 Boulder County Land Use Code • April 2, 2015 Article 4 • 4-602 Special Provisions D. Where appropriate, in order to enable the proposed use to meet the standards set forth in (A) above, the Board may require the dedication of a perpetual conservation easement upon so much of the site as may be determined necessary to mitigate impacts of special uses. STATE CHILD CARE REGULATIONS A family child care home is required to be licensed when care is provided to two or more unrelated children at any one time. A child care center is required to be licensed when 5 or more children are in care at any one time. A child care license is not required for: • A special school or class in which more than 75 percent of the time that children are present is spent in religious instruction. Religious instruction is defined to include such developmentally appropriate children's activities as worship, singing religious songs, listening to religious stories, learning and practicing religious cultural activities, and participating in religious celebrations. Colorado law and state regulations do not exclude child care programs from licensing just because traditional religious values or philosophy are an integral part of the child care program. Religious institutions that operate child care programs are required to be licensed. • A special school or class operated for a single skill-building purpose. • A child care center operated in connection with a church, shopping center, or business where children are cared for during short periods of time, not to exceed three hours in any twenty-four hour period of time, while parents or persons in charge of such children, or employees of the church, shopping center, or business whose children are being cared for at such location are attending church services at such location, shopping, patronizing or working on the premises of the business. This facility must be operated on the premises of the church, business, or shopping center. Only children of parents or guardians who are attending a church activity or patronizing the business or shopping center or working at the church, shopping center or business can be cared for in the center. • Occasional care of children with or without compensation, which means the offering of child care infrequently and irregularly that has no apparent pattern. • A family care home in which less than 24-hour care is given for only one child or two or more children who are siblings from the same family household at any one time. • A child care facility that is approved, certified, or licensed by any other state department or agency, or by a federal government department or agency, which has standards for operation of the facility and inspects or monitors the facility. • The medical care of children in nursing homes. • Guest child care facilities — Public Services short-term child care facilities as defined at Sections 26-6-102(5) and 26-6-103.5, C.R.S Principal Uses in Residential Zone Districts Allowed By Special Review Use Classification Specific Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Additional Regulations Household Living Mobile Home Park 5 5.1! Group Living Facility, Large Senior care facility 5 S S 5.11 Large group living facilities S S S 5.11 Day Care Center S 5 S 5 5 S S S 5.1F Family Home Day Care, Large S 5 5 S S S S S 5.1F, As accessory to a principal residential use only Hospital S Religious Assembly 5 S 5.10 Schools S 5 3.13 Location & Extent Review Senior Institutional Living Continuing Care Retirement Facility S S 5 S 5.11 Congregate Housing S S S .5 5.11 Skilled Nursing Facility 5 5.11 Low-Intensity Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inn S P 5.1B Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Antenna towers, microcells P/S P/5 P/S P/S P/5 P/S 5,11 Golf Course P _ S S 5 5.1C Principal Uses in Non-Residential Zone Districts Allowed By Special Review Use Classification Specific Use A A-1 CD CO 0 CH 1-1 Additional Regulations Household Living Mobile Home Park S 5.1K Day Care Center P S S P P P P Emergency Health Care S P S S S 5.1H in CD, such use shall not be located on Elkhorn Avenue Family Home Day Care, Large P S S 5.1F, 5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation as accessory to a principal residential use only Government Facilities Utility, Major S S S 5.1L All structures shall be located at least 200 feet away from a residential zone district boundary 3.13 Location and Extent Review Senior Institutional Living Continuing Care Retirement Facility S 5.11 Congregate Housing S 5.11 High-Intensity Accommodations Recreational vehicle park/campground S 7.15 Adult Businesses S 5.1A Food/Beverage Sales Convenience store with fuel sales P S S 5.1E and 5.1Q Outdoor Sales S P P 5.1L and 7.13 Retail Establishments Retail establishments, large 5 P 5.11 In CD, no drive-through service shall have access from Elkhorn Avenue Self-Service Mini Storage P/S P/S If such use contains more than 20,000 sq, ft, of gross floor area, it shall be subject to Special Review Vehicle/Equipment Sales & Services Vehicle/equipment sales and rentals S S S 5.1R; 5.1L Vehicle storage P S 5.1L Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Antenna towers, microcells P/S P/5 P/S P/S P/S P/S 5.1T Antenna towers, other P P P P/S P/S P/S P/S 5.11 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 Use Classification Specific Use A A-1 CD CO 0 CH 1-1 Additional Regulations Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Outdoor Amusement parks S 5.1C Miniature golf S 5.1C Riding academies, livery stables, roping or equestrian arenas S S 5.1C All other S 5.1C Entertainment Event, Major Indoor Facility S S S 5.1C Outdoor Facility S 5.1C Industry Brewery/distillery/winery 5 P 5.1L Limited P/S P 5.1L Recycling Facility S P 5.1L Warehousing and Storage Limited S P/S P 5.11; 5.151n CO, not permitted on lots abutting an arterial street or highway. In CH, uses containing more than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be subject to special review Wholesale Sales & Distribution All other wholesale sales/distribution S P 5.1S RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Carrie McCool, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: None Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, July 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Murphree recused himself for the Habitat for Humanity agenda item. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-04, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY & SALUD CLINIC Carrie McCool reviewed the staff report. The subject property is in the Neighborhood Subdivision, which had the intent to provide affordable housing in the community. The local Salud Clinic is located on the corner of Dry Gulch Road and Red Tail Hawk Drive. This application had three parts: the Rezoning of two lots from 0—Office to R-1—Residential; a Minor Subdivision Plat to replat two existing lots to accommodate Lots 1A and 1B for single-family use, and create Lot 2A to allow for the expansion of the Salud Clinic's parking lot; the Development Plan review scope includes 29 additional spaced in the newly created Salud parking lot, and the plan for the single- family dwellings. Planner McCool stated a legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. The application was routed to all affected agencies for review and comment. The application being reviewed today is only the Development Plan. On June 21, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended to approve the minor subdivision. This was forwarded to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall and approved by the Town Board, with one condition. Concerning the motion to rezone the property, the Planning Commission had a tie vote, so the motion failed. Because the rezoning was directly related to the Development Plan, the Planning Commission did not review or act on the Development Plan application at the June meeting. The Town Board heard and approved the Rezoning application, conditional to the approval of the Development Plan by the Planning Commission. Planner McCool stated the applicant requested a minor modification to increase the maximum impervious lot coverage standards from 50% to 56%. Current coverage is 62%. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant the minor modification. Approval of this minor modification would increase compliance with coverage. Due to site challenges with the area, staff supported the minor modification. Regarding the Landscaping and Buffering standard in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Planner McCool stated a buffer is needed due to the very different land uses (Office & Residential) that are adjacent to each other. Staff recommended the dedication of a landscape easement on Lot 1B to ensure the installation and maintenance of the required landscape buffering be the responsibility of the owners of Lot 2A (parking lot). Planner McCool stated the goal for exterior lighting is to ensure any proposed lighting is of the fully cut-off and downcast-type to minimize glare and light trespass. Staff recommended a revision to a note on the Development Plan to ensure complete compliance with the EVDC exterior lighting standards. Planner McCool stated the applicant submitted a Stormwater Management memo, which was required to help understand the new drainage infrastructure with no negative impacts. This memo relates to the 2005 Drainage Plan for The Neighborhood Subdivision. Finally, the Planning Commission must consider compliance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Planner McCool stated there are a number of community-wide policies that would be advanced through this proposed project, including encouraging a variety of housing types and price ranges; encouraging housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community; establishing a link between new development and the provision of affordable housing; and locating and designing buildings to fit the land. Staff Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 3. The minor modification to exceed the maximum lot coverage standards from 50% to 56% on Lot 2A would advance the goals and purposes of this Code, not exceed the maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) deviation from the zone district standards, result in less visual impact of parking adjacent to Red Tail Hawk Drive, and relieve practical difficulties in development the site. 4. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the proposed Development Plan. Planner McCool stated staff recommended approval of the Development Plan, with conditions of approval listed below. Public Comment Amy Plummer/project engineer stated the Development Plan complies with the EVDC requirements regarding slope and the distance of the driveway from the intersection. The lot areas are nearly two and one-half size the minimum lot size for the R-1—Residential zone district. All utility mains are already in place, so the limits of disturbance at the site will be minimized. Ms. Plummer explained the density is similar to surrounding areas, and less dense than nearby Vista Ridge. The two proposed single-family dwellings will add an insignificant percentage of new homes in this area regarding traffic and impacts to the neighborhood. There will be a challenge due to the slope; however, architect Steve Lane is very capable of making the houses fit the lot. Also, Habitat for Humanity homes are typically smaller than average. She stated the rezoning of the property to R-1 is a down-zoning, and will most likely have less building than if it would have been used as 0-Office. Commissioner Moon prefaced his comments by saying they had nothing to do with Habitat for Humanity. He is a supporter of Habitat for Humanity, and also has confidence in the chosen contractor. He was concerned with the slope and the proposed construction on Lot 1B. Ms. Plummer stated homes in the Estes Valley are often built on lots with slope greater than this. The proposed home will be a garden-level style that will contain the drop in slope. Town Engineer Kevin Ash stated there is room for a drainage swale at the northeast corner of the property. The finished floors of the two proposed dwellings are within two feet of each other. He stated the local designers and contractors are very capable of building a home on the sloped lot. Town Attorney White stated if the EVDC standards are met, the lot sizes are correct, and the lots are buildable, it is not in the Planning Commissioner's purview to determine the buildability of a lot. Sally Brackman/town resident was concerned about the slope of the driveway, and anticipated the residents would be parking on the street during the winter. She was concerned that the proposed homes would not fit in the rest of the neighborhood, as no other homes have carports and sheds. Bruce Brackman/town resident read the Habitat for Humanity Mission statement, and wondered if these two homes would be "decent" as stated in the statement. He did not think all the Planning Commissioners visited the site. Art Messal/town resident stated the process confuses him, and he thinks the development plan was ill-defined. He disagreed that the application complied with the Comprehensive Plan. He RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall stated he lives in an "affordable" neighborhood, but was concerned about the density and property values if these two new homes were built. He encouraged the Commissioners to make the property in question designated open space. Joan Knowlton/town resident agreed with Art Messal. Corrine Dyer/town resident thanked the Estes Park Housing Authority for the Vista Ridge development. She was able to discuss the project with Ms. Plummer, and although she understood it, she disagreed with it. She learned the structure and design of the homes are dictated by the families that will be chosen by Habitat for Humanity. The new homes will be deed restricted, and allowed only two cars. Habitat for Humanity encourages neighbors to keep a close eye on each other and speak out if things seem out of hand. She asked the Planning Commission to add a provision for a select few community members of Vista Ridge and The Neighborhood to be allowed to participate in the design process of the new homes, as this would allow them to be involved and accountable for the structures. Ms. Dyer also met with Steve Lane, who stated he would follow the established Habitat for Humanity process. She was concerned that people in her neighborhood would be humiliated again, as they had been following the Town Board meeting where the minor subdivision and rezoning were approved. Dennis Sohaki/town resident appreciated those Commissioners that visited the site. He stated this is not currently a residential lot, and opposed the rezoning. He stated the subject property is a Brownfield Site with underground waste that has not been excavated. He claimed there is risk in the underlying soil and the site is not safe. He was concerned about various safety issues (traffic, slope, underground waste, etc), and was opposed to the project. Deana Sohaki/town resident stated she knew the lot was zoned 0—Office, and never imagined two single-family dwellings could be built there. She was told the lots were unbuildable for residential use. She was concerned about parking and the Brownfield Site designation. She stated the Town Trustees were anxious to approve the proposal because it was for affordable housing, and did not think they read the public comment or the Brownfield report. She was opposed to having a Habitat for Humanity project in the proposed location. Patsy Neville/town resident stated she was concerned about the safety of the children that may live in the new homes, as the proposed yard areas were not appropriate for children. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner and Applicant comments included, but were not limited to: Planning staff has had discussions with the Chief Building Official regarding the Brownfield report, and if there were issues, they would be addressed at the time the building permit application was submitted and routed to affected agencies; the main reason the parking lot and residential lots weren't switched RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall is because the lower portion is nearly the same as the existing Salud Clinic parking lot, and the proposed layout helps with the soil containment, as there will be very little grading and the area will be covered with asphalt and become impervious; all the Commissioners visited the site; many of the concerns raised are not in the purview of the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission has very specific guidelines they are required to follow; the new minor subdivision will create two new residential lots addressed on Gray Hawk Court; each residential lot will have two parking spaces, and the shared driveway and two carports will be able to accommodate four vehicles; there are other specific limitations in the covenants regarding the number of vehicles at the site. Commissioner Moon requested the vote for the Minor Modification be separate from the vote for the Development Plan. Attorney White stated that would be acceptable. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comment: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated May 2, 2016; b. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016; c. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated March 7, 2016 2. Prior to recordation of the Development Plan, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the 2005 report shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to recordation of the Development Plan, all landscaping shall demonstrate compliance with Section 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers, including the required landscaped buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per every 100 feet of the northern portion of Lot 1B shall be included in a landscape easement wherein installation and maintenance of the required landscaping shall be the responsibility of the owners of Lot 2A. 4. Prior to Development Plan approval, the lighting note #7 on Sheet 1 shall be revised to state "All lighting shall comply with the EVDC lighting requirements." It was moved and seconded (Moon /Hills) to approve the Minor Modification to allow lot coverage of 56% for the Development Plan in lieu of the 50% maximum allowed and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Klink) to approve Development Plan 2016-04 with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-2 with Commissioners Hull and Moon voting against and Commissioner Murphree recused. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Planner Chilcott stated the objective of the proposed amendment was to revise the EVDC to allow long-term rentals of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to increase the supply of rental housing for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the local workforce. During the August 9, 2016 Town Board Study Session, the Trustees directed staff to draft a code amendment to remove the 1.33 multiplier of lot size that currently establishes the minimum lot size for an ADU in residential zone districts. Staff was also directed to draft a code amendment to eliminate the 800 square-foot maximum size for an ADU. Current regulations state an ADU can be no more than 33% of the size of the principal dwelling, or 800 square feet, whichever is less. Finally, the Trustees directed staff to draft a code regarding the regulation of ADUs only within the Town limits, to be adopted if the Larimer County Board of Commissioners did not wish to approve the proposed amendments. Planner Chilcott stated the following questions needed to be addressed by the Planning Commission: (1) Should long-term rental of ADUs be allowed? (2) If allowed, should the provisions sunset? If so, when? (3) Should the minimum lot size and structure size be removed? She stated the Commission can move to recommend approval, continue the discussion, or recommend denial. Staff published a press release regarding this matter and published a legal notice in the local newspaper. The draft regulations were posted on the Town website on August 4'h. Public comment is currently being accepted. It is anticipated for the amendment process to last at least three months. Additional information regarding proposed dates, etc., can be viewed in the staff report on the EVDC Proposed Amendments web page. Planner Chilcott stated the Town Board Study Session included a discussion on the Housing Study. With the upcoming closure of Highway 34 for flood repairs, housing for employees who commute to Estes Park from the valley will be directly affected. The closure is expected to last from October, 2016 through June, 2017. This proposed amendment could make additional units available for rent for those individuals. Planner Chilcott stated whether or not the long-term rental of ADUs will make a difference is very difficult to quantify. There are very rough estimates of possibly 300 +/- attached ADUs in the Estes Valley. This number was derived by reviewing the Larimer County Assessor records for single-family dwellings with two or more kitchen sinks. Some of those dwellings may not be available or desired for long-term rentals. She stated ADUs are a small part of a larger issue for workforce housing within the Estes Valley. Public Comment Patricia Newsom/town resident stated the staff report and draft amendment were very confusing. She provided a definition of "zoning." There were parts of Exhibit A she did not understand: Does this apply to ADUs that are contained within one structure or detached units? Does this mean people could rent one bedroom in a home? She requested clarification as to how many people could actually stay in the home and the ADU. She stated zoning of residential lots was eroding away, and thought permanent residents were being placed second behind visitors. She disagreed with the number of housing units needed that was shown in the housing study. Art Messal/town resident stated the biggest issue was rushing this through the process. He stated a strong unified vision for Estes Park is needed. There is very little data, which adds potential RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall problems for neighborhoods that are already suffering. He recommended the Commissioners deny the proposed amendment, or at least continue for additional discussion. Bob Leavitt/county resident stated the complaint basis would be problematic, as this pushes the enforcement on to the neighbors. He encouraged a permit process, similar to short-term rentals. He stated there is a perceived crisis that housing is needed due to the highway closure. He thought the proposed amendment was moving too fast. He wondered whether safety inspections would occur, and whether or not the proposed amendment would include detached ADUs. He was concerned about pressure put on utilities if ADUs were allowed. Home Owner Associations (HOAs) would be forced to use enforcement if their covenants did not allow ADUs. He stated clarification was needed regarding the difference between accessory kitchens and ADUs. He was opposed to the sunset provision. He stated the proposed amendment would definitely affect the Carriage Hills Subdivision. Eric Blackhurst/representative of the Estes Park Housing Authority stated the proposed amendment was not being rushed through, and the Housing Authority has been trying to address workforce housing for years. This just happens to coincide with the pending closure of Highway 34. He stated long-term rentals are for stays longer than 30 days. The vacancy rate of rentals in the Estes Valley is approximately 1%. The Housing Study indicated a need for many units. Historically, Carriage Hills was first developed with many homes having attached ADUs, so what is currently being discussed is not unique to today's situation. Other areas in Estes Park were built the same way. He stated workforce housing issues began with the recession in 2007, when construction stopped and workforce employees moved out of the Estes Valley. Mr. Blackhurst stated the Housing Authority desires to help the housing issue along in small increments. There was an amendment earlier this year that allowed employees living in workforce housing to not have to be employed on site in order to live there. The Estes Valley workforce includes retail employees, accommodations employees, etc. He stated the proposed amendment was a reasonable solution for the community. Mary Murphy/county resident stated it is difficult to keep young families in town. The real estate market has high prices that the workforce is unable to afford. If those people leave we will not have a well-rounded community. Fred Mares/town resident stated the Planning Commissioners had an in-depth study session discussion with intelligent questions, and he appreciated that. From the Housing Needs Assessment and the Housing Summit, participants prioritized the 11 action items that were recommended in the assessment. ADUs was prioritized as #6. #1 was a strategic plan, #2 was to establish a workforce housing fund. He respectfully disagreed with Director Hunt and Trustee Norris that some data is better than no data. It's difficult to have a comprehensive view of data if the survey is vague. He saw three major issues: (1) Should ADUs be rentable? (2) Should perceived zoning be changed from single-family to duplex? (3) Should the lot size and square footage requirement be changed? He was opposed to deregulating the lot size and square footage RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall requirements. He would support a permit system and safety inspection. What prevents ADUs from becoming short-term rentals? Who keeps the records regarding ADUs? Before decisions are made, a data collection system should be implemented, along with an enforcement/penalty system. If workforce housing during the Highway 34 closure is a true concern, notice could be provided to current vacation home owners that they could rent their homes long-term during the highway closure. Dick Spielman/town resident agreed with Mr. Mares statement regarding the long-term rentability of existing short-term vacation homes, as needed during the highway closure. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Klink was disturbed the Trustees requested staff draft an amendment that included language that would allow the Town and County to work under different regulations regarding ADUs. It is concerning there is no data as to how many units are really available. There is nothing in the draft amendment stating any of these ADUs will go to the workforce and not just retirees. Until we have a plan in place to guarantee that these units will be rented by workforce, he would have a hard time supporting it. Chair Hull stated she understood Mr. Blackhurst's comments. There are non-workforce residents living at Talons Point and Falcon Ridge. If it is so important to find workforce housing, why are people not in the workforce allowed to live in those places? Commissioner Hills stated she did not feel comfortable in making a decision on something that needs more information. Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Klink. Commissioner Moon stated this conversation is no different than the Vacation Rental discussion. If we require permits for vacation rentals, then ADUs should be permitted, too. Those that are operating illegally need to be brought into compliance. There is a significant enforcement issue that needs to be taken into account before we can amended the code to basically be a duplex community. It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to continue the proposed code amendment to the September Planning Commission meeting to allow additional public input and staff time to consider drafting code language to include controlled implementation of the ADU concept, issuance of temporary permits for ADUs, establishment and implementation of an enforcement plan and sunset provision, and to provide additional time for Planning Commission discussion and the motion passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Director Hunt reported the variance application for the Temple residence was continued to the September 13t h meeting 2. Director Hunt reported the height variance for the Community Center was approved. We are expecting submittal of construction plans soon. The Inter-Governmental Agreement will be discussed by the Town Board at a meeting in the near future. B. Estes Park Town Board 1. Director Hunt reported the Annexation Request for Mountain Meadow Subdivision was approved August 9, 2016 2. Director Hunt reported the Habitat for Humanity fee waiver request will be addressed at the next Town Board meeting. C. Larimer County Board of Commissioners 1. Director Hunt reported a joint work session is scheduled for August 30, 2016 to discuss the results of the County-led Vacation Rental Task Force. The meeting time has been changed to 8-10 p.m. in order to accommodate County staff's late afternoon meeting with state and federal officials. D. Downtown Plan Update 1. Director Hunt stated there have been some minor challenges, but the Town and the chosen consultant are close to reaching a consensus with the contracted price. E. Floodplain Mapping Update 1. Floodplain Administrator Tina Kurtz reported the public meeting on the hydrology study will be October 26, 2016 from 8-10 a.m. FEMA and one other firm will be conducting peer reviews. The Town Board will have the hydrology study on their study session agenda on October 25th . She reported the Big Thompson study (below Olympus Dam) will be completed around the end of December, 2016. The Big Thompson Coalition will be working on getting a master plan created, which will accelerate the mapping for that area. The rest of the mapping for the Estes Valley will be done Spring, 2017. The area being studied by the Silver Jackets program should be done late this fall. Ms. Kurtz clarified anything below the Olympus Dam is outside the Estes Park jurisdiction. F. Other 1. Director Hunt reported after four weeks as Director, he has noticed the Estes Valley community has a great level of public participation, and of that he was appreciative. Democracy is a slow process, but it is nice to have a high level of interest and good questions raised by the Commission. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:37 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 4 [P Staff Report TOWN OF fSTES PAM( COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Date: September 20, 2016 (Public Hearing Date — continued from Aug. 16, 2016) RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: Long-Term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Planning Commission Objective: Review of a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Present Situation: Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing from August 16 to Sept 20 to: • Allow additional public input • Provide for staff time to consider drafting code language to include: o Controlled implementation of the ADU concept o Issuance of temporary permits for ADUs o Establishment and implementation of an enforcement plan and a sunset provision • Provide time for further discussion by the Planning Commission [NOTE: The original staff report to Planning Commission from your August 18, 2016 hearing is included in this memorandum, with no changes to that memo since the meeting. Please refer to that memo for context. The following is new information since the Aug. 18 memo was finalized.] Sunset Staff perceives that the sunset element in the draft amendment was not well explained on Aug. 18. Here is a little more information on how sunsetting would work, and why it's proposed: A sunset clause in a given code-amendment ordinance provides that on a certain date in the future, that code amendment will go away and the code language will revert back to exactly what it was before the amendment took effect (assuming no other changes to that code section in the meantime.) In this case, the staff's suggested sunset date is October 31, 2017. There are four options for any code section that was adopted with a sunset clause: 1) Do Nothing: If the sunset language is adopted and then nothing happens before the sunset date, then the code language reverts back to what it was before the amendment's effective date. This possibility has two variations: a. A sunset provision could in effect make the units "un-authorized" on the sunset date. This would mean any units newly built during the effective run of the amendment, as well as units that already existed and became legitimate due to the amendment, would lose any "grandfathering" (legal non-conforming status) that they might otherwise acquire on the sunset date. b. Another variation would be to allow a sunset, but grandfather all units that became conforming as a result of the amendment. 2) Repeal the sunset provision: This option would mean repealing the sunset clause, so that the amendment would remain permanent — pretty straightforward. 3) Modify the code further before the sunset provision takes effect: This option would allow monitoring of how the ADU phenomenon is going, and allow for adjustments as data and information became available during the pre-sunset period. At or near the end, the sunset clause would presumably be either kept or repealed. Staff would suggest that any of these options is open to us at the current time. The one choice that should be made during the initial adoption is picking either 1)a or 1)b, since the grandfathering-or-not decision should be made known up front. Sunsetting does have a practical impact, and may be of value in allowing the community to gauge the impact of ADUs in a graduated or transitional way. Specifically, staff believes it is unlikely that a lot of building permits for new houses with attached ADUs, or for new ADU additions to existing houses, would be likely during a sunset period. This is for two reasons: (a) A bank or lender who's aware of the sunset provision would probably not lend money if their investment might become unmarketable; and (b) many owners would be reluctant for the same reason. Thus, the primary impact would be to legitimize already-existing ADUs in the Valley during the sunset period. This could in theory lead to growth in measurable density, as owners may now be leaving their ADUs vacant and unrented due to their illegal status. That is no doubt true for some, but frankly, it seems more likely that owners may already be renting and just taking their chances on operating undetected. For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 2 of 6 Commission Public Hearing Size Questions have arisen regarding whether an attached ADU would be in effect a duplex dwelling unit. Although the term "duplex" is not defined in the EVDC, in typical planning and zoning practice a true duplex consists of two units in one structure, each of which has more or less the same floor area. ADUs — existing now, and proposed under the amended regulations — would not be "duplexes". Specifically, the amendments would not change the current ADU regulation that limits the accessory unit to one-third (1/3) size limit of the principal dwelling unit to which it's attached. The amendment does propose to remove the maximum 800 square-foot limitation on ADU size. In practice, this would allow single-family houses that are already medium- to large-size (over 2,400 square feet floor area) to add proportionally- scaled ADUs. Occupancy Limits Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the number that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.0.28 below. 28. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident caregivers) living together in a single dwelling unit with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Household living shall include occupancy by a renter household for terms of thirty (30) days or more. Refer to the definition of accommodations use for renter occupancy for terms of less than thirty (30) days. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, other multi-family structures, manufactured housing and other structures with self- contained dwelling units. For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 3 of 6 Commission Public Hearing Another way of putting this is to say that — in the case of a property with an attached ADU — the maximum occupancy is the same number of residents as it would be without the ADU. Just how the residents are distributed internally between the principal dwelling and the ADU dwelling is not a regulated matter under the EVDC. Density Concerns have been expressed regarding the potential for increased residential density in single-family areas of the Valley is the ADU amendment is adopted. This is a legitimate possibility, if the amendment is made permanent. As noted, in the amendment that's proposed, the sunset clause is probably the most effective (albeit informal) deterrent against this phenomenon. Parking The current provision in EVDC (see draft) would remain unchanged: Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. The practical import is that small-lot single-family houses will not be able to fit the additional parking on their lots. A building permit for a new or added ADU would not be approvable under this circumstance. (This likely would continue to be a much better control for small-lot properties than the 800 square-foot minimum.) Data Gathering Staff needs to acknowledge two things: (a) Some data will simply take some time to gather, and that gathering is going on but not complete at this writing (it is expected more data will be available at the Sep. 20 meeting); and (b) other data cannot be gathered until the ADUs are actually allowed to operate. On point (b): Long-Term additional data can be gathered through a permitting system. Staff has discussed this with the Town Clerk's office, and establishing an ADU permitting system is feasible and would not require significant additional resources to implement and maintain. We suggest there be no charge for an ADU permit, as effective data gathering, at least during the sunset period. Especially for a phenomenon that may already be going on, registration seems likely to be ignored or disregarded if payment is required. Enforcement Enforcement is easy to describe but tough to implement. The easy part is that this enforcement action is similar to many others: Complaints are taken, investigations are For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 4 of 6 Commission Public Hearing opened, and if a violation is known to be occurring, action is taken according to a standardized escalation process. The tough part is that this costs money, takes time to administer, and takes more time to make a violation cease. If an ADU amendment is adopted, and especially if a sunset clause is not included or is removed (i.e., the amendment is made permanent), the resources will need to be made available. This is no different in principle than decisions made on any law-enforcement issue in local government. Administration Administration of ADU code provisions is proposed to remain on a code compliance complaint basis. Other options that could be considered if the amendment were to be permanent include developing a more specific permit process for ADU long-term rentals. In the future, a charge could be implemented, possibly through a phase-in mechanism. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.a Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following questions. • Should long-term rental of accessory dwelling units be allowed to help address the Estes Valley's workforce housing shortage? • Should the ADU long-term rental provision sunset? If so, when? • Should the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size be removed? • Should the 800 square foot size limit be removed? • Should the code language be adopted as proposed? The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss and comment on the issue of the amendment being effective in Town if the County does not approve the amendment and may forward their collective position on this issue to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Attachments: For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 5 of 6 Commission Public Hearing 1. Staff memorandum to Planning Commission (previous), dated August 18, 2016 (includes Exhibit A: Draft Code Amendment in redline-strikethrough format) 2. Letter from Ms. Rita Kurelja, Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, to Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, dated August 24, 2016, and public comment received after the August EVPC meeting. For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 6 of 6 Commission Public Hearing Estes Park 1-7 iF Housing Authort August 24, 2016 Mr. Randy Hunt Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Dear Randy: I am writing in response to the Planning Commission chairperson, Betty Hulks question regarding non workforce housing residents living in Falcon Ridge and Talons Pointe. This is very simply a function of the financing mechanisms used to develop these properties. The major source of funding for both projects is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Through this program, we are awarded tax credits which are subsequently sold to an Investor. In the case of Falcon Ridge, the investor is Wells Fargo. As per Section 42 of the IRS code (Tax Credit program) household income in the qualifying units must not exceed 60% of the Area Median Income. For Falcon Ridge and Talons Pointe 100% of the units are qualifying. Therefore in order to put a restriction on Workforce, the household would still need to income qualify at 60% of the Area Median Income. After CHFA has awarded the Tax Credits we find an investor who will purchase these credits. That investor injects a tremendous amount of equity into the project. In the case of Falcon Ridge that amounted to approximately $9.6 million. In choosing to invest in a project the investor wants to ensure that the project will be in full compliance with the regulations as well as be financially stable. Any additional requirements in the eyes of the investor can make the project less desirable. Another consideration at Falcon Ridge is the $1.8 million we received in CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)-Disaster Recovery funds tied to the floods of 2013. The use of these funds requires that we give first preference to households that were affected by the flooding of September 2013 of which there are 11 at Falcon Ridge. Now, The Estes Park Housing Authority does have the right to set, after the funders, a set of local preferences provided it doesn't impede overall lease up or result in discrimination. We have done and continue to do this on all of our properties including Falcon Ridge and Talons Pointe. That preference is given to households who live and/or work in the Estes Valley. The result of all of these preferences and regulations at Falcon Ridge is that 38 out of 48 households that reside there are part of the local workforce. The remaining 10 households are retired and/or disabled. The use of requiring a project to house members of the local workforce is not without precedence and can and is being done in many Colorado resort communities and well as throughout the country. It just needs to be in alignment with the funding sources used at the property. In the case of renting ADUs no such financing would be utilized and therefore not relevant. I hope this is helpful in explaining this issue. I plan to be present for the September 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and can answer any additional questions at that time. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance prior to September 20th . Sincerely, Rita Kurelja Executive Director Estes Park Housing Authority TO: Planning Commission From: Pat Newsom - 450 W Wonderview Ave On a personal note: I believe because we are in the real estate business, many people bring their concerns to us and ask what we think...and this time it is about the Vacation Rentals and Aecessoly Dwelling Units. Several people have asked about the re-zoning of residential zones allowing ADU's. They are concerned about their neighborhoods. They have not received notices from the Town telling them of the intent of action - to allow ADU's - that would affect them. Doesn't an actual re-zoning of E-1(one acre lots) and residential E (half acre) - and any zone restriction as matter of concern - require this notification? I can see where this could end up with no single- family lots anywhere...this is not right for the community. (A "code change just doesn't work for me!) If this re-zoning took place. the ADU's would actually be duplexes. Questions... 1) How large can it be? - one-third the size of the single family residence?..as I understand 800 sq ft is no longer the limit. 2) How many can occupy an ADU? Many of the workforce have families so what determines the number of occupants?... How would this number be enforced? How many cars to each ADU? 3) These are supposed to be for the workforce and at least one adult has to work 30 hours a week...how are these requirements going to be enforced? 4) No short term rentals... so no ADU rentals of less than 30 days! (...What about the vacation rentals? ...short term?... long term? If long term, do these renters become permanent residents with all privileges of the community? Needless to say, ADU's will double the density of areas. Think this through!!! Double the density all over town?...is that what you want? What you see is what you get! Along with ADU's, isn't it possible to have both ADUs and Vacation Rentals in the same neighborhood? Even possible to have both in the same structure if the owner turned his side into a VR? The EVDCode limits families in residential zones to occupancy of eight (8). What will the decision in November be regarding the number of occupants in a Vacation Rental? Is this right and fair?...I question. ADU lodging options not only increases the population of Estes Park and the Valley, thus putting a strain on the services of the area with no obligation. What will be coming next for the residents of our Town? For one, the affordable housing, which if built to the "estimated need"... again for workforce (?) housing (or, any one who wants to move to Estes Park and have low cost housing?). They say we will need 1,400 - 1,700 units in - I am not sure how many years out but... with the factor of 2.2 persons living in one unit (which is low for a 3-bedroom unit), do you realize this will increase our permanent population by one-half or more of the current population? Will the need ever stop? I don't think so as long as "we" continue to provide by re-zoning and not considering our permanent residents and what is best for Estes Park. I believe when you volunteered for the seat granting you opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission you felt you could better the Estes Valley. I hope you continue this good faith in times to come. In closing, my I leave my thought of the present times: Over time we work to be Everything to Everybody! There will be a time - perhaps soon - we will not mean anything to anybody. Respectfully submitted, Pat Newsom 37 year resident 9.8.20E6 Bob Leavitt 3:54 PM (7 minutes ago) IC MC I have some comments, questions, and recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider with regard to the proposed ADU regulations. Please add this email to the public record and forward to the Planning Commission. 1. Administration of these regulations on the basis of code violation complaints seems very problematic. I strongly recommend that a permit/licensing process be used for ADUs, and that it be put in place when the renting of ADUs begins rather than at a later date. Here are my reasons: a. Ensure that an ADU is rented long-term as opposed to short-term. b. Ensure that an ADU is rented to a member of the local workforce. c. Allows the town to know how many ADUs are being rented, and thus determine whether the policy is having a positive effect on the workforce housing shortage. d. Without a permit process it puts the responsibility on residents to monitor the activities of their neighbors to ensure, for example, that the ADU is not being rented short-term. e. Allows the town to enforce the maximum occupancy limit for the combined dwelling. f. Short term regulations have a way of becoming permanent even with a sunset clause. Without a permit/licensing process at the beginning we run the risk of having no control over ADUs now or later. g. Allows the town to develop enforcement procedures consistent with those being developed for vacation rentals. 2. The push to move forward now is based on the assumption that there are a number of ADUs ready to be rented to help mitigate the Highway 34 closure in the canyon. From listening to the Planning Commission's study session and public hearing, it's clear that no one has any idea how many ADUs exist in the Estes Valley and how many might be available for rent. I recommend that the town to do a survey before rushing head-long into a valley-wide zoning change. 3. Should the owner be required to live in the main dwelling when the ADU is rented long-term? To me this seems like a reasonable requirement. It would reduce the likelihood of the ADU being rented short-term. If the owner is not required to live in the main dwelling unit, it opens up other questions. These include: Can both the main dwelling and ADU be rented long-term? If both are rented long-term, can they be rented to separate tenants or to one tenant who will rent both the main dwelling and ADU (perhaps subletting the ADU)? 4. How will dwellings with existing ADUs be addressed? Some of these may not meet existing and proposed codes for ADUs. I recommend that an inspection process be included with the issuance of the permit/license. 5. A new ADU may impact the capacity of utilities in the area, especially sewer and water. How will this be addressed in the ADU regulations? Also an existing ADU may have been unused for years due to current regulations. When that unit is occupied again there could be an impact on utilities in the area, an area which may have grown since the ADU was last used. I recommend this be addressed during the issuance of the permit/license. 6. What happens when HOA/POA covenants state that ADUs are not allowed? For example, the covenants for Carriage Hills do not allow ADUs. HOA's throughout the valley will have to review their covenants and decide what to do. At a minimum, HOA boards (and all citizens) will require an unambiguous, clearly written set of ADU regulations. Equally important, the regulations must be clearly communicated to the community in laymen's terms. 7. A clear definition of an ADU is needed The code defines it as follows. ''Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units.' A number of questions need to be clarified: a. If you have an extra bedroom with its own bathroom that you want to rent out, is that an ADU? Or does an ADU require an accessory kitchen in addition to the bedroom and bathroom? b. If you have an accessory kitchen do you automatically have a (potential) ADU? c. Can an ADU be connected to the main dwelling unit (say via a breezeway or vestibule?) d. If you have a bedroom loft over an attached garage and the tenant shares some of the primary resident's facilities (bathroom. laundry, kitchen) is that an ADU? e. Does an ADU require a separate entrance from the main dwelling unit? 8. Under no circumstances should the Town proceed on its own if the County is not ready to move forward. If we go this route then the carefully crafted and jointly managed land use codes begin to unravel. Other Ideas to Mitigate Closing of the Canyon 1. Many homes sit empty during the winter months. The town should work with property managers and realtors to identify properties where the owner would be willing to rent out over the winter. Potentially, this could cover September through mid-May. Like everything else, this is not a perfect solution but one that would certainly help. 2. House swapping is a possibility. Many people commute both directions between Estes Park and towns in the valley. I've seen house swapping requests on social media. The town could work with Loveland, Longmont, and Ft. Collins to create lists of people willing to consider a swap. Regards, Bob Rebecca Urquhart 3:48 PM (12 minutes ago) to planning Just a short answer to Mr. Klink's question at the Study Session... why isn't the Lodging Association opposing VRs (seems like it is competition)? Because, the lodges are expanding by buying and renting houses in residential areas. (e.g. Range Management, an arm of the Stanley, and others). They use the same websites to advertise as their lodges, they put renters in either the lodges or houses, they use the same cleaning crews, accounting, etc. They are, in fact, supporting VR growth (per Ed Peterson's representation). Their business plans are not improving or expanding their lodges, or expanding in Accommodation zones. It is to increase use of houses in residential areas. This way, they avoid commercial property taxes, structural requirements, ADA, fire safety. In short, as we have been saying, VRs are commercial, not residential, now. Others will be submitting formal comments and research , but the Task Force resident reps did not think through the agreement to allow 9+ in all areas. The starting point was supposed to be to allow new ones in Accommodation zones only. Research shows that when these are allowed, small, older residences get bulldozed or expanded and operated as mini-hotels by the lodging industry. Loss of housing, degradation of neighborhoods. Maybe allow the ones licensed by July 1, but stop there. No one builds big houses any more, except for reunion and event centers. License the big houses people are stuck with now (but good grief, on 'A acre or even 1 acre lots, and the joke of special review? At least consider the distance between houses, and the location of hot tubs). Since the Task Force started, the Denver ordinance became known. If only this new approach, and using 'compass, are adopted, it will solve 80-90% of the problems. This is so complex, lets just look at those 2 steps. Denver allows only owners who have used a house as a primary residence at one time to rent short term. And, if a VR investor owner sells, the next owner cannot rent. Has to use it as a primary residence first. Benefits: 1. Makes short term rental in residential zones in line with its purpose... a residential use by right, not a right to buy up houses and run empires (70% of all the VR purchases are by corporations and lodges in the last few years). That should be only in commercial zones. 2. Prohibits ownership by commercial operators, who use these to expand lodges, or the 2 week visitor who wants a free place and income (a time share that pays) from eroding neighborhoods 3. Increases inventory for workers and year round residents. Preserves primarily residential character of areas. 4. Overcomes the current resistance to caps, by allowing residents who live here now the option of some day renting out their house. (I believe that is why the volume of protestors has remained low..they are thinking, no I don't like them, but. I may want to spend my winters with grandkids or in Arizona want the option, some day) No one saw VRBO exploding when short term use by right was codified It was supposed to allow the 2''" home owner hold on to his house, that he used regularly. But investors saw it It was not intended for what we see.. owners buying 3-5, giving up other jobs and careers to run lucrative lodging in residential areas (like the Minnesota lawyer who is leaving her practice because she makes more running her 3 houses here). This is turning residential zones into accommodation zones, Allow the lodges to build big house style units in Accommodations zones, upgrade the run down hotels, if that is what is needed. Current VR investors and licensed operators would be grandfathered We already have almost 500. Could allow another 300 or so to gel those licenses, to be fair and meet the real lodging demand these meet at some limited level. Note that there are 2500 second homes in Estes. About 800 are already VRs. I estimate another 1000 are owned by 80+- something Midwesterners, and will soon be sold off or inherited by Boomers. You can bet they will be turned into VRs- no body comes here for an entire summer any more. Note that Grand Lake closed their schools about 4 years ago, because the VRBO explosion starteed about 6-8 years ago (due to the recession, and the word getting out about the advantages of these investments). This community will die. Re-h-eeza, L. U1-19144-arit 970-586-7586 10:20 AM (18 minutes Atk; ago) Wayne Newsom via estes.org to planning To Whom It May Concern: C OMMUNITYDEVELOri,j::a Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans. I have a problem with the issue coming up RE: ADU's. My understanding is an ADU is a separate living unit of a single family home — attached or detached, with or without (?) a kitchen. Is this correct. I know there are several/perhaps many ADU's established I believe these should be grandfathered in and those that have had restrictions be allowed to return to active status. I do not believe zoning should be changed to accommodate ADU's in certain areas. It is my understanding that one-half (1/2) and one acre lots zoned for single family dwellings cannot have ADU's. My concern is: I have heard there are plans to re-zone these two categories to allow ADUs. Is this true? Residents who own/live in the above mentioned properties choose to have this restriction. I believe it is wrong to change the zoning of properties. Please respond to this note. Pat Newsom newsom@frii.com day phone 586-4425 (Coldwell Banker) Wayne Newsom, CRS, GRI Coldwell Banker Estes Village Properties, Ltd. PO Box 4130 - 320 E. Elkhorn Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970.586.4425 - Fax: 970-586-8579 E-mail: Newsom@Frii.com www.WavneNewsom.com Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Fw: Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations 2 messages Norm Mcgill <sonny418sw@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Norm Mcgill <sonny418sw@yahoo.com> To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:31 PM On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:24 PM, Norm Mcgill <sonny418sw@yahoo.com> wrote: Sir, I studied with great interest your very splendid article on the subject above. The lack of housing in the Estes Valley is so profound, that it threatens the economic viability of both our businesses and our town of ESTES! I suspect that both the Town and its Planning Commission have a grasp on this situation, but do you have full knowledge of its scope! There are business owners housing employees in their own homes, those of family members, trailers, ranches, and on and on! There are homes in Carriage Hills that have been converted to duplexes and apartments. I am not speculating, I know this by fact and even observation of my neighbors. The true owners of these properties may not even know that their renters are subletting space in their homes. I wonder at the legal ramifications and insurance problems, should the sub renters cause a fire or other problems. We need an atmosphere for openness and legality! My children have businesses in Downtown Estes. They struggle with employee retention on a daily basis. New "YOUNG" folks come to Town and fall in love with Estes. They want to stay and be a viable part of the Community and we need this new young blood. Weeks or months, sometimes years, later they find it impossible to stay. No affordable housing, even if they could afford it, it is not available! The high school kids, after they graduate, find it not possible to stay in Estes. My son and his wife are Estes graduates. They are trying to succeed here in business and family with our grandson. They have high school friends who graduated and left Estes. They want to return here to raise families, but can't even come back and find an apartment to get started in, If I could give you an example, I will do so! My sons best friend from high school currently works for CDOT. He drives the snow removal truck from Estes up through Aliens Park and Seven Highway. He, his wife, and baby live in Loveland. He must commute up to Estes before he can start his work. With heavy snow, highway closures and accidents, what are his delays costing in economics, but more importantly in lives lost to accidents! He wants to move here to Estes, and we are struggling to find a small place for them to rent. Even with our network of friends, we find it nearly impossible. We are in the begging stage for help from friends and landlords. My wife had several high school kids working in the store she manages. They left for college this past week and it has left the older workers to pickup the slack. One young girl lives in Greely and wants to continue to work on weekends. She left work on a previous Sunday. She encountered a deadly motorcycle accident on 34 Highway and turned back to Estes and 36 Highway to get home. She left the store at 4 PM and got home after 9 PM. This is not worth her effort and my wife told her it is not worth her life to continue. Especially with the highway shut downs. As for my wife and I, we have a home. We moved away from Estes a number of years ago to a small, affordable farm in MO. We came back in 2013 to Carriage Hills when our grandchildren started showing up. We carry a rather large mortgage on our home for two people at age 66. Jan continues to work to supplement our income for this mortgage. She would like to cut back a little, but can not. She and an employee in her 50's are the work force. All the others are transient workers trying to stay in Estes, but failing! We need youth to stay in Estes for the benefit of we old folks! The proposed changes in the Accessory Dwelling Regulations could be a GOD send for us. We could add a detached building to the back of our property. It would be allowed under code and permit. We could have two small, new, clean functional apartments in this structure. A couple of new teachers for the Estes District could take up residence here, or employees for my children, or how about a replacement young employee for my wife, who could retire with the rental income from these legal apartments. Should one of us pass away, and it will happen, the other could continue to stay in our home. With a loss of one spouses income from SS, pension, etc., it is not likely the other could stay here! This structure would not even be seen from the road here in Carriage Hills. We want legally approved housing here in Estes Valley. You must be aware of all the illegal housing in the Valley. To enforce the law could drive many hundreds from housing and the Estes Valley. Everyone would suffer. Lets do the right thing! The one other mountain communities found to be the best solution. Let us approve Accessory Dwellings for all of us! For those needing housing and those old folks like us who could better survive by its existence! Let us legalize the accessory housing in Estes Valley. Make it safer for those using it, more available and affordable. Let us keep the money these employees make in Estes, here in Estes Park. Spent in the very places they may work in and expanding revenue for the businesses. Even creating an atmosphere for higher wages. Tax revenues would increase and our schools would benefit with the addition of new children to the Valley! Thank you for your attention: Norm McGill, Carriage Hills. Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org > Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM To: Norm Mcgill <sonny418sw@yahoo.com> Cc: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Norm, Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org (Quoted text hidden) RANGE EALTY, LTD. Alilk EST. 1969 The Oldest Real Estate Company in Estes Park Alba 9 9 2016 August 29, 2016 Town of Estes Park Trustees Town of Estes Park Planning Commision RE: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) What the Town Administrator is proposing on ADU's, should not take place by changing zoning use. This is a zoning change. The homeowners of Estes Park have rights and without an actual "zoning change", we have no voice. What is the big hurry? Affordable housing is not a crises. The 2013 flood was what you would call a crisis. Families to stay and work year round in town do not want to live in a ADU. Families will want a home to rent or buy like in "The Neighborhood" subdivision. The work force will be here during our busy months and then leave as there is "less work". That's the history. Find another way rather than taking our property rights away from us. Thank you for listening. Racine Broker/Owner 300 East Elkhorn Avenue P.O. Box 1604 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-2345 Fax (970) 586-5293 From: Lisa Mcfarlane Sent: Monday, August 15, 2076 952 PM To: rhunt@estes.org Subject: long term rental amendment Randy, I am sorry that my husband and I will be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting due to our work schedules. We totally agree with the need for long- term year around housing especially for those working in the Estes Park area. Currently we own three homes here in town and rent two of them out to year around residents. Our concern with this proposed amendment is how will it be enforced and/or monitored. There is a larger profit margin for vacation rentals and we arc concerned that this will create more VRBO for Estes Park area. If this proposed amendment cannot he monitored and enforced properly; we arc against this amendment. We would love to sec other home owners in Estes Park rent their cabins/homes to local people who are working in the area to help with the shortage of housing available to them. Please don't hesitate to call or e-mail if you have questions. Regards, Gary and Lisa McFarlane 920 East Lane Estes Park (970)443-9844 lcmcfarlane6304mail.com Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Date: August 16, 2016 (Public Hearing Date) RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: Long-Term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Planning Commission Objective: Review of a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Code Amendment Objective: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to increase the supply of workforce housing in the Estes Valley, specifically the supply of rental housing. During the August 9, 2016 Town Board Study Session housing discussion, Trustees directed staff to draft code amendments removing the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size and the 800 square foot minimum for an ADU. Trustees also directed staff to draft a mechanism that could enable this ADU code amendment to be effective within town limits, if the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners elects not to approve the amendments. These amendments are included in the package of amendments for Planning Commission review. Present Situation: The Estes Valley Development Code currently regulates new accessory dwelling units in accordance with certain limited situations. ADUs: • Cannot be rented, short-term, i.e., for stays of less than 30 days, or long-term, i.e., for stays of for more than 30 days; • Can be no larger than 800 square feet, or 33% of the habitable size of the principal dwelling unit; and • Must be on lots with 1.33 times the minimum lot area of the zoning district, e.g., in the Rural Estate RE-1 district, the minimum lot size is 10 acres, so at least 13.33 acres is required for an ADU. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and always located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed in some cases. While current regulations prevent both sort-term and long-term rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment is one of several possible code amendments that may be considered by the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners to address the workforce housing shortage. A primary goal within the Town Board's strategic plan is to serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for all segments of the community. The Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment is available at www.esteshousinq.orq. Public Process: • On Aug. 1, a news release informing the public of the code amendment was posted on the Town website, shared via the Town Facebook webpage and delivered to the Estes Park Trail Gazette and Estes Park News for publication. • Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.oro/EVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at wvvw.estes.orcilboardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. • Public comment can be submitted to achilcott@estes.orq. Public comment will be posted online, and provided to Planning Commission, Town Board and County Commission for consideration. • Public comment can also be provided during the Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission public hearings. • The public will have the opportunity to provide input throughout the public process, which is anticipated to last approximately three-months. Meetings and public hearings are tentative!y scheduled as follows: Date Review/ Decision-Making Bodies Meeting Type Purpose Aug. 16 Planning Commission Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D and forward recommendation to Town Board and County Commission Sept. 19 County Commission Work Session Project Update Sept. 27 Town Board Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.0 and consider adoption Oct. 17 County Commission Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D and consider adoption Revision #2 Page 2 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Public Hearing Legal Notice Requirements The legal notice requirements for the Estes Valley Planning Commission public hearing have been satisfied. The legal notice for the public hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 29, 2016. Prior ADU code amendment proposals and Accessory Kitchen Code Amendment Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission have considered several previous proposals to revise the ADU regulations; however, prior ADU code amendment proposals were broader in scope, e.g., the amendments addressed unit type (attached, detached, and integrated) in addition to the ability to rent long-term, minimum lot size, and unit type. With the prior proposals there was both opposition and support for rental of ADUs. For all practical purposes accessory kitchens allow accessory dwelling units by another name. However, there has been very limited use of the accessory kitchen regulations. Staff assumes this is because few people are either aware of, or understand, the regulation. There now appears to be much more vocal and broad based public support for addressing the housing needs of our workforce due to the current housing crisis that has resulted in community-wide negative impacts. Staff would suggest the option of a "sunset" provision in this code amendment. Sunset provisions serve to make a code section expire on a given date, so that unless further action is taken, meanwhile, the section is effectively temporary. The option always exists to amend the code further to remove the sunset provision (i.e., make the amendment permanent), or to extend the sunset date. It is understood that ADUs have been a topic of great public interest. One possible advantage of a sunset provision is to allow the community and the decision-makers time and opportunity to see the amendment in action, and perceive what may be working well and what may not. It also provides effective notice to landlords that lease arrangements beyond the sunset date may be problematic. Administration Administration of ADU code provisions is proposed to remain on a code compliance complaint basis. Other options that could be considered if the amendment were to be permanent include developing a permit process for ADU long-term rentals. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.a Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as per the elements discussed above.as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Revision #2 Page 3 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Staff Findings: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D. §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review "All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:" 1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;" Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment describes those changes in depth and quantifies the worsening of the housing problem since last measured in 2007, the peak of the economic period prior to the recession (refer to page 11 of the Housing Needs Assessment). 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: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. A development plan is not required. The code amendment aligns with both the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan housing policies and the 2016 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment recommendations. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan established housing policies for the Estes Valley. The comprehensive plan states, "The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community." "Policies include: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Revision #2 Page 4 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements." 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: The proposed code amendment was discussed with providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services. Providers expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment. If a new accessory dwelling unit is proposed on a property with a well or an on- site wastewater treatment system, review and approval of the Larimer County Health Department will be required during building permit review. The Health Department has the authority to determine if the connection to public water or sewer will be required. Also, the Colorado Division of Water Resources may not allow accessory dwelling units to be served by a well. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Is another step towards addressing the workforce housing shortage in the Estes Valley, one of the community's most pressing problems. • There appears to be a broad base of public support for addressing the workforce housing shortage, including support from employers in need of workers, local residents that are homeless or part of the hidden homeless, and commuters that would prefer to live in the Valley if rental housing were available. • From Oct. 2016 through June 2017, travel on Highway 34 travel in the Big Thompson Canyon will be limited. Employees commuting to the Estes Valley will need to use US 36 and CO 66 to travel to the Estes Valley (CDOT, 2016). The entire corridor rebuild is anticipated to last three years from construction start. During this time there will be additional travel delays. In addition to addressing the long-term workforce housing shortage, this code amendment could help some commuters relocate to the Estes Valley in the medium-term. Revision #2 Page 5 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 • Removal of the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size removes a potentially unnecessary regulation and allows for more equal regulation of ADUs across zoning districts. • Removal of the 800 square foot size limit for accessory dwelling units removes a potentially unnecessary regulation. • Pre-existing accessory dwelling units that comply with the ADU code requirements could be rented. • The proposed sunset provision in the regulation means the amendment will automatically expire, unless renewed through a public process with public hearings. This provides for the opportunity to evaluate how the amendment is working and whether is it appropriate to retain the code amendment. Disadvantages: • Allowing rental of ADUs is likely to produce a fairly limited number of units at first, as compared to development of new workforce housing; however, as noted in the Needs Assessment "some strategies may only produce a few units, but in combination with other efforts are key for a diversified inventory of workforce housing that meet a wide spectrum of needs." • The proposed code amendment will not result in one unified set of ADU regulations, i.e., the amendment does not fully reconcile conflicts between the ADU and Accessory Kitchen regulations, at this time. • Numerous reasons to not allow long-term rental of ADUs have been provided by the public. Reasons include, but are not limited to: Rental will result in an increase in land use nuisances (noise, parking, lighting, and more), and change the character of neighborhoods. Concern has also been raised that ADUs will be rented as vacation rentals and the Town and County either cannot, or will not, enforce the short-term rental prohibition of ADUs. Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. Revision #2 Page 6 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following questions. • Should long-term rental of accessory dwelling units be allowed to help address the Estes Valley's workforce housing shortage? • Should the ADU long-term rental provision sunset? If so, when? • Should the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size be removed? • Should the 800 square foot size limit be removed? • Should the code language be adopted as proposed? The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss and comment on the issue of the amendment being effective in Town if the County does not approve the amendment and may forward their collective position on this issue to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Level of Public Interest: High: Addressing housing shortage in the Estes Valley High: Code amendment The level of public interest in this code amendment is anticipated to be high. Proposed ADU code amendments have been discussed in depth, at and length, over a five-year period from 2008 — 2012, with a significant amount of public comment in support and opposition. The end result was that no amendments to ADU regulations were adopted; however, in 2010 accessory kitchen regulations were added to the code. Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code and proposed sunset clause as presented in Exhibit A, and with the findings 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 - findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment and proposed sunset clause to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reason(s) for denial). Revision #2 Page 7 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Attachments: 1. Exhibit A, Draft Estes Valley Code Amendment and Sunset Clause 2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Housing Policies and Housing Action Plan, 1996 3. Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment, 2016 Not printed for Planning Commission packets, refer to www.esteshousinq.orq for document 4. Long-term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units Considered to Aid Workforce Housing Strategies, Town/County News Release, Aug. 1, 2016 5. Accessory Dwelling Units, American Planning Association QuickNotes No. 19, 2009 Revision #2 Page 8 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 EXHIBIT A Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2.B.2 a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. 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 thirty-three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit or eig14 14urldre4 {800} square feet, whichever -{s-feas. An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. Limit on Tenancy. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as short-term rental units. (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. (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. (7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an accessory dwelling unit. (9) -Lot-Ar a. Lot area must be one and thirty throe one hundredths (1.33) timcs tho Mi-41-4141,1111-1444- -area-of-tics-G-(44614st (-14)(9) 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) 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. Exhibit A Draft #2 August 16, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing I (3 ) Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Requirements RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Accessory dwelling unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.6.2.a 1.33 times mi.Rim-usq-lGt area-requi-r-ed Sunset Clause for Town Ordinance and County Resolution This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately upon its adoption and publication, and shall be effective upon through October 31, 2017. Exhibit A August 16, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Draft #2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Chapter Six • Community Wide Policies 5.0 HOUSING The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community. Policies include: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.4 Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas. 5.5 Provide for mixed use developments which integrate commercial, housing, employment, and service needs. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements. 5.9 Support the creation of public and private funding sources for affordable housing. 5.10 Establish a linkage between new developments and the provision of affordable housing. 6.0 SCENIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The quality of life for residents and the visitor experience within the Valley are, in large part, determined by the natural setting and relatively unspoiled environment. Many components of the natural environment have attracted the tourist and resident alike. They include clean water, a pristine landscape and beautiful views. Environmental resources and scenic quality are the foundations of the economy and critical livability factors for residents. Protecting these important environmental assets is necessary to maintain a high quality community. -4ESTES V ALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ie 6-5 Chapter Seven • Action Plan A. Action Plan INTRODUCTION This section includes specific recommended actions for implementing the plan. Some of the actions also include a series of sub-tasks. Many are project related, while others are focused on developing additional information for a specific area of interest. The actions are organized by categories. Government departments and many organizations often have specific needs and wish to have the recommended actions presented together for their specific area. In reality, however, many of the recommendations overlap categories, and it could be argued that some of the recommendations could easily be presented in a different category. It is important to understand that the categories have been utilized only to provide a more convenient access to each of the recommendations. This portion of the plan is meant to be regularly updated and modified. The actions, funding recommendations, and implementation organizations or agencies were developed over an eighteen-month period leading up to June 1995. Over time, new ideas will be developed, new options presented, and individual recommendations will be refined. New projects will arise and organizational capacity will be modified. It is suggested that this action plan be reviewed and modified on an annual basis. The intent of preparing the document has not been to draw a map for the next decade that provides detailed directions for each department. Instead, we have chosen to utilize the broader community vision and community values to act as a compass, always pointed toward "true north." Therefore, reviewing the recommended actions on an annual basis will allow the vision and the actions to be regularly aligned. There are substantially more short-term recommendations than mid- or long-term recommendations. The document was structured in this fashion to insure that it focused on creating enough momentum in the short term to begin the implementation process. Unless this occurs, the plan has little chance of success, and mid- or long-term recommendations become less meaningful. In addition, given current fiscal realities and funding opportunities, it is difficult to provide detailed information related to funding agencies, estimated costs and realistic implementation time frames for many of the long-term action items. Therefore, long-term concepts -- such as creating outlying parking with transit facilities -- have been identified without defining the specifics for each action. The resulting action plan therefore identifies a long-term direction, but also creates the initial momentum necessary to make the plan a reality. For each of these six categories, there follows a brief discussion of needs and a series of recommendations: • Land use, • Growth management, • Mobility and circulation, • Urban Renewal Authority, • Housing, and • Intergovernmental cooperation. -1ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7-1 Chapter Seven • Action Plan A.5 Housing - Recommended Actions Maintaining the supply of affordable housing within the Estes Valley continues to be a significant issue. Part of the solution will include the identification of land for affordable housing development, which may include utilizing some Town or County owned properties. Other solutions are likely to include a combination of incentives and/or linkages with new commercial or lodging developments. There may also be opportunities to modify zoning classifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units. Providing incentives for the development of second floor apartments in the commercial core or in new commercial developments may create additional opportunities. It should be remembered that the overall solution is likely to be the result of a comprehensive set of strategies being implemented together. While the community as a whole has not been supportive of large-scale subsidies, they would like to address the issue incrementally, using a variety of tools. Specific actions include: 1. Completing existing Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) project. The Lone Tree Apartments are under construction. This project will assist local residents and employees to access affordable housing options. 2. Define residential infill areas and strategy. Within the downtown core and a number of neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the core, significant infill opportunities exist. By identifying these areas and creating a special incentive zoning overlay, these opportunities and the associated density incentives would be made apparent. It may also be possible to work with local lending institutions to coordinate the use of Community Reinvestment Funds in these areas. 3. Evaluate accessory structure options. Within the core and in a number of outlying areas, it may be appropriate to allow accessory structures such as Garage Apartments or Attached Units. Specific criteria should be created to define more specifically where such development should be encouraged. 4. Evaluate commercial residential linkages and incentives. Because a substantial portion of impacts associated with employee housing can be correlated with development of commercial or lodging uses, it may be appropriate to link these uses to the creation of affordable/employee housing. Programs could be incentive-based or tied to a direct requirement based on the number units or square footage developed. -lESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:- 7-13 Chapter Seven • Action Plan FIGURE 7.4 Housing Work Program Summary Recommended Action Time Frame , Est. Cost Funding Source Planning Schedule Implementation Schedule .. Planning Areas Affected Gov. Impacts Capital O&M Housing Rec. #1 - Complete Lone Tree Project Short-term Land Local/State/Priv. Year 1+ Year 1+ all No No Rec. #2 - Define Residential Infill Areas & Strategy Phase III None NA Year 1 Year 1 all No No Rec. #3 - Evaluate Accessory Structure Options Phase III NA NA Year 1 Year 2 all No No Rec. #4 - Evaluate Comm.-Res. Linkages/Incentives Phase III NA NA Year 1 Year 2 all No No ES TES V A L L E Y CCIMPR E H E N 5 I V E PL A N 7-14 IARIAtk R ESTES PARK COLORADO Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 www.estes.org Larimer County 200 W. Oak St. For Collins, CO 80521 www.larimer.org August 1, 2016 Kate Rusch Town of Estes Park Public Information Officer krusch@estes.org Tom Clayton Larimer County Communications Specialist claytontm@co.larimer.co.us Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered to aid workforce housing shortage At its next meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission will consider amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and located on the same lot as the single- family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed, in some cases. While current regulations prevent rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The Planning Commission meeting takes place Aug. 16 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room of Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave. Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the proposed code amendment with the standards for review in the Estes Valley Development Code, which includes determining whether the amendment is compatible and consistent with the polices and intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. At the Aug. 16 meeting, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and is expected to make a formal recommendation to the Town Board, which is tentatively scheduled to review the recommendation and draft regulations at its Sept. 20 meeting. Next, the recommendations will be scheduled to be reviewed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, tentatively Oct. 17. The proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment is one of several possible code amendments that might be considered by the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners to address the workforce housing shortage. A primary goal within the Town Board's strategic plan is to serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for all segments of the community. The Estes Park Housing Authority, with support from the Town of Estes Park, conducted the 2016 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment. The assessment identified strategies to address MORE CONTINUED workforce housing needs, calling for partners to first convene a Housing Summit to prioritize those strategies. A top priority identified at the May summit is to amend codes to allow and encourage workforce housing. Another recommendation was to allow accessory dwelling units in all residential zones provided that they are rented long-term to employees. The Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment is available at www.esteshousing.org. The Estes Valley model for land-use regulations is unique in Colorado. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County partnered in the mid-1990s to develop the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan — a unified vision for land-use planning in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. In 2000, they jointly established the Estes Valley Development Code. The Planning Commission reviews development and subdivision proposals and proposed code amendments within the entire Estes Valley, though the final decision-making authority lies with the County Commissioners and Town Board for their respective jurisdictions. Information on the topic of accessory dwelling units will be available at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. For more information, please contact Community Development Director Randy Hunt at 970-577-3719 or rhunt@estes.org. Sign up to receive Town news and/or agendas at www.estes.org/subscribe. More Town news is available at www.facebook.com/townofestesparkco, and www.twitter.com/townofestespark. END American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen Planning fundamentals for public :officials and engaged citizens Ibis PASCOtih-kNotesassns preporeclOyAPA research !gaff wdh<ontribotions kph iftca i :iPourr andl yon r assouotc.> GIVicPoul idoszings jaw hrm. "Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs" Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained living units that typically have their own kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom space. Often called granny flats, elder cottage housing opportuni- ties (ECHO), mother-daughter residences, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs are apartments that can be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi- tion to an existing home. They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn. The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many. For the home owner, ADUs provide the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owner's grown son or daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby. The unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families, which would provide the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental income to the owner. Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage, utilities, and real estate taxes. Finally, leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home owner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and yard for a discount on rent. Despite the benefits, some communities resist allowing ADUs, or allow them only after time-consuming and costly review procedures and requirements. Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood, increase density, add to traffic, make parking on the street more difficult, increase school enrollment, and put additional pres- sure on fire and police service, parks, or water and wastewater. However, communities that have allowed ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually built. ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom- ic climate, changes in household size, increasing numbers of aging baby boomers, and the shortage of affordable housing choices. They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range of housing choices. LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTO THE ACT Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs. This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con- ditional use. In either case, reasonable conditions may be imposed. Some states, including California, have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs. In 2001 AARP retained APA's Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested in convincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it. Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Model Local Ordinance, the monograph provides alternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs. The Model Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities. Additionally, the intent of the ordinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval, and further outlines standards for ADU approval pertaining to lot size, occupancy, building standards, parking and traffic, public health, and how to deal with nonconforming ADUs. The Model State Act provides findings and policies encouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize A Publication of the American Planning Association I PA5QuickNotes No. 19 '.12 RAMP Ir Single story ADU floor plan. )2' " .1! adoption of an ADU statute. It specifies the limits to which local governments may prohibit ADUs and outlines default permitting provisions if a locali- ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance. It details optional approaches for adopting ADU ordinances, certifying local ADU ordinances, gathering data on ADU efforts, preparing reports and recommendations, and forming a statewide board overseeing ADUs. WHAT ISSUES ARISE WHEN A PROPOSED ADU ORDINANCE IS CONSIDERED? ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben- efits to local communities but the road to implementation may not be an easy process. While ADUs are more widely accepted now than in years past, skeptics still remain and some still oppose ADU zoning. The following describes some issues or decision points that communities must address in order to successfully navigate the perilous waters of public acceptance. The approach that is right for your city or town will be unique, based on local physical, political, social, and economic conditions. By-right Permitting. Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right (with clear standards built into the ordinance) or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after a public hearing? Occupancy. Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the property lives in one of the units? Form of Ownership. Should the ordinance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium? Preexisting, nonconforming ADUs. How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs? How do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit? Unit Size: Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly accessory to the principal dwelling on the property? Adequacy of Water and Sewer Services. How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in sewer lines, pumping stations, and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs? These are not easy issues. However, communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach that: allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupan- cy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan- dard. q PAS QuickNores is a publication of the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Copyright 0 2009 Visit PAS online at www.planningorg/pas to find out how PAS can work for you. American Planning Association staff: W Paul Farmer, fAILP, Executive Director and CEO; William R. Klein, Art -P, Director of Research and Advisory Services; Tie Jerdon, OuickNotes Editor; Tim Mennel, Senior Editor, Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer. A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No. 19 For a complete list of references visit http://www.planning.org/pasiguicknotes/ REFERENCES 1. Published by American Planning Association American Planning Association. "Affordable Housing Reader: Articles from Zoning News and Zoning Practice. Available at httpl/myapa.planning.orgiaffordableread er (members-only access). American Planning Association 2006. Policy Guide on Housing Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at www.planning.org/poltcy/guides/pdf/hou sing.pdf. Baggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and Deborah Howe. 1994. Planning for an Aging Society. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 451. Chicago: American Planning Association. For more information on this topic visit www.planning.org. American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen References: Accessory Dwelling Units 1. Published by American Planning Association American Planning Association."Affordable Housing Reader: Articles from Zoning News and Zoning Practice. Available at httpJ/myapa.planning.org/affordablereader (members-only access). American Planning Association. 7006. Policy Guide on Housing. Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/housing.pdf. Baggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and Deborah Howe. 1994. Planning for an Aging Society. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 451. Chicago: American Planning Association. Baron Pollak, Patricia. 1994. 'Rethinking Zoning to Accommodate the Elderly in Single family Housing!kuma/ of the American Planning Association 60 (4): 521-531. Gorman, Alice, and Patricia Pollak. 1989. Community-Based Housing for the Elderly Planning Advisory Service Report no. 420. Chicago: American Planning Association. Howe, Deborah A. 1990. 'The Flexible House Designing for Changing Needs''Jouma/ of the American Planning Association 56 (1): 69-77. Lubell, Jeffrey. 2006. 'Zoning to Expand Affordable Housing.-Zoning Practice. December. Chicago: American Planning Association. Meyerson, Deborah. 2007. 'The Ultimate in Accessibility! Planning, December, 44-45. Wittenberg, Jason. 2002. 'Garages: Not Just for Cars Anymore! Zoning News. August. Chicago: American Planning Association. 2. Other Resources Center for Housing Policy. 2008. Ensuring Zoning Policies Allow Housing Diversity: Accessory Dwelling Units. Available at www.housingpoltcyorg/toolbox/strategy/policies/diverse_housing_types.html?tierid=42. Cobb, Rodney, and Scott Dvorak. 2000. Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance. Washington, D.C.: AARP. Available at httpliassets.aarp.org/rgcenter/consume/d17158_dwell.pdf. Cram, Leo. 1993. Missouri Gerontology Institute.'Accessory Apartments' University of Missouri Extension. Available at http://extension.missouffedu/explore/aging/gg0014.htm. Massachusetts Executive Office of the Environment. (N.d) Model Bylaw for Accessory Dwelling Units. Massachusetts Smart Growth Toolkit Bylaw. Available at www.mass.gov/envirlsmart_growth_toolkit/bylaws/ADU-Bylaw.pdf . Minnetonka (Minnesota), City of. A Citizen's Guide to Accessory Apartments. Available at wwwerninnetonka.com/community_development/planning/brochures/accessory_apartments.pdf Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 1995. Accessory Dwelling Units. Report No. 33. Seattle: Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. Available at www.mrsc.org/Publications/adu30.pdf. Phillips, Jory. 2004. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: Director's Report. Seattle: City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. Available at www.mrsc.org/GovDocs/s42ADUrpt.pdf. Portland (Oregon), City of. 2006. Planning and Zoning Code. Chapter 33.205. Accessory Dwelling Units. Available at www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=53301&c=28197 . Also see www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=dgghg. Provo (Utah), City of. 2007. Zoning Code. Section 14.46.A. Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. Available at wwwprovaorg/downloads/council/title_14_chapters_41-49c_combined.pdf. Santa Cruz (California), City of. 2003. Accessory Dwelling Unit Manual. Available at wwwci.santa- cruica.us/p1/hcd/ADU/PDF/ADU_Manual.pdf U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2004.-Accessory Housing is Part of the Solution!' Available at www.huduser.org/rbc/newsletter/vol3isslmore.html A Publication of the American Planning Association PAS OuickNotes No. 19 3. Case Law Anderson v. Provo City Corp., 2005 UT 5 (2005). City of Wilmington v. Hill, 657 5.E.2d 670 (2008). Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal.App.4th 451 (2001). Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, 21 CalAppAth 330 (1993). Harris v. City of Costa Mesa, 25 Cal.App.4th 963 (1994), Kasper v. Town of Brookhaven, 142. A.D.2d 213 (1988). Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Thy°, 157 Cal. App. 4th1437 (2007). Sounhein v. City of San Dimas, 47 Cal.App. 4th 1181 (1996), Village of Belle Terre v Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1976). A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No. 19 Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> En L41- _STES f' 3 K r'wd: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; Citizen Survey online through August 31 6 messages Art Messal <art.messal@gmail.com> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:52 AM To: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>, Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org> Cc: Michelle Hiland <michelle.hiland@gmail.com> Hi All, Can someone tell me about the process leading up to the Planning Commission now considering this ADU change? I've heard chatter here and there for some time but no substantial discussion. Will this really be going up for a vote with so little dialogue? This will further increase density and warrants very careful consideration, extensive public input, and considerable time for the public to become informed. Thanks, -Art- - Forwarded message From: Town of Estes Park - Public Information Office <krusch@estes.org> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:09 PM Subject: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; Citizen Survey online through August 31 To: art.messal@gmail.com Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Lig ip Like TOWN OF ESTES PARIc, Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered to aid workforce housing shortage At its next meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission will consider amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed, in some cases. While current regulations prevent rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The Planning Commission meeting takes place Aug. 16 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room of Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave. Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. Read the complete article. Participate in the Town of Estes Park's Citizen Survey online through August 31 A random sample of 1,500 Estes Park households received the Town of Estes Park's 2016 Citizen Survey in late June. The same survey is now available for broad participation on the Town's website www.estes.org through August 31. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster encourages everyone to take the opportunity to weigh in on Town and community programs and services, including residents outside the Town limits. "The Town understands many people who weren't included in the scientific sample also rely on our services, and the online survey is a convenient way for all citizens to tell us what they think," he explained. Read the complete article. You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in news from the Town of Estes Park. Please add krusch@estes.org to your address book. ') Like us on Facebook Town of Estes Park, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 SafeUnsubscribe TM art.rnessal©gmail.com Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by krusch©estes.org in collaboration with Constant Contact , Try it free today Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM To: Alison Chilcott <achilcott@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> FYI - Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org [Quoted text hidden] Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM To: Art Messal <art.messal@gmail.com> Cc: Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>, Michelle Hiland <michelle.hiland@gmail.com> Good afternoon Art, Thank you for your email. The code amendment that would allow for the long-term rental of attached ADUs is being brought to the three bodies by staff as an option to help address the affordable housing issues in the Estes Valley. The consideration of this amendment will be a public process (Planning Commission, Town Board, County Commission) with ample opportunity for public comment and feedback. We do recognize that the timeline, while wholly within our procedural requirements, is faster than usual. This decision was made in an effort to address this potential code amendment prior to (or soon after) the Highway 34 road closure. The thought behind this is that the change might assist employees in the community who commute to .Estes Park from other Front Range communities cope with the highway closure. Planning Commission is the first stop for discussion on this item. Of course, they always have the prerogative to continue an agenda item if they do not feel comfortable making a decision/recommendation. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Best, TM Travis Machalek Assistant Town Administrator Town of Estes Park 970-577-3707 [Quoted text hidden] From: Art Messer Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:20 PM To: Travis Machalek Cc: Todd Jirsa; Frank Lancaster; Michelle Hiland; Randy Hunt Subject: Re: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; CitizenSurvey online through August 31 Happy Thursday Travis, I don't follow the logic for pushing this so quickly. The 34 closure starts around the time when many daily or weekly rentals historically shift to longer term and 1 find it unlikely many will break their leases just to move into an ADU. My concern with the public process is that many in our community are starting to notice that this board has some strong agendas and that participation isn't really worth the effort. We need staff to slow things down. :) I have some specific questions that I sent to Randy. Thanks, -Art-