The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-02-17Prepared: February 9,2009 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:30 p.m. Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202, Town Hall 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes - January 20,2009 Planning Commission Meeting 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. SHORT-TERM RENTALS - revisions to vacation home regulations, including revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household living, and nightly rental in the Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 13, and revisions to distinguish between Bed & Breakfasts and vacation home uses and the districts in which these uses are permitted. b. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - proposed changes to Â§5.2.B Accessocy Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts, to aHow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within all single-family residential zoning districts except the R-1 district, to allow the lease of one unit, to allow detached units, and to adopt architectural standards for ADUs; also proposed changes to Â§13.3.3 Definition of Words, Terms and Phrases, to redefine the term Accessory Dwelling Unit. c. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - proposed changes to Â§7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection, to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation plan for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan. 4. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT 5. REPORTS a. PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS b. STAFF-LEVEL REVIEWS c. TOWN BOARD AND COUNTY COMMISSION DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS REVIEWED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 6. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning CommUsion reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 January 20,2009 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 20,2009,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Vice-Chair Klink, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Ron Norris, and John Tucker Attending: Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, Norris, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Planner Shirk, Commissioner Amos The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Vice-Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave Albee/Town Resident - Mr. Albee introduced himself as the newly-elected president of the Association for Responsible Development (ARD). He spoke today to honor Enda Mills Kiley, daughter of Enos Mills and a founding member of ARD in 1985. Mrs. Kiley passed away last week. She was and will continue to be a big inspiration to the group, as her goals to preserve and protect the valley are a primary focus for ARD. Mr. Albee also introduced new officers Sandy Osterman, Buddy Mitchell, and Don Sellers. Mr. Albee suggested a gathering of ARD members, Planning Commissioners, Town Board members, and Larimer County Commissioners to discuss common issues. Director Joseph indicated that a joint meeting between Planning Commission, Town Board, and the Board of County commissioners is being discussed and will most likely occur this spring. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident - As the new vice-president of ARD, she will see that ARD continues the quality of involvement that the Planning Commissioners have come to know and expect from ARD. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The positions being elected today must be as follows: The elected Chair must be a resident of the County, and the elected Vice-Chair must be a resident of the Town. That being said, Commissioner Doug Klink was nominated (Hull/Tucker) to serve as Chair for 2009. It was moved that nominations cease (Kitchen/Norris). The Commission voted unanimously to elect Commissioner Klink as Chair for 2009, with one commissioner absent Likewise, Commissioner Tucker was nominated (Hull/Norris) to serve as Vice-Chair for 2009. It was moved that nominations cease (Norris/Fraundorf). The Commission voted unanimously to elect Commissioner Tucker as Vice-Chair for 2009, with one commissioner absent. Finally, it was moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) to name the Administrative Assistant in the Community Development Department as Recording Secretary. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 20,2009 3. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of meeting minutes dated December 16, 2008. b. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Request to continue this item to the February Planning Commission meeting due to the absence of Planner Dave Shirk It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to APPROVE the consent agenda, and the motion PASSED unanimously with one absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC), BLOCK 12 - WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION Planner Chilcott stated that she would like to focus the discussion today on proposed revisions to EVDC Â§7.8. This section addresses when a wildlife habitat impact assessment would be required, what would be contained in the assessment, and how it would subsequently be reviewed. After today's discussion, proposed code changes as well as proposed setback requirements will be drafted for presentation at February's Planning Commission meeting. A habitat assessment would be required for development plan, subdivision plat, planned unit development, special review uses, and rezoning applications on property that contains critical wildlife habitat. Planner Chilcott indicated habitat assessments will not be required for construction of single-family homes built on lots zoned single-family residential. According to the proposed code, critical status would apply to the following habitats: aquatic, wetlands, riparian vegetation, potential conservation areas as defined by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, winter concentration areas of Big Horn sheep as defined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, raptor nests and a one-half mile diameter buffer around the nest, and severe winter range for mule deer and elk. Another possible addition is migratory bird habitat associated with riparian vegetation and open water. Staff is proposing that a wildlife habitat map be adopted into the EVDC, rather than referencing the EDAW habitat assessment or the EDAW maps in the EVDC. Staff is using the EDAW assessment to assist in forming code language. Planner Chilcott displayed the most recent version of the critical habitat maps, which are available on the Town website. She pointed out the areas that are considered critical and could potentially require a study prior to development. When asked by Commissioner Tucker about the percentage of developable land in the valley and asked whether we should focus on the river corridors and the effect of wildlife conservation in those areas since this is where the bulk of developmenVredevelopment in areas mapped as critical wildljfe habitat may occur in the future. Director Joseph stated the Estes Valley is approaching build-out and developers will begin looking at re- - developing existing parcels rather than developing virgin land. Director Joseph concurred with Tucker about the focus on river corridors. Planner Chilcott recommends any adopted maps be used as guides for further studies. There may be times when property owners question the presence of critical habitat on their property, and the proposed code has provisions for those challenges and possible updates to the maps. This would take place through a public process to allow for comment. Another new addition to the proposed code includes the ability to waive the impact assessment. If it was concluded there was no critical habitat on the property, a waiver could be submitted and reviewed by the Community Development Director, Planning Commission, County Commissioners, or Town Board. A determination about whether or not a wildlife impact assessment would be required could be requested prior to submittal of a development application. Commissioner's Klink and Norris stated that this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 20,2009 needed to be a transparent process. Planner Chilcott stated that she believed the process would be transparent. Director Joseph indicated that staff routinely determines what information needs to be submittal as part of a complete application and that this could include a determination that a habitat impact assessment is not needed. This initial waiver does not mean that the subject is off-limits for discussion and does not prevent Planning Commission from requiring an assessment. Also, he said it is a common occurrence to ask developers for more information during the application review process, and staff always uses their best judgment to focus on pertinent information and tries to make the process flow smoothly. Planner Chilcott stated that code language now includes criteria by which an assessment would be evaluated. Planner Chilcott indicated the review criteria for determining impacts on wildlife species should include human-related activities (domestic pets, etc.) that could threaten the health or viability of a species. Along this same line, impacts on wildlife habitat that threaten elimination, reduction, or fragmentation of said habitat should be considered, as well as movement patterns and the potential displacement of species over the long-term. Finally, cumulative impacts should be considered in order to determine how a development could impact adjacent properties and subsequent wildlife habitat. Planner Chilcott stated that she believes the language used in this code was originally prepared by Clarion for use in Summit County and has been adopted in several other Colorado counties. Staff and Planning Commission needs to determine if the criteria listed will work for the Estes Valley. According to Planner Chilcott, the proposed code recommends the habitat study be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine what mitigation factors are needed in order to minimize impacts. The Estes Valley Contractors Association requested that staff maintain a list of qualified biologists so language requiring this was added to the code. This list would be non-exhaustive, and any applicant could bring the name of a qualified biologist to add to the list, which would be maintained in the Community Development Department. It is suggested each biologist have at least two years experience with habitat review in the Colorado Rockies or two years of comparable experience in another area with similar characteristics and species. Each study would look at existing conditions, assess potential development impacts, review mitigation of impacts, and include an implementation-monitoring enforcement plan (possibly working with homeowners' associations). If a developer had approval to remove habitat from one area they would be required to enhance or restore an area close by. Any damaged habitat would require repair. Commissioner Norris would like to see the initiation of a database of documented wildlife sightings by public groups to track habitat and species in order to determine any wildlife trends. Public Comment: Burt Cushing/Town Resident - Being a retired stream ecologist, Dr. Cushing stated that it is well-known in his science that a river or stream reflects the valley that it drains because of the linkages between the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Any impacts to a stream's valley or environment will eventually impact the stream as well, and the closer the impact, the quicker it will change the stream. Dr. Cushing said the greater the magnitude of the impacts, the greater the impacts within the stream, and encouraged the Planning Commission to stay as far away as possible from streams in order to lessen the potential impacts. Concerning qualified biologists, Dr. Cushing stated many organizations now have "certified" ecologists, and these societies will often provide you with the names of those who have passed the criteria to be included on their lists. Commissioner Tucker asked Dr. Cushing's opinion on what damage, if any, has been done to streams in the Estes Valley. Cushing believes all been severely impacted, including some areas where the link between the terrestrial and aquatic environments has been completely destroyed. Mark Elrod/Town Resident - Mr. Elrod has concerns about the qualifications of the biologists proposed to conduct the habitat assessments. According to the proposed code, the biologist must be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Community RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 20,2009 Development Director. It is also proposed that the Community Development Director compile and maintain the list of biologists. Mr. Elrod's concern lies with the power of the Director to be the sole decision-maker of who is included on the list. Mr. Elrod believes the term "qualified biologist" should be defined by education, experience, years of service, etc. He suggests the code at Â§7.8.F.1.a be changed to state 'The assessment should be prepared by a qualified biologist. The Community Development Department may maintain a list of qualified biologists known to it from time to time and from which selections may be made." Mr. Elrod thinks qualified biologists included on the list should have a minimum of a master's degree from a university in the United States, have a least two years work experience in the natural habitats of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Because our environment is unique, he feels strongly that the biologists should have Colorado Rocky Mountain experience, rather than accepting "comparable" habitat experience. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident - Ms. Osterman indicated that the words "significant adverse impact" are still undefined and with no clear meaning. She asked Commissioners to again refer to her letter dated January 14, 2009 and consider making the applicable changes, which would include establishing an escrow account as a way to reimburse a qualified biologist f6r his services. Corey LaBianca/Local Resident - Ms. LaBianca suggested all habitat assessments, even those being waived, be brought before a public hearing. Dave Albee/Town Resident - Mr. Albee had questions about some property on the north end not being categorized as critical habitat. Director Joseph stated at some point urbanization produces enough fragmentation of the habitat that it is no longer considered severe winter range. Commissioner Norris stated these areas are also recognized by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Mr. Albee suggested reviewing Boulder County's open space database as an example of how the public can help in tracking certain animal species. Fred Mares/Town Resident - Mr. Mares indicated this latest draft has no mention of reduced density or lessening of impervious coverage as a means to mitigate adverse impact. He also thinks it would be helpful to developers to list specifics on how the development footprint could be lessened. Mr. Mares feels "mitigation to maximum extent feasible" needs clearer definition. Planner Chilcott stated there is a definition in the current development code for "maximum extent feasible" and "maximum extent practical," and the final decision concerning mitigation would rest in the hands of the Planning Commission. Mr. Mares appreciates the work Staff and Planning Commission have completed thus far, and is pleased to see the single-family residential parcels taken out of contention for habitat assessments. Mr. Mares would like to suggest a change in the development plan application process to include a concept phase that is addressed at a public forum. The need for a wildlife assessment could be determined at this point of the process. The current process informs the public after the official submission of the application, which comes after money and time have been invested. If the development application was made known to the public earlier, it is Mr. Mares opinion that many of the problems or concerns could be taken care of before the applicant goes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mares also suggests the wildlife habitat assessment, corresponding code revisions, and the open space study that is currently being proposed to the Town Board, be taken as a whole within a vision statement geared towards what our community is trying to achieve. Mr. Mares indicated the concern about financial loss to land owners if areas are labeled for open space, and wants the Planning Commission to be open to creative ideas to mitigate adverse impacts of development through an open space plan. If a purpose or vision statement is stated for the future of the Estes Valley, the citizens could follow that vision and be more accepting of Planning Commission decisions concerning development, habitat issues, and open space. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 20,2009 At this point, the meeting was closed to further public comment and opened to Planning Commission discussion of the proposed written code. Commissioner Klink opened discussion on the proposed written code: Â§7.8A - No comment Â§7.8.B - Commissioners Klink and Hull commented they were pleased the single-family residence had been removed from potential habitat assessment. Commissioner Fraundort questioned uses requiring special review, and Planner Chilcott indicated the possibility of an assessment waiver, noting that language needs to be included concerning the details of the waiver. Commissioner Norris requested more specific language concerning raptor nests, with Planner Chilcott clarifying the proposed 1/2 mile area is the diameter surrounding the nest (1/4 mile radius). Town Attorney White stated the need to include a definition of Critical Habitat in Â§13, which can then reference the map. With that in mind, Â§7.8.b would not include proposed items 1 -8 because they would be listed in the definition in Â§13. Â§7.8.C - No comment Â§7.8.D - Commissioner Klink indicated the definition of a qualified biologist is not completely consistent throughout the proposed code. Commissioner Norris suggested the Commission review some professional society definitions to reach an agreement on what constitutes being a qualified biologist. Director Joseph noted the state of Colorado has a licensing process for biology professionals and should be able to provide the Commission with a list of those persons. Â§7.8.E.3 - Concerning revisions to an adopted map, Commissioner Hull noted that Planning Commission should be involved in the decision-making process of said revisions. Attorney White asked about adding a time limitation to the revision, adding independent processes should contain qualifiers. Director Joseph commented that property owners have a right to know the status of the habitat on their property at a certain point in time. Commissioner Tucker suggested the process be the same for additions to or deletions from the map. Attorney White feels strongly about including a statement about time limits and suggested conducting the process similar to vested rights issued with development plans. Â§7.8.F. 1.a - Attorney White believes the applicant should be allowed to choose the qualified biologist. Planner Chilcott indicated this part of the code was written due to public request and assurance that a chosen biologist would be approved by the Planning Commission. Director Joseph noted the biologist may meet the qualifications, but the Planning Commission may or may not be impressed with his competence, which is similar to judging the expertise of engineers, surveyors, etc. Commissioner Kitchen hopes Planning Commissioners would take time to review each assessment to ensure its accuracy. It was mutually agreed upon by the Planning Commission to strike mutually agreed to by the Community Development Director and the applicant. \t was decided by the Commission to review this section at a later date, giving Staff time to make improvements. Â§7.8.F. 1.b - Director Joseph clarified this portion for the benefit of the Commissioners. Â§7.8.F.2 - Planner Chilcott stated this item concerning the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) was written due to the fact that although the CDOW may not comment, they still need to receive the information and be allowed the opportunity to respond. Â§7.8.F.3 - Planner Chilcott indicated this item is for public guidance. Â§7.8.F.4.a - After discussion about including a definition for significant adverse impact, Attorney White suggested adding "as defined in Section G below" to the end of the sentence of Â§7.8.F.4.a. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 20,2009 Â§7.8.F.4.b - No comment. Â§7.8.F.4.c - Commissioner Klink stated this is the section of the proposed code that allows approval or disapproval of an application if Planning Commission believes there is significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat and species. If an application is denied, the applicant could appeal to either the Town Board or the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney White suggested the language for this item should read "In cases where the significant adverse impacts of a development are not adequately mitigated to the maximum extent feasible resulting in a significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat and/or wildlife species in the Estes Valley." Attorney White added this is a provision not in the current code and is one of the difficulties we have with the current code, which does not give the Planning Commission, Town Board, or County Commissioners the right to deny an application if they feel in their judgment the development is not adequately mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Attorney White also beliefs there should be leeway to approve a deyelopment that may not be able to mitigate the adverse impacts to wildlife. Commissioner Kitchen asked for examples of ways to mitigate impacts, some of which are listed in Â§7.8.G.1.d. Planner Chilcott reviewed those examples and will add others to the proposed code. A 10-minute recess was given at 3:35. The meeting reconvened at 3:46. Commissioner Hull wanted the citizens to know that public comment is extremely valuable and appreciated. Â§7.8.G - Commissioner Klink noted this section is the attempt to define significant adverse impact. The Commissioners agree the words "or may" should be struck from the proposed language in order to read "will have." Â§7.8.G.1 - Planner Chilcott questioned whether or not the language in this paragraph was too strong. Director Joseph suggested writing the section as a goal, (i.e. the overall goal over time is to ensure the health and viability of a species). After discussion among the Commissioners, it was recommended to delete "individual" in Â§7.8.G.1.a and Â§7.8.G.1.b to give a broader definition to animals. It was agreed upon by the Commission to retain parts a-d in order to give guidance to the Commissioners and to be able to create a finding that will be defensible in court. It was also noted the wording should be meaningful in context so the developer will also have guidance. Fred Mares/Town Resident - Mr. Mares suggested using the word "population" rather than "species" when referring to either animals or plants. Â§7.8.G.1.d - Concerning lighting, Commissioner Fraundorf suggested "location" be used instead of "types",as the building code is already in place for types of approved lighting. Â§7.8.G.2 - Commissioner Tucker feels that including the entire Estes Valley in this paragraph is too broad a term to use, as he does not think any localized development in the Estes Valley will eliminate a species. Commissioner Kitchen commented that many people have the perception that the new wildlife code will slow down or stop development in the valley. She feels the big picture with this proposed code is about growth. Commissioner Klink indicated this proposed code is trying to uncover significant impacts on wildlife that wildlife can or cannot adapt to. His opinion is this code is an attempt to establish a balance that takes into account the importance of wildlife while still allowing development and growth. Director Joseph stated no individual development would wipe out a species, but we need to deal with the cumulative effect development could have on at-risk species. Commissioner Norris would like the Commission to consider deleting to the extent that the viability of an individual species is threatened in the Estes Valley and the diversity of wildlife species occurring in the Estes Valley is reduced, and retaining items a-e as a basis for making a reasonable judgment. Commissioner Klink feels items a-e are too broad and should have a context of severity. Planner Chilcott suggested using language that would hopefully prevent getting to this level of severity before some level of mitigation was considered. Commissioner Klink suggested language that brackets the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 20,2009 severity but is less than wiping out the species. Director Joseph directed Staff to continue to fine-tune this section. Fred Mares/Town Resident - Again, Mr. Mares suggested the use of "population" instead of "species." Â§7.8.G.3 - Planner Chilcott believes this section is probably more important in larger developments where there is more infrastructure. As an example, the road constructed through the wetlands area at the Good Samaritan Village could have been rerouted had there been a habitat assessment completed. Commissioner Tucker added this portion of the code may not apply at the golf course, but could be very applicable in the bighorn sheep area of the Fall River corridor. Commissioner Klink would like to read a wildlife biologist's definitions of "population" and "species" before changing these terms in the code, and would also be interested to hear what local wildlife professionals think of this proposed code. Attorney White would like see a review by biologists from a financial standpoint based on the criteria being requested. Commissioner Klink added that putting all development plans on the same level for habitat assessments may not be economically feasible to the developers, due to the variables of each development. Â§7.8.G.4.b - After discussion among the Commission, it was suggested to delete this section. Commissioners will review it again before making a final decision on the deletion. Â§7.8.G.5 - Attorney White noted this section would be forcing a developer to address cumulative impacts when the impacts have not previously been addressed. Commissioner Norris would appreciate knowing why Summit County included this section in their development code. It was tentatively agreed upon by the Commission to delete this section. Â§7.8.H.4 - Attorney White stated this is a statement to maintain active mitigation through homeowners associations, Planning Staff, or both. Commissioner Norris suggested the creation of a database to track wildlife trends, and Attorney White responded by stating if the data is relevant, it will most likely be included in the study. Â§13.3 - After discussion, the Qualified Biologist definition may be modified and brought back before the Commission. It was moved and seconded (TuckedHull) to CONTINUE discussion of the proposed AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12, WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION to the February meeting. The motion PASSED unanimously with one absent. 5. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to CONTINUE agenda item 5, ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT to the February meeting. The motion PASSED unanimously with one absent. 6. REPORTS STONEWOOD SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-10 In the absence of Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott reported this was a staff-level review for a proposed single-family dwelling. When the plat of the Kingswood subdivision was approved, this lot included four separate Limits of Disturbance areas, which fragmented the buildable area of the lot. With this understanding, Staff suggested the note "Limits of Disturbance shall apply unless modified by a site-specific development plan" be included on the plat, which was approved by the Town Board. This request was to amend the platted Limits of Disturbance in order to allow construction of the structure. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 January 20,2009 Staff suggests that even though this particular building would encroach into some rock outcroppings and remove three significant pines, Limits of Disturbance (LOD) criteria would not be compromised. This is because additional LOD would be dedicated, twelve new Blue Spruce (each at least six-feet tall and guaranteed) would be planted, and the disrupted rocks would be re-used as landscape features on site. Staff suggests these factors mitigate the disturbance in the planted LOD. Neighbors have been notified and subsequent comments addressed. It was determine the drainage swale will change after construction, so minor revisions to the drainage plan will be required. Staff has approved the proposed development plan with numerous conditions that are listed in the staff report dated January 2, 2009. Staff will follow-up on the conditions to ensure they are met. Commissioner Klink would like to see Staff keep the following items in mind when creating the agendas in the next several months: Bunkhouses, Existing ADUs before 2000 that are no longer compliant, Guest Quarters, ADUs, and discussion about changing the development process to allow a public concept phase. It was recommended to table these items for the February meeting, but possibly begin discussion during Study Sessions. Commissioner Norris suggested also discussing the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Chilcott thinks that would be a good topic for the joint meeting between all the governing agencies. 7. ADJOURN Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m. Douglas Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve - Vacation Homes & B&Bs Estes Park Community Development Department ~ Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 16, 2008 TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve REQUEST: To make a number of changes and corrections to the adopted Estes Valley Development Code relating to short-term rentals, such as bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes. LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town of Estes Park. APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph and Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared Code revisions to address concerns expressed by residents about the impacts of short-term rentals, such as vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns, in residential neighborhoods. If approved, corresponding revisions will need to be made to the Municipal Code. These proposed Municipal Code revisions have been included for informational purposes and do not require action on the part of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Revisions to vacation home regulations, including revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household living, and nightly rental in EVDC Chapter 13, and revisions to distinguish between B&Bs and vacation home uses and the districts in which these uses are permitted. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (abc do fghi jk Imn op qrctuv w *yz). 2. New text delineated with underline (abc de fahi ik Imn op arstuv w xyz). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 1 ITEM 1: SHORT-TERM RENTALS: BED AND BREAKFAST INNS AND VACATION HOMES Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. 4 11'â€¢'Â·i [3821~&11'1 Additional 7) 8 Iia,tmÂ®12!gltiliij Regulations Use Classification Specific Use "S" = Permitted by Special Review (Apply in All Districts Unless "-" = Prohibited Otherwise Stated) RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM ACCOMMODATION USES Bed and Brealhst & - - - P Â§5.1.B Low-Intensity Inn P Accommodations Vacation Home Â£Â£Â£22Â£22 Â§5.1.8 Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. ' Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. . Nonresidential Zoning Districts "F' = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review Use Additional Regulations (Apply "-" = Prohibited Classific in All Districts Unless Otherwise ation Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Stated) ACCOMMODATION USES Â§5.1:B. In CD, such use shall not Bed and be located on the ground floor of a brdakfast Pppp-- - 4 building fronting on Elkhorn inns Avenut In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a Hotel, Small[ - P P - - - - building fronting on Elkhom . Avenue Â§5.1.B Low- Intensity Accommoda In CD, such use shall not be . tions located on the ground floor of a building fronting bn Elkhorn Nigh* Avenue Re!*als . -PP - i - - â€¢Short term and long term nightly Vacation . rentals allowed as a principal use Home - in a residential dwelling unit â€¢See also Table 5 2 which allows nightly rentals as an accessory use to a dwelling unit in the 1 1 and CD-zening-dis*Fiets Revision Date: December 5,2008 2 Resort lodge/cabins , low- r - - - - - Â§5.1.P intensity Section 5.1 Specific Use Standards B. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home. All bed and breakfast inn uses shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Structures shall not be altered in a way that changes their general residential appeafaaeer 2. If four (1) or more off street parking spaces are provided pursuant to Â§7. I 1, visual screening from adjacent residential uses shall be required. 3. Other than registered guests, no meals shall be served to the general public. No cooking or kitchen facilities shall be allowed in the guest rooms. 1. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall be subiect to the following (see Â§5.1.B.2 and Â§5.1.B.3 for additional regulations): a. Annual Operating Permit. (1) All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department. (2) The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home . b. State Sales Tax License. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain a state sales tax license. c. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20. d. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: Revision Date: December 5,2008 3 (1) Design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass, and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn or vacation home, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levdls shall not be out of character with residential use. e. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in th6 CD Downtown , Commercial zoiling district. the number of,parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housifig a bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (2) Maximum Allowed Parking. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be parked outside at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed within a garage do not count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Refer to Â§5.2.B.2.f, which inay further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site. f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased 6r furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See Â§5.2.C.2.a). g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See Â§11.4.E). h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also Â§5.2.B.2.a which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancv). Revision Date: December 5,2008 4 i. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. j. Density. Only one vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall permitted per residential dwelling unit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subiect to the following: a. OccupancY. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) guests shall occupy a bed and breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancv shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests. This is not intended to establish maximum occupancy limits for individual rooms within a bed and breakfast inn. For example. three individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and one individual in another (2) Number of Parties. Bed and Breakfast Inns. Bed and breakfast inns may be rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited ancillary services to guests, such as performing small weddings or offering classes/workshops to guests, provided they are in character with residential use. c. Housekeeping Services. Bed and breakfast inns shall be permitted to provide daily housekeeping services to guests. d. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns may provide meals service to registered guests; however, meals shall not be provided to the general public. 3. All vacation homes shall also be subiect to the following: a. Occupancy . (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) individuals shall occupy a vacation home at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited bY a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two individuals. This is not intended to establish maximum occupancY limits for individual rooms within a bed and breakfast inn. For example. three individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and one individual in another Revision Date: December 5,2008 5 (2) Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party. One (1) partv shall consist of related and/or non-related individuals occupving the vacation home as a group, for example. a family or group of friends vacationing together or a group of business associates. Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupY the vacation home while a party is present. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests. (See Â§5.2.Bid). c. Housekeeping Services. Vacation homes shall be permitted to provide housing services only at the beginning and end of a party's stay. d. Meal Service. Vacation hdmes shall not provide meal service to registered guests or the general public. Section 5.2.B.1 Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. Table 5-1: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Perinitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Nigh+Remak Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Â§5.2.B.2.g Â§5.1.B Vacation Home Section 5.2.B.2 Additional Requirements for Specific Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts d. Home Occupations. (4) Operational: (k) Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of a vacation home and/or accessory dwelling unit. (See Â§5.1.B and Â§5.2.B.2.a). e. Rentale: (1) Long term rentals (lease terms of thirty [30] days or more) of a principal or accessory residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts. (2) Short term nightly rentals (lease terms of less than thirty ~ [30] days) of a principal residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all Revision Date: December 5,2008 6 residential zoning districts, provided that the following conditions are met. All permitted short term rentals of dwelling units shall be required to: (a) Comply .1 ith all the conditions and requirements as set forth in the To VV V,'11 of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapters 5.20 and 5.35, and (b) Obtain a business license if within Town limits f. Storage or Parking of Vehicles, Recreational Equipment and Recreational Vehicles. (7)Bed and Breakfast Inns and Vacation Homes. See Â§5.1.B which further limits vehicle storage and parking for dwelling units that are permitted as a bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. Revision Date: December 5,2008 7 Section 5.2.C.1 Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH 1-1, Requirements NighUyÂ·Â·Remak No Yes' Yes No No No No Â§5.1.B Vacation Home In CD, soch use shall not be ' located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue â€¢As accessory to a pfineipal-fesidemia#Use ealÂ» â€¢WheÂ·-sheEMernMil|* rental of a dwelling unit as an accessorY use in the A 1 and CD districts shall DekbelubjeeMeÂ·4he requirements of Â§5.2.B.2.g abeâ€žer â€¢See also Table 4 1 which pern*nightb rentals as a Drincipal use et-a-dwe#i#g-uni64*Â·the A 1 and CD zoning di#Fiets. Section 5.2.D General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. Except as otheywise expressly limited or allowed in this Section, and except for structures containing accessory nightly rentals and for accessory recreational facilities including swimming pools, freestanding accessory buildings and structures shall not be larger than one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. (Ord. 15-03 #1) Section 5.2.C.2a Emplovee Housing (4)Restrictive Covenant Required. (a) Employee housing units provided pursuant to this Section shall be deed restricted for a period of time no less than twenty (20) yearsto assure the availability of the unit for long-term occupancy only by employees of the principal business use. Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term rentals (less than thirty [30] days); see Â§5.1.B and/or rentals to the general public of the unit(s) except as otherwise allowed by this Section. Revision Date: December 5,2008 8 Section 7.11.D. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements The following Off-Street Parking Schedule establishes the minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided for the use categories described in this Code. Minimum Number of Off-Streetfarking Spaces Off-Street (See'Â§7.11.C above for Loading Group Use Classification Specific Use measurement rules) (See Â§7.11.N) ACCOMMODATION USES Bed and breakfast inns 1 per guest room + 2 spaces for r\/ a permanent residence Low-Intensity Hotel, Small I per guest room + 1 space per 3 n/a Accommodations employees Resort lodge/cabins, low- 2 per cabin or guest room + 1 space rda intensity. per 3 employees Section 11.4 Attainable Housing Densitv Bonus, E. Development and Design Standards. 4. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units shall not be leased-ef-Fented rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see Â§5.1.B). Section 13.2.C Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 1. Accommodations, Low-Intensity. a. General Definition: Visitor-serving facilities that provide temporary lodging for compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days, (except for permitted long term nightly rentals sce 2.b(3) below). Such facility shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential and/or rural setting. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: A detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for accommodations purposes for terms of less than thirty (30) days and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis. An establishment operated in an owner occupied, single family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (excluding accessory buildings), that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than eight (8) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. Accessory buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor feem: Revision Date: December 5,2008 9 (2) Hotel, Small: An establishment containing no more than eight (8) guest rooms that provides temporary lodging with eating and drinking service and a dining room where meals are served. (3) Nigh~*Remal* Nightly Rentald: In the A 1 or CD zoning districts, a single family, duplex or multi family dwelling unit that is leased for tompensation, to provide temporary lodging for visitors. and guests. The term of lease in this permitted principal nightly rental use may be either short term (less than thirty [30] days) or long term (thirty [30] days or 1 more). See Â§5.2.B for nightly rentals allowed as an accessory use in the residential zoning districts. (4) Resort Lodges/Cabins, Low-Intensity: A tract of land under single ownership and management, with no more than a total of twenty (20) guest rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main "lodge" building and/or contained in detached, freestanding "cabin" structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recreational vehicles of mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than four (4) guest rooms or units. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of "limited kitchen facilities," but only if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in Â§5.1.P of this Code. (5) Vacation Hcime. A residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit f6r compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases 6. Accommodations Use shall mean a commBrcial, visitor serving facility that provides temporary lodging in guest rooms or guest units, for compensation, and with an average length of visitor stay of less than thirty (30) days. Examples of accommodations uses include motels, hotels, bed, and breakfast inns, resort lodges and hostels. A-peneipal "nightly rental" use of 'a dwelling unit in the A 1 or CD zoning districts, as more specifically described in Â§13.2.C.2 of this Chapter, is an accommodations use. On the other hand, an accespory short term "nightly rental" use of a dwelling unit in a residential zoning district, as allowed by Â§5.2.B.2.g of this Code, is not an accommodations use. See also the definition of "guest room or unit" below. shall mean the- rental, leasing, or occupancy of any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging. such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit, or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site, or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 18. Household Living. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 10 a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident care givers) 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, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, 117. Guest Quarters shall mean living quarters with or without kitchen facilities for the use of temporary guests of the occupants of the single family dwelling. 118. Guest Unit or Guest Room shall mean: a. A room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains sleeping and sanitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities. With the exception of guest units or guest rooms in bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes. guest units or guest rooms may include limited kitchen facilities. b. For purposes of this definition, "limited kitchen facilities" shall mean a kitchen that is not contained in a separate room and that may have a sink and only the following appliances: (a) a refrigerator no larger than three and one-half (314) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. 159. Nightly Rentals, Long Tenn shall mean the leasing of a principal or accessory dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of thirty (30) days or longer. See Â§13.2.C.2 for the description of a principal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of this Code regarding accessory nightly rental uses in the residential zoning districts. 160. Nightly Rentals, Short Tcrin shall mean the leasing of a principal dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of less than thirty (30) days. See Â§13.2.C.2 for the description of a principal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of this Code regarding nightly rentals in residential zoning districts. 199. Rentals, Nightly or Short Term. See definition of "Nightly Rentals" above. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 11 Estes Park Municipal Code 5.20.020 Definitions. In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: (1) Accommodation means the leasing, renting or furnishing of any room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area inany hotel, motel, guest house, bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or carÂ®ground, any single family dwelling, duplex, ; multiple family dwelling, condominium unit, vacation home or any such similar place,_to any person who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess such dwelling, room, single family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home, site or other accommodationjor a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) day*: Accommodation means the rental, leasing, or occupancy of an accommodation site and/or accomnhodations unit for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 03 Accommodation site means a site consisting of one (1) or more accommodation units, including, but not limited to condominium units, which are located on one (1) individual parcel of real property and under management control for rental purposes of an agent, el*+F-ageney: Acc'ommodation site means.one (1) individual Darcel of real property consisting of one (1) or more accommodations units that are under management control of an agent, entity or agency for rental purposes. (3) Accommodation unit means each individual room, set of rooms, site, single' family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home or divided area rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis in an accommodation. Acconimodations unit means any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile hbme park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit, or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, .or has. the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site, or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. (10) Vacation home means a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, that is located within a residential zoning district and is rented; leased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 12 . Vacation home means a residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. (11) Bed and breakfast Inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied for accommodations purposes and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis. 5.20.110 Vacation homes in residential zoning districts and Bed and Breakfast Inns. This Section shall apply to the leasing, renting and occupation of any vacation home existing in the following zoning districts of the Town: RE 1, RE, El,E,R,Rl,R2 and PM. This Section shall apply to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. (I) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to permit the leasing, renting and occupation of vacation homes in residential zoning districts while maintaining the residential character of those districts. (2) Restrictions on rentals. The leasing, renting or occupation rental, leasing, or occupancy of all vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows: a. Compliance with the applicable regulations found in the Estes ValleY Development Code is required. Vacation homes shall not be operated in a manner that is out of character with residential uses. This includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out of character with residential uses. Vacation homes shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low intensity and low scale residential setting. Guest rooms shall be integrated within the vacation home. Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single family residential use. b. A vacation home shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party with a maximum of eight (8) individual guests. The total maximum occupancy of eight (8) individuals shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two individuals. In the event the vacation home is managed by a full time on site manager, the vacation home may be rented, leased or furnished to more than one (1) party subject to the limitations of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two (2) individuals with a maximum of eight (8) guests. c. No changes in the exterior appearance to accommodate each vacation home shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall mounted identification sign no larger than four (1) square feet in area shall be permitted. d. Only one (1) vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single family residential â‚¬1+9*Fiek. c. No recreational vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepee or yun shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 13 f. Each vacation home is permitted a maximum of three (3) guest vehicles on site and parked outside at any one (1) time. On street parking shall be prohibited. g. Vacation homes shall be subject to commercial utility rates for the entire calendar year of the current license, and sales tax collection and remittance. It is the owner's res#onsibility to notify the Utility Billing Department when the residence is no longer being used as a vacation home after the license expires. h. Tlie application for a. business license for any vacation home or bed and breakfast inns shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home' or bed and breakfast inn, and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. i. Any vacation home in operation on or before November 1, 2001, and whose,owner obtained a business license from the Town for 2001 sh:ill be entitled to operate the vacation home to the extent of its operation on the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals,allowed to occupy the vacation home at any one (1) time, the number of guest vehicles allowed to be parked onsite find any permitted signage identifying the operation of the vacation home. In the event the operation of the vacation home grandfathered by this Section is abandoned for a period of one (1) year or the owner does not maintain - a business license for the vacation home in any subsequent calendar year, the vacation home shall then be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Section, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals occupying the premises, the number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside one site and the signage identifying the operation of the vacation home. (3) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, agent, guest and/or occupant of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of Section 9.08.010 (Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all required sales tax to the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn: to violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business license. For the purpose of this 1 Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 6f this Code which occur on the premises of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and while a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is being occupied as a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be a violation of this Section. (4) Revocation of license. The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home or bed and breakfast inn for violation of the provisions of this Section as follows: Revision Date: December 5, 2008 14 - a. The Town Clerk, upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this Section, shall give written notice to the owner or agent that a violation has occurred. b. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written warning set forth in Subsection a above, the Town Clerk she# may revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or agent of the revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be for one (1) year from the date of the notice. c. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town Clerk shall revoke the business license by giving written notice to, the owner or agent of the revocation of the business license. Said revocation shall be for two (2) years from the date of the notice. Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right to operate a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn on the property shall terminate. (5) Appeal. Any owner or agent who wishes to contest the written warning or the revocation of a business license shall be entitled to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by written notice delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk shall hold a hearing on the appeal and determine whether or not a violation of the provisions of this Section has occurred. The owner shall be entitled to present any evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing. The decision of the Town Clerk as to whether or not the violation occurred shall be final and not subject to further appeal. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 15 c Efzlzltil.01![ilk fil '162fil Gliriiaili ommt:i:Trzrrnsz-4 1- - Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: 11-5-08 Subject: Short term rentals / Vacation Home regulations Attached with this memo are relevant minutes from two prior study sessions on this subject that were held in 2007. Based on this direction given to staff last year a draft code revision was produced and is provided along with this memo as a third / attachment. These draft code revisions have not yet been enacted. l. Staff requests review of these documents and discussion as to the direction the current board wishes to take regarding these issues. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - April 5,2007 - Page 3 t- . Plains Electric - $2,172 for a total project cost for Phase I of $7,247 from account 217-5304-453-25-02 as budgeted. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly â€¢ Senior Center Monthly COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Proposed Vacation Home Municipal Code Revisions - Discussion. Dir. Joseph provided a brief history of the licensing of vacation homes in Estes Park. Recent discussion with neighbors and business owners has called for more restrictive use of a vacation home in a residential neighborhood and better enforcement. The revisions allow vacation homes to operate in all residential zoning districts as a principal full-time use with the following proposed regulations: (1) Prohibit any related or unrelated services or home occupation businesses; (2) Overnight occupancy of a vacation home shall not exceed eight people nor be rented to multiple parties (separate rental agreement); (3) No onsite customer services while the residence is occupied or rented as a vacation home; (4) No commercial activities other than accommodations shall be allowed; (5) No home occupation businesses would be permitted at any time on properties licensed as a vacation home, or non-concurrent home occupation businesses would be allowed when the vacation home is not in use; (6) B&B provision would allow an owner occupied vacation home to rent to multiple parties and provide daily cleaning, laundry and food services. Discussion was heard and is summarized as follows: the occupancy of eight should never exceed eight including the occupancy of the homeowners (example: 2 homeowners plus 6 guests); leasing of a property to run a B&B would not be permitted; kitchen facilities shall be consistent with single-family residential use (no efficiency kitchens permitted); difficulty in regulating/enforcing a non-concurrent home occupation license; impact of vacation homes on residential neighborhoods; requiring the posting of regulations at each vacation rental; setting a minimum night requirement. Jim Bame/A Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat expressed concern that the proposed revisions do not address the impact of a vacation home on the residential neighborhoods. He stated the current language that allows an onsite manager to be present during the rental to multiple parties aids in maintaining compliance with the Town's regulations. Requiring a property owner to live onsite full time would create a larger impact on the neighborhood with an increase in traffic and noise. The new regulations would decrease the number of vacation rentals and B&Bs in Estes Park. Mr. Barrie requested the Town consider adopting a set time when the new regulations would be enforced as businesses are accepting reservations for future dates. Administrator Repola stated the regulations are an effort to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. He informed the Committee no new B&Bs will be permitted unless the property is within the RM or R-2 (special review) zoning districts as required by the Estes Valley Development Code; however, current businesses will be permitted to continue their operations. Tom Ewing/1082 Fall River Court strongly suggested the Town develop a clear definition of a vacation home with language that is easily interrupted and enforced, the proposed business should be investigated prior to issuance of a business license to ensure that it conforms to the regulations of the Town and private covenants, business owners should be made aware of the Town's regulations, and favors a vacation rental over a B&B operation with a minimum stay of 3 nights in a residential neighborhood. Marge Gooldy/1071 Fall River Court would encourage the Committee to adopt language e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - April 5,2007 - Page 4 1-/ . that would not permit any other commercial activity at a vacation home. Dir. Joseph stated a growing trend is the purchasing of homes in Estes Park by hotel operators for overflow capacity. These stays could be nightly, with a larger impact on the neighborhoods. The Committee discussed options to address the issue such as a minimum stay requirement. The Committee requests staff prepare the revision for presentation at the April 24~h Town Board meeting including the language that would prohibit a home occupation business concurrently with a vacation home and eliminating the optional B&B provision. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Activity and Budget Summaries â€¢ Building Permit Summaries CONFERENCE CENTER TOUR. All wishing to tour the newly renovated Conference Center will meet on-site directly after the meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Pirikham adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Lar\mer County, Colorado, March 28,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Museum Meeting Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of March, 2007. Committee: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Administrator Repola, Director Pickering, Director Joseph, Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. CML UPDATE Sam MameUCML Executive Director reviewed current issues including CML seminars/conferences, lodging tax of other Colorado Municipalities, funding of transportation, Amendment 41, and eminent domain for Urban Renewal Authorities. MARKETING DISTRICT Senator Steve Johnson and Representative Don Marostica carried the Local Marketing District (LMD) Amendment, Senate Bill 111, through the State Senate and House respectively. The Town is awaiting Governor Ritter's signature and a signing ceremony has been requested by Senator Johnson. In the event the bill is signed, staff has prepared the following draft schedule for implementing a marketing district: â€¢ Review of the formation/organization of LMD (May) â€¢ Conduct a phone survey (May/June) â€¢ Town/County to assess the formation/organization of the LMD (May/June) â€¢ Draft a proposed contract (IGA) between the Town and County (June) â€¢ Obtain signed petition of 51% (valuation) of commercial property owners - (July/Dec) â€¢ Form a political action committee (Jan/Feb 2008) â€¢ Joint public hearing (March 2008) 1 â€¢ Second joint public hearing (May 2008) â€¢ Adopt contract and order election (June 2008) â€¢ Committee to campaign for LMD (July/Nov 2008) â€¢ Election (Nov 2008) â€¢ Lodging tax begins (Jan 2009) â€¢ New marketing committee begins work (July 2009) â€¢ LMD funds begin (Jan 2010) The Trustees requested staff provide additional information on the survey including questions to be asked and length of the survey. The marketing district would be a separate governmental entity with a Board that would collect sales tax on the furnishing of lodging accommodations. This Board could be appointed by the Town Board. Staff will review the Vail marketing district to determine how it was formed and has developed over time. VACATION HOMES Administrator Repola reviewed the recent complaints received for one specific vacation home rental, A Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat, and the need to address issues related RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - March 28,2007 - Page 2 l... - to vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. The Municipal Code and the Development Code contain inconsistencies on vacation rentals, specifically Bed and Breakfast. The Municipal code permits vacation rentals including B&B's in all residential zoning districts, whereas, the Development Code only allows them in RM and R-2 zoning districts. Seven strategies were discussed including the pros and cons: 1) do nothing; 2) require that a vacation homes not provide any other business service; 3) limit vacation home rentals to one party; 4) limit groups to no more than eight persons, 5) set minimum for length of stay; 6) strict interpretation and enforcement; 7) prohibit vacation homes in all residential zoning districts. Attorney White provided a historical background on the vacation rental industry in Estes Park that began prior to the incorporation of the town. Business licensing and regulation of the industry began in the late 80's to address concerns raised by residents. The issue has been regulated through the Municipal Code rather than the Development Code due to grand-fathering requirements. He stated the recent concerns raised should be addressed with clear definitions within the Municipal Code. Discussion followed and is summarized: B&B's should be considered if resident owner operated, no other commercial or home occupations should be conducted at a vacation rental, only one rental agreement should be allowed, clear definition of party, add language to business license application that informs each applicant that compliance with local covenants is required, how would minimum stay requirements affect local businesses, violation notices should be sent to propertiek advertising accommodations for more than 8, enforcement needs to be increased. The following definition was recommended: A vacation home rental property in a residential zoning district (RE-1, RE E-1, E R, R- 1, R-2 and R-M) \s solely for the purpose of overnight accommodations for periods of less than 30 days with one rental agreement. No other commercial uses and/or home occupations are permitted. There shall be no on-sight management or employee. Staff is proposing code enforcement be moved to the Police Department to provide 24/7 enforcement which would require hiring an additional police employee. This issue will be discussed at the April Public Safety Committee meeting. Staff will present modifications to the current language in the Municipal Code at the Community Development meeting on April 5th. FIRE DISTRICT Administrator Repola reported staff has a meeting to discuss changes to the current IGA with the County on Tuesday, April 3,2007. The Town will propose the termination of the Automatic Response Agreement; however, if the County is unable to provide fire protection to the residents currently served by the Estes Park Fire Department, the Town is willing to provide specific services contingent on an equitable arrangement to offset the Town's costs. Staff will report the outcome of this meeting at the April Public Safety meeting. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ~ Accessory Dwelling Units ~ Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 ~ Estes Park, CO 80517 ~ Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www. estesnet.com DATE: Planning Commission - F.mIP ~ March 13, 2008; -- 8- September 16 E USFS October 21; November 18; 1.P December 16; 94 kulain January 20,2009; February 17; Town Board - TBD USFS FMVP h./ly [1 Board of County Commissioners - TBD REQUEST: To amend existing regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Primary changes include long-term rental and detached units. STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to change the existing accessory dwelling unit regulations. The impetus for this change is a directive from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. What is an Accessory Dwelling Unit? An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a structure that provides independent living facilities for one or more persons, or a self contained housing unit secondary to the main residence. How is an ADU different from a duplex? ADU's are different from traditional duplexes in the following ways: (1) Units in a duplex are relatively equal in size. (2) ADU's are limited in size to be subordinate to the main residence. (3) Both units in a duplex can be rented. Three Types of ADU. Staff is proposing three varieties of ADU's: integrated, attached, and detached. Generally speaking, the larger the lot, the more independent the unit may be from the main house. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -1 - 41 How many? On a national level, municipalities that allow ADU's see an application for about 1 per 1,000 homes in a year (based on a survey of 47 communities that allow ADUs, per Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington "Accessory Dwelling Units Issues and Options" report). Why are we proposing these changes? /mpetus. In June 2006, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed an appeal to staff decision regarding an accessory dwelling unit, as identified by Staff. The applicant stated the design was not an ADU, but only a "wet bar." Staff disagreed because the design added up to an area that could stand-alone as a separate household. The Board of Adjustment agreed with Staff's assessment, and directed Staff to correct the "grey area" in the code of when a wet bar becomes a kitchen. In addition, ADU's help provide several benefits and serve many purposes: â€¢ Allow for "mother-in-law" suites (or, conversely, allow younger generation to move in with older generation). â€¢ Allow on-site property caretaker for second-home owners. â€¢ Provide guest quarters (Staff believes this would be the most common use). â€¢ ADUs could provide seasonal employee housing dispersed throughout the community. â€¢ Help reduce regulatory barriers that limit affordable housing opportunities. â€¢ Assist older homeowners in maintaining their independence by providing additional income to offset property taxes and the costs of home maintenance and repair. â€¢ Implement the following Comprehensive Plan Community Wide Policies: Growth Management Policies: 3.1 Encourage infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and to stabilize residential neighborhoods. Housing: 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. 5.6 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. Economics: 7.1 Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. 7.9 Build on the strength of the retirement community. â€¢ Implement the Comprehensive Plan "recommended actions" number A.5 Housing, which states in part "there mav be opportunities to modify zoning classifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units." Research. To research this issue, Staff has: (1) Attended a Colorado APA sponsored training session; (2) Sponsored a session at the Mountain Resort Town Planners Conference; Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -2- (3) Sent a request to the Colorado APA email "list serve" (received 27 responses from around the state); (4) Discussed with the building department, utility providers, Larimer County Health Department, and State Division of Water Resources; (5) Internet research (AARP, various municipalities); (6) Held several "focus group" discussions with local builders, designers, realtors, and Homeowners Associations; and, (7) Scheduled meetings with the Estes Park Housing Authority (September 10), Sunrise Rotary and League of Women's Voters (scheduled for November). Common Features of an ADU ordinance. This research has shown "common threads" in ADU ordinances, with the following being common elements: (1) Owner occupancy required in one unit. (2) Long-term rentals usually allowed in one of the units, but not both. (3) Most allow ADU's as attached or detached. (4) Normal setbacks apply. (5) Only one ADU per lot. (6) Parking requirement. (7) Maximum size limit. (8) Orientation of entrance. (9) Design standards. Current regulations. The Estes Valley Development Code currently allows ADU's in all single- family residential districts if the lot is 1.33 times the required minimum lot size. For example, a lot in the "Ed" one-acre zone district would need to be 1.33 acres; a lot in the "RE-1" 10-acre zone district would need to be 13.33 acres. With this current restriction, fewer than 1 in 3 residents could have an accessory dwelling unit (see Lot Size Analysis below). Other current regulations are that a unit must be "integrated within the principal unit", cannot exceed 800 s.f., cannot be rented separately, and there are no architectural standards. Lot Size Analvsis: Number that are Number of 1.33 Zone Minimum Number Nonconforming minimum District Lot Size of Lots Lots Percentage size Percentage R 1/4 acre 590 264 45% 157 27% E 1 /2 acre 1501 699 47% 409 27% E-1 1 acre 1701 876 51% 379 22% RE 21/2 acre 654 285 44% 235 36% RE-1 10 acre 352 229 65% 98 28% Total 4798 2353 49% 1278 27% Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -3- Larimer County allows "accessory living" space elsewhere in the county, though no separate rental is allowed. Detached accessory living areas must go before the Larimer County Planning Commission and require approval of the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Approximately 1 /3 of these requests are for units that were illegally built when this use was prohibited, and 15% of all zoning violations in Larimer County over the last three years have been illegal "second homes." \ Brief History. The first town zoning code in 1947 allowed two-family dwellings on all residentially zoned lots at least 1/2 acre in size, The 1986 code, which was in effect through 1999, allowed ADU's in all single-family zone districts, without a minimum lot size. That code required units be integrated, could not exceed 800 s.f., and could not be rented. Larimer County allowed "guest houses" to be built in the county until the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Guest houses could not have cooking facilities. Proposed regulations. The principal changes include removal of the "1.33" requirement, allowing lease of one unit, allowing detached units, and adoption of architectural standards. Utility Providers. Town of Estes Park Building. The Building Department provided input regarding the definition of a dwelling unit, and stated that detached units would need to ensure adequate fire separation; the draft language satisfies their concerns. Town of Estes Park Utilities. Planning Staff has discussed this issue with the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department, who had no concerns. Larimer County Health. The Larimer County Health Department had comments regarding water and sanitary sewer, which have been incorporated into the draft language. State Division of Water Resources. The Division of Water Resources has provided a letter stating that every property with a well permit is different. Some well permits clearly allow or prohibit multiple units. Others are not so clear. Staff has attempted to address this in the draft language: either the well permit clearly allows an ADU, or a letter from the Division will be required. Builders. All builders that we met with and have discussed this with have been in favor of the proposed changes. One builder expressed concern about the size limitation, and suggested that smaller houses - with smaller value - would be the properties that could benefit the most from allowing the separate rental, but would be the most restricted in terms of size of the unit. Another question was how would this affect short-term rentals (draft language would prohibit short-term rentals on properties with an ADU). Architects/Designers. All architects/designers we met with expressed concern about the review process, and most were opposed to architectural standards (one felt that minimal standards could be acceptable). The concern about the review process was that it would be too lengthy for integrated/attached units, and subject to neighbor scrutiny for detached units. They expressed fear that a person that has a right to build a detached unit could have their proposal denied in the face of neighborhood opposition. A common statement about architectural standards was that if people wanted those kind of protections, they could move to a Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -4- neighborhood that has architectural requirements. Another comment was that if the principal house and garage are not subject to architectural standards, why should an ADU? Homeowners Associations. On the Friday before Labor Day, Staff invited sixteen Homeowners Associations and the Association for Responsible Development to discuss the proposed changes. Nine people respresenting four assocations attended. Of these, three people expressed significant concern, which seemed to center on the rental of units. Of note, the three that expressed this concern all lived in the same neighborhood, which prohibits ADUs. Other concerns expressed: Who would regulate rentals, and it's is a mistake for the town to not regulate the individual rentals; why would there not be a full tap fee; concern that eight people would live in one of these units; and concern that an ADU next door would devalue neighboring properties. Another person expressed strong support for the changes. Staff has talked with a resident of Stanley Heights, who expressed concern that the units could be sub-let for less than 90 days. Staff believes this possibility has been addressed in section (8). Staff has received correspondence from the Arapahoe Estates Property Owner's Association, which stated the changes "will not directly impact Arapaho Estates" as their neighborhood covenenants prohibit these. Staff has also received questions from the Koral Heights Property Owner's Association, which were addressed via email. No further correspondence has been received. Board of Realtors. Planning Staff presented the code changes to the Estes Valley Board of Realtors, who expressed no concern. Staff asked the group what their opinion was regarding impact to adjoining neighbors, and the consensus was that an ADU, either attached or detached, rented or not, would have no negative impact on adjoining properties. Other Meetings. In addition to the above noted meetings, Staff has presented this proposal to the: â€¢ Estes Park Housing Authority (Sept 10) â€¢ Sunrise Rotary (Nov. 25) â€¢ League of Women Voters (Feb. 9) Staff is also trying to arrange a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce, though scheduling conflicts has hindered this attempt. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. Purpose and Intent. The intent of this Section is to allow property owners flexibility in use of their property while maintaining the character of neighborhoods: implement Growth Management, Housing, and Economic policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; allow for "mother-in-law" suites, caretaker and carecliver quarters, quest quarters: and provide housing options for seasonal workers. B. General Standards. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -5- (No changes proposed, except now section "B" instead of "A") C. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Accessory Dwelling Â§5.2.B.2.a Unit: Integrated Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Attached Yes Yes Yes Yes FE No No No Detached Yes Yes Yes FEE FEE No No No ,Guest Quarterd ? 1? 1? 1? 1? 1? 1? 1? 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) shall consist of living quarters integrated within, attached to, or detached from the principal single- family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. ~here ADU, no guestquarters? (2) Defined. (a) General. An accessory dwelling unit is any accessory structure, either attached or detached from principal structure, that provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Cooking facilities shall include any area used, or designated to be used, for the preparation of food. rKitchen shall mean a room or space Within a room equipped with such electrical or gad hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like appliance using 220/46 ~olts or natural gas (or similar fuels).for_the. preparation_of_food,-and-alsocontainingeithe4 or-botha.refrigerator andsi@f Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -6- (b) Integrated Accessory Dwelling Units are accessory dwelling units that share common living area with the principal dwelling unit and have interior access to and from the principal dwelling unit. A separate exterior access to the accessory dwelling unit may be included, but is not required. Integrated ADU's require a minimum lot size of 14 acre. (c) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units are accessory dwelling units that are attached to the principal dwelling unit. These may or may not have interior access to the principal dwelling unit. A separate exterior access to the accessory dwelling unit may be included, but is not required. Attached dwelling units must be architecturally compatible with the existing structure and at least 12 feet along one wall of the accessory dwelling unit must be contiguous to a wall of the principal dwelling unit. Attached ADU's require a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre. (d) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units are accessory dwelling units that are wholly detached from the principal dwelling unit. At least one exterior wall of the ADU shall be closer to the principal dwelling unit than any exterior wall of the ADU may be to any property line. Option: Detached ADU's require a minimum lot size of 1 acre. [staff note: this would requirealotbe 25% largerthanthe median lot size of .8 acrel Option: In the R, E, and E-1 Districts, detached ADU's require twice the minimum lot size. In the RE and RE-1 Districts, ADU's require at least 2.5 acres. (3) Review. All accessory dwelling units shall be subject to development plan review process, as set forth in Chapter 3, except as outlined below. (a) All integrated and attached ADUs shall require staff level development plan review and approval. (b) All detached ADUs shall require Planning Commission development plan review and approval. (c) All ADUs shall comply with standards set forth below. (4) Ownership. The principal dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit shall be under the same ownership. (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) Occupancv. The cumulative number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in Â§13.2.C.28. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM . -- -7- (7) Home Occupations. Subject to existing regulations, home occupations shall be allowed in either the principal dwelling or in the Accessory Dwelling Unit. In no circumstance, however, shall a home occupation(s) occupy both units. Traffic generated by the ADU shall be included in all home occupation traffic calculations, as required by Section 5.2.B2d. (8) Limit on Tenancv. Eithor tho principal dwolling unit or the accossory dwolling unit may bo used be leased by the owner. Thc Icaco term shall be a minimum of ninety (90) days. Tho non leased dwolling unit shall bc occupied MA+GWAell: (9) Size of Accessory Unit. (a) No accessory dwellings shall exceed forty-nine percent (49%) of the size of the floor area of the principal dwelling unit (excluding attached garage) or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. (b) No detached accessory dwelling unit shall have more than two (2) bedrooms. (c) Only habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be counted toward this maximum. For example, an accessory dwelling located above a garage shall not count the garage area in the maximum square footage. (10) Utilities. All accessory dwelling units shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities, as outlined below. (a) All electrical, phone, and cable wiring serving the accessory dwelling unit shall be placed underground. (b) Sewage Disposal. Accessory dwelling units shall be served by either the Upper Thompson Sanitation District or the Estes Park Sanitation District. When the development site cannot physically be served by the UTSD or EPSD, or the development site is outside the existing or planned service areas the accessory dwelling unit may be served by an on-site sewage treatment system provided however, the Larimer County Health Department approves the service to the ADU. (c) Water. Accessory dwelling units shall be connected to the Town of Estes Park Water System. When the development site cannot physically be served by the Town of Estes Park Water System or the development site is outside the Town's existing or planned water service area the accessory dwelling unit may be served by individual or shared wells, provided however, at the time of application for properties utilizing wells either a well permit that specifically allows service for the proposed multiple dwellings, or a letter of interpretation from the Colorado Division of Water Resources indicating that the applicant's well permit is authorized for the proposed accessory dwelling. (11) Access. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -8- (a) The accessory dwelling unit shall utilize the same access point as the principal dwelling unit. (b) Except as required by this Section, Road standards set forth in Appenti* Q Section 7.12 of the Estes Valley Development Code shall not apply to ADUs. (c) General Site Access standards set forth in Appendix D shall apply to all accessory dwelling units, except that accessory dwellinq units shall not count toward the limit on number of dwellings on a private driveway. (12) Off-Street Parking. (a) At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. This requirement shall be in addition to the parking required for a single-family dwelling unit (2). (b) Parking space dimensions shall comply with standards set forth in Section 7.11. (c) Parking shall not be located in the yard setback areas. (d) All parking areas shall be landscaped to screen from off-site. (e) Where covered parking is used in conjunction with an ADU it shall be calculated with the cumulative accessory use square footage. (f) Parked vehicles shall be located in approved locations. (g) Section 5.2.B2f "Storage or Parking of Vehicles, Recreational Equipment and Recreational Vehicles" applies to Accessory Dwelling Units. Occupants of the accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed to park vehicles on the site. The total number of vehicles on the lot shall not exceed the limit provided for in Section 5.2.B2f. (13) Site Design. (a) All General Development Standards set forth in Chapter 7 shall apply to all accessory dwelling units, except where modified by this Section. (b) Landscaping requirements set forth in Sections 7.5.F "Buffering and Screening" and 7.5.G2e "Perimeter Planting Requirements" shall apply. (14) Architectural Requirements. (a) Exterior lighting shall be concealed, with no bulb/light source visible from off site. (b) The design of the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be compatible with the design of the principal dwelling unit by use of similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials and roof pitch and colors. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -9- (c) The entrance to an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not face the front of the lot, and not be directly visible to the public, unless it can be demonstrated that no other reasonable alternative exists. Entrances shall be treated architecturally in such a way as to be de-emphasized in comparison to the principal dwelling unit. Uses of relatively smaller porches, overhangs or trim for the Accessory Dwelling Unit entrance are examples for creating this architectural hierarchy. (d) The Decision-Making Body shall have authority to grant exceptions and modifications to these standards, provided they find the requested modifications and/or waivers: 1. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; and 2. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering and/or architectural standards than those required by this Code. (15) Land-Use Affidavit Required. (a) The applicant shall submit a signed and notarized land-use affidavit that states the applicant has read and understands all requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code and agrees to all conditions of approval. (b) The land-use affidavit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney. (c) The applicant shall submit the signed and notarized land-use affidavit with the building permit application, along with applicable recording fee. Staff shall submit the document for recording, and provide a copy of the recorded document to the property owner. ********** Draft attached at end of report ********* (16) Fees. (a) Building permit fees apply for all accessory dwelling units. (b) Building permit applications for all accessory dwelling units are subject to all applicable impact fees, including but not limited to transportation capital expansion fees applicable to a multi-family land use type as defined in Section 9.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. (c) Water and sewer fees shall apply as determined by the utility provider. (d) Accessory Dwelling Units shall be subject to development plan review fees set forth in the current Development Review Fee Schedule. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -10- (17) 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 unit 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. (c) Accessory dwelling unit square footage shall be included in cumulative accessory building square footage calculations. (d) Accessory dwelling units shall comply with applicable building codes. D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. (No changes proposed) Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 8. Accessory Dwolling Unit sha\\ mean a second dwelling unit integrated with a single- family dotachod dwailing that ic located on the came lot ac tho single family dotachod â‚¬Iwelling. "Accessory Dwolling Unit" does not include mobile homes, recreational vohicloc or travel trailor. 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean any accessory structure, either attached or detached from principal structure, that provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Cooking facilities shall include any area used, or designated to be used, for the preparation of food. See Section 5.2.62 "Accessory Dwelling Unit." Number of animals shall be cumulative per single-family residential lot, and presences of an ADU shall not increase the number of animals allowed for a single-family dwelling. 117. Guest Quarters shall mean tietached living quarters wilh=e# without kitchen facilities for the use of temporary guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling. Guest quarters shall not be rented or leased as short-term rentals. Guest quarters mav include Limited Kitchen Facilities. The cumulative number of individuals that reside in dwellina units and quest quarters shall not exceed the number allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in Â§13.2.C.28. *here.ADU, no guest qua-rteril 130. Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room equipped with such electrical or gas hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like appliance using 220/40 volts or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation of food, and also containing either or both a refrigerator and sink. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -11- W=*******End-EGroposed .Codechanges *********4 r -1 Review Criteria. Per Section 3.3: All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff comment: Code changes are necessary to address changes in demographics of the Valley, which has seen a decrease in household size, an increase in the average age, and an increase in the need for affordable/employee housing. 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; and Staff comment: The proposed changes would help implement several adopted policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in the Staff report. 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 comment: Each proposal would have to demonstrate ability to provide adequate public facilities. Findings and Recommendation. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The proposed amendment to this Code (including.prohibition_of-rentalsaftd_detached.unitd) is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 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 recommends the Planning Commission make final suggestions to Staff, with a March Planning Commission date for final review. Last printed 2/12/2009 10:36:00 AM -12- Accessory Dwelling Unit Agreement - Estes Valley Development Code PROPERTY ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: I/WE, the undersigned as owner(s) ofthe above referenced real property, have read and understand Section 5.2.82a. entitled AccessorÂ¥ Dwelling Units. of the Estes Valley Development Code. I (we), as owner(s) ofthe property, understand and acknowledge the requirements and conditions under which this Accessory Dwelling Unit is approved (Development Plan , Exhibit "A"). This shall include the following requirements: (1) Compliance with Section 5.2.B2a "Accessory Dwelling Units" (attached). (2) Einsert-conditions of development plan approyald This agreement shall be binding upon the undersigned, his/her heirs, and assigns, and future owners of this property. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO this day of 'i OWNER (print) OWNER (signature) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of -,by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Accessory Dwelling Unit Agreement - Estes Valley Development Code Alison Chilcott om: Dave Shirk 3ent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:19 AM To: Greg White; Bob Joseph; Alison Chilcott Subject: RE: ADU - Domestic Wells Attachments: Scan001.pdf According to the Division of Water Resources, a detached ADU would be considered a second unit and would need to obtain a well permit. See attached letter from the Division dated Aug. 28. From: Greg White [mailto:greg@gawhite.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22,2008 2:28 PM To: Bob Joseph; Dave Shirk; Alison Chilcott Subject: ADU - Domestic Wells During the discussion with regard to detached ADUs on large lots, there have been several comments made ncerning the fact that a current domestic well permit would not allow a detached ADU on the same lot. In , ecking the State Statute, Section 37-92-602 C.R.S., the domestic well may provide domestic water for a uetached ADU. The state requirements for exempt wells include less than 15 GPM, the well serves three or fewer single family residences, and irrigates less than one acre. Also, please be advised that subsequent subdivision of the property served by an exempt well is not permitted by the State Engineer's office. Thanks, Greg 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES %~ DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 4 m August 28,2008 Bill Ritter, Jr. '18761 Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director David Shirk, Planner Dick Wolfe, P.E. Town of Estes Park, Community Development Department Director PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Accessory Dwelling Units within the Estes Valley Dear Mr. Shirk: This letter is in response to your request for comments on proposed regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units within the Estes Valley. Since this office can offer only a cursory review and comments on proposals that do not involve the subdivision of land as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S., (see attached State Engineer's March 4,2005 memorandum to county planning directors ) we will attempt to provide some general guidelines regarding the water supply for those proposals which include an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Water Service Provider For those cases where the water supply is provided by a municipal or quasi-municipal water district or water company, we recommend that the applicant provide the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department a signed copy of the water service agreement from the water provider prior to the final approval of the proposal. As long as the water provider operates within the terms and conditions of its water rights and decrees, this office would have no objection to the water provider servicing the subject property. Wells Unfortunately, those cases where the water supply is provided by a residential well are not always as straight forward. The changes in well permitting statutes, rules, regulations, and policies over time have created a myriad of possible permitted uses for existing and proposed wells and each property may differ from previous proposals. For those proposals supplied by a residential well, one key element is the Accessory Dwelling Unit and its possible function as a separate single family dwelling, Because of similar situations, we have adopted an objective approach to evaluating single-family dwellings in regards to the issuance and administration of well permits. That approach is described in a letter (copy enclosed) from the State Engineer's Office to the El Paso County Planning Department dated April 29, 1993. The State Engineer's Office has applied the guidelines in this letter to evaluate a variety of configurations of living spaces as they pertain to the issuance and administration of well permits. The main requirements of this guideline include: Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 â€¢ Denver, CO 80203 â€¢ Phone: 303-866-3581 â€¢ Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us Town of Estes Park, Community Development Department Page 2 Accessory Dwelling Units August 28,2008 1) The dwelling must be in a continuous enclosure. Any dwelling spaces joined by a garage or breezeway are not considered to be a single-family dwelling 2) The entire dwelling must function as a unit without any permanent physical separation such as a wall or floor with no means of connections, Any dwelling that cannot meet these two criteria is not considered to be one single- family dwelling for the purposes of issuance and administration of well permits. Therefore, those Accessory Dwelling Units that are physically separate and could function separately from the main residence would, for the purposes of well permit issuance and administration, be considered a second single family dwelling. In those cases where the Accessory Dwelling Unit would be considered a second single family dwelling on the property, a well permit must be obtained which would allow the Accessory Dwelling Unit to be served. However, wells in the Estes Valley withdraw ground water that is tributary to the South Platte River system, which is over-appropriated. Therefore, in many cases a water court approved plan for augmentation may be required before a well permit could be issued to allow the well to serve the Accessory Dwelling Unit in addition to the main residence. Typical scenarios where the service of a main residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit would likely require an augmentation plan include: 1) Wells constructed after May 8, 1972 located on a parcel of less than 35 acres where that parcel was in existence prior to June 1, 1972, or was created after June 1, 1972 by a county action considered exempt from the definition of subdivision of land as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)Ca), C.R.S. Pursuant to C.R.S. Â§37-92-602(3)(b)(11)(A), wells on these types of parcels may operate without a plan for augmentation only if the use of the well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling. No additional dwelling or outside uses would be allowed. 2) Wells constructed prior to May 8,1972 located on a parcel of less than 35 acres where that parcel was in existence prior to June 1, 1972, or was created after June 1, 1972 by a county action considered exempt from the definition of subdivision of land as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S, where the historical use of the well established prior to May 8, 1972 is limited to serving one single family dwelling. Pursuant to C.R.S. Â§37-92-602(5), the well is limited to the historical uses and those uses cannot be expanded to add a second dwelling. 3) Wells operating under a water court approved plan for augmentation where the plan for augmentation provides use of the subject well for only one single family dwelling. A separate plan for augmentation would be required to allow the well to serve the Accessory Dwelling Unit. A plan for augmentation may not be required for wells located on parcels of 35 acres or more and operating under permits issued pursuant to C..R.S. Â§37-92-602(3)(b)(11)(A). Pursuant to this statute, if a well is the only well on a tract of 35 acres or more, the use of ground water from the well would be limited to serving up to three single family dwellings, irrigation of up to one acre of home lawn and gardens and the watering of livestock. The Accessory Dwelling Town of Estes Park, Community Development Department Page 2 Accessory Dwelling Units August 28,2008 Unit would be considered one of the allowed three single family dwellings. However, if the uses allowed by the statute were to be exceeded by the addition of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (i.e. three dwellings are currently served and the Accessory Dwelling Unit would be considered a fourth), a water court approved plan for augmentation would then be required. If you have any questions regarding a specific proposal, please feel free to refer the proposal to this office for review and comment on the water supply. As indicated in the State Engineers March 4,2005 memorandum to county planning directors, if the submitted material does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S., to this office will only perform a cursory review of the referral information and provide comments. The comments will not address the adequacy of the water supply plan for this development or the ability of the water supply plan to satisfy any County regulations or requirements. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Megan Sullivan of this office. Sincerely, *2 -2* Jeff Deatherage P.E. Water Resource Engineer Attachments: Memorandum to county planning directors Letter to El Paso County CC: Jim Hall, Division Engineer file JD/MAS/Accessory Dwelling Unit (Larimer) 0ECEDVEÂ¥j| |~I FEB 16 2009 ~| Estes_Valley Planning Commission .. ------6 February 17, 2009 Comments from Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO Draft #4, Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve-Habitat and Wildlife provides... Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES ... Qualified BiologisVEcologist shall mean the following: Suggestion ... eliminate the term "ecologist" as being too limiting, and being already included in the general term "biologist". 1. A person with at least two (2) years of demonstrated experience and expertise in evaluation of development impacts on wildlife habitat and species in the Colorado Rocky Mountains; and qualified to work on the specific site that: (1) Has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university in wildlife biology or ecology; Suggestion ... reference should be to a higher degree in biology or related sciences and not just wildlife biology or ecology. It appears that the post graduate degrees are offered under many titles. University of Northern Colorado recognizes advanced degrees in Biological Education; Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences. The University of Colorado recognizes advanced degrees in Chemistry and biochemistry and Ecology and evolutionary biology. While Colorado State University recognizes advanced degrees in Botany and Zoology. Biology generally recognizes the following types of biologists ... Aquatic; Marine; Biochemist; Botanists; Microbiologists; Physiologists; Biophysicists; Zoologist; Wildlife and Ecologists. (2) Is a Wildlife Society of America Certified Wildlife Biologist, or holds a higher,certification from this society or Suggestion ... eliminate reference to such certification. We know that such membership is not required for any licensing or regulatory purposes in Colorado. It is a voluntary organization, so it goes to reason that very qualified biologists may not be members of this organization but would not qualify for purposes of our Code just because they are not members and so certified. This organization's website lists 138 Colorado members, of which 122 have a certification issued by this organization. So why limit qualified biologists to these 122? (3) Is an Ecological Society of America Certified Ecologist, or holds a higher certification from this society. Suggestion ... eliminate reference to such certification. We know that such membership is not required for any licensing or regulatory purposes in Colorado. It is a voluntary 1 45 organization, so it goes to reasonlhat very qualified biologists may not be members of this organization but would not qualify for purposes of our Code just because they are not members and so certified. This organization's website lists 23 Colorado members having certification issues by this organization. So why limit qualified biologists to these 23? Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. 2 44 February 10, 2009 ADU-related Code Changes Estes residents invested in their properties based on known zoning. "Property rights" (especially as related to property value) should apply not only to those who have yet-to-develop their land but also to owners of developed parcels and homesites. Without further refinements, proposed code changes regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) could effectively negate existing zoning definitions as most people understand them and could potentially double dwelling densities within much of the Estes Valley. Properties zoned single-family residential could find themselves with numerous and unanticipated infill rental units and "affordable housing" units after-the-fact, rather than having such alternative housing appropriately pre-planned into the community. There can be a place for ADUs, whether established exclusively for family use or for supplemental income. And there is a need for some "affordable housing." But a one-size-fits-all major code change permanently easing this type of infill development, valley-wide, does NOT honor the concepts put forth in our Comprehensive Plan. This broad a change is NOT a wise and responsible way to accommodate growth - it not only disrespects existing homeowners but also gives the appearance of being special- interest driven. Development brings financial gain to those directly involved, but it does not necessarily benefit - by any measure - other neighbors, visitors, or wildlife. In fact, those in the latter category often lose. I suspect that the (mostly silent) majority of Estes homeowners treasure this land resource and don't need financial gain from land speculation or from additional development endeavors on their properties. Whatever your thoughts on maintaining or potentially changing the residential character of this valley, attend the forthcoming Town Board and Valley Planning meetings when this topic is on the agenda to learn the facts and to make your opinion known to officials. Next is Planning Commission on Tuesday February 17, 1:30 pm, at Town Hall. Sandy Lindquist (1980 Cherokee, 586-5413) 1/ 7-7//11/ linl j FEB 13 2009 1~ d Ul / - r 111 rt= /2,01 uÂ·=Â·3 \197 EOVE 1 L- ~0::::sS-ESTES VALLEYQk~~2 CONTRACTORS AN ASSOCIATION OF CONSTRUCTION PRGFESSIONES - ASSOCIATION Contractors, Engineers, Architects, Designers & Developers Dear Planning Commission Members, Our organization has recently been reinstated because we have seen a lot of issues arise in this community that has affected property owners and resultantly ourselves. This may seem like we are merely trying to develop this valley for our own interests, but this letter is intended to reflect the desires of property owners in this valley, not us. A majority of the property owners are unaware of all the code issues related to their desires and are unable to knowledgeably represent themselves. The latest issue, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's), has garnished a lot of attention of late and what we would like to do is let you know how historical, desired, and necessary they are in the Estes Valley. ADU's and guest houses are an historic established use that is totally in character with this community but has been virtually eradicated. In recent history they were allowed to an extent that may have been under-regulated. Until 1986, the municipal code allowed a principal dwelling unit and an ADU on any residential lot in Town. In addition, guest houses were allowed in "R" zoning districts on half acre lots in addition to the principal dwelling unit and an ADU. That equates to three units on a lot. There were no maximum limits on square footage of the guest house so essentially, it could be the same size as the principal house. Currently there are a number of properties in town that already have this configuration in residential areas because they were built legally prior to 1986. The ADU had no restrictions on rentals so they were allowed to rent them in any manner the home owner desired, however the guest house was not allowed to be rented. The revised Municipal Code of October 14, 1986 created some restrictions on ADU's regarding size of units and eliminated guest houses. They were allowed on all residential lots at this time. Generally, ADU's were limited to 1/3 the size of the principal dwelling and again there were no restrictions on rentals at that time for ADU's. The unit size restriction was l Page 1 of 4 92- implemented in order to make an ADU appear as a subordinate structure like a garage or workshop. We believe this is a very relevant change because it maintains the character of i a lot as a single family residential property. Up until this time ADU's were considered to be attached or integrated. This use continues right through today, however the current Estes Valley Development Code, as implemented in February of 2000, eliminated the ability for ADU's on lots that did not meet a minimum of 1.33 the required minimum lot size and could be no larger than 800 square feet. This lot size limitation was a last minute change of the current code before adoption in January of 2000. Not many people noticed and it probably should not have happened because we went from every residential lot allowing ADU's to only 27% of the lots in the Estes Valley allowing ADU's. Considering development and subdividing practices, that percentage will only go down with time, thereby permitting this on only the most affluent of properties. The problem with limiting ADU's and guest houses has been an issue of concern with many property owners on many levels. On a number of occasions property owners have wanted to remodel an existing ADU and have found that they could not. The current code did not allow them and the Community Development Department required that the kitchen and/or shower be removed. In some cases they went so far as to require the removal of the ADU outright, even if it was permitted legally at an earlier time. This goes against the grain of legal non-conforming uses and grandfathered properties. Unfortunately, the Community Development Department has wrestled with the interpretation of the code and the IRC due to many inconsistencies regarding definitions and enforceability. What was legal nine years ago has now become illegal, and with strict interpretation, ADU's have been eliminated when at all possible. With regard to new construction there are a number of properties that have attempted to build an ADU or a "guest quarter" only to be rebuffed by the code. There have been inconsistent interpretations of kitchens and bathrooms that have denied building permits just by the appearance of an ADU. These denials have occurred in many new high end homes and remodels that have desired separate guest quarters, wet-bars, breakfast-bars, elderly parent accommodations, caretaker quarters, or full-time home health f Page 2 of 4 4 1 accommodations in the past nine years. All these instances have been historically associated with this community, but are now illegal, even though most of them would be considered a "guest quarter", not an ADU. "Guest quarters" are defined in the code as "living quarters with or without kitchen facilities for the use of temporary guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling." This is a common sense use that should be allowed by right in any residential zone, but the code interpretation lumps them with ADU's - even though it defines them separately. What the Town now faces is a need for ADU's that can be rented to increase the number of rental units available in the community. The vacancy rate of long term rental properties has historically been very low and there is a need for housing units for our summer workforce, year-long workforce and vacationers. Not only are ADU's needed to fill the demand, but they are also needed for some homeowners to afford their homes that are consistently outpacing the rest of the country in value. The average home price in this community is beyond the reach of our year-long workforce to afford. Our community has a larger proportion of lodging and retail jobs that are traditionally the lower paying jobs compared to other industryies. Fortunately, some are able to find houses that already have ADU's, but some have found that they need to build an ADU in order to afford the mortgage to stay in this community. What they have found is a code that does not allow it and have been forced to downsize or move to the front range. What this community begins to face is that someone living in the front range will eventually find a job in the front range and it will not be in their interest to commute to Estes Park. We will therefore out-price the market without trying to maintain working class citizens in this community and they will eventually stop coming. To limit ADU's to only larger properties would be a mistake. They should be allowed on every property as long as they meet the zoning regulations regarding setbacks, use and accessory structures. Ironically, this aspect of "affordable housing" has been totally ignored in the Rl district, which is designed specifically for such housing. ADU options are not available at all in this zoning district. Page 3 of 4 4/0 Limiting ADU's in the current code really was a mistake in 2000. The current Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan actually recommends "modif(ying) zoning classifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units" (7.A.5) and also recommends the "infill of older core areas" (6.A.3.1). The comprehensive plan states that this is actually smart growth because it reduces the infrastructure cost of building and maintaining new infrastructure in more remote areas where new subdivisions and developments may occur. It will also increase the property values thereby increasing tax revenue which will mean more money to maintain the same infrastructure. In an interview process of over twenty architects, designers, and home-builders in this valley we have found that there have been numerous requests for all of the above ADU/guest quarter possibilities. It has been a need and a desire for all age ranges and income classes. This is not an isolated issue. Many people in this community want some type of ADU/guest quarter and we are only trying to give them a voice in this process. There has been a nationwide calling for change to allow ADU's in all types of communities, from parts of Denver, to Steamboat Springs, Aspen, and Grand Junction. ( As mentioned earlier, even our own Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan encourages infill and ADU's. Our association is responding to a demand that is present, real, and necessary in our community. Most of us are working class citizens and have felt the pressures ourselves. I hope that you can agree with these reasons for why ADU's should be re-instated as a use by right in the Estes Valley. We urge you to make a positive change for housing affordability. , Sincerely, Mike Menard, President Estes Valley Contractors Association Page 4 of 4 39 ~iÂ©EDâ‚¬*1 low* R-ei~cle.3- ~ FEB 1 2 2009 I 2 TWENTY QUESTIONS FOR PLANNING STAFF REGARDIN~.lEILE .- PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CHANGES Prepared by Eric Waples, an interested citizen Dll/09 1. Does the planning staff intend to do any type of scientific survey of residential property owners to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the final form of the Department's ADU proposal? Why or why not? What assumptions are you making based on the fact that you can cite only one member of the 157 Estes Park Homeowner Associations who provides unqualified support of your plan? 2. How many of the Homeowner Associations which potentially qualify for ADU's forbid ADU's in their covenants? Of those that do not directly forbid ADU's in their covenants, how many have other provisions in their covenants which conflict with your proposed regulations (e.g. parking spaces, etc.)? Would those conflicts prevent the homeowners from establishing ADU's without changing their HOA covenants? Under what conditions would Homeowner covenant provisions supersede the proposed ADU regulations; under what conditions would the proposed Code changes supersede HOA covenants? 3. What happens, for example, if a new owner of a detached ADU is no longer in compliance with, or refuses to follow, the ADU covenant? What happens to the detached ADU? What penalty options does the town have? If an owner of a detached ADU sells it as a condominium, what legal recourse does the city have (especially given the 1995 Ziegler case--section 56 A-11 and 56 A-12-- which limits enforcement of "ownership" regulations as opposed to "land use" regulations)? What case law is Greg White relying on to enforce the covenant provisions of your proposed ADU regulations? Can you also give an example of the "exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship if the restrictions are not removed" under your proposal which would allow a homeowner to have the ADU covenant restrictions removed? And what "applicable Board" would make this determination? 4. Most model ADU ordinances incorporate a provision requiring specific owner occupancy (for both current and future owners) requirements to reduce the potential for tenant/neighbor conflicts. Why does your proposal not include this requirement? 5. Most model ADU ordinances allow an ADU to be 30-40% the size of the primary dwelling (see the Public Policy Institute study recommendations done for AARP with the assistance of the American Planning Association). Why have you chosen a larger size (49%) for your proposal? 6. Do you plan to keep the architectural guidelines in your proposal despite the opposition to this discovered during your meeting with local architects and designers? 7. Many model ADU ordinances specifically limit the number of ADU bedrooms (which in your proposal would also limit the number of additional parking spaces) and the number of unrelated people who may occupy an ADU. Under current code and your ADU proposal, how many bedrooms could be included in a 1,000 square foot ADU? Under your proposal, current code would allow up to seven unrelated people to live in an ADU. Do you feel that is appropriate? Did you consider specifically limiting the number of unrelated people who can reside in an ADU? Did you consider a square footage per person limitation? Why or why not? 8. In your estimation, how many illegal ADU's exist in the Estes Valley? What is your position on how illegal ADU's will be dealt with? 9. Many model ADU ordinances restrict ADU's to existing housing under the assumption that one of the primary benefits of ADU's is to "stabilize existing core neighborhoods" which actually have less density than intended in zoning codes (because of changing demographics). What is your specific definition of "core neighborhood" as applied to the Estes Valley. Why does your proposal not prohibit ADU's for new construction, which can encourage speculators, and, in fact, create new "duplexes" (albeit of different sizes) in areas zoned single family residential? 10. Because the potential for unintended consequences of your ADU proposal is enormous, why have you not incorporated specific provisions in your plan for automatic review of the total number of ADU's created each year, density thresholds of ADU's in particular neighborhoods, the frequency of complaints about ADU's, etc? As a cautionary measure, why have you not incorporated any type of permit renewal process in your proposal? Do you understand why the "trust us" approach is probably not a sufficient safeguard given the potential unanticipated consequences of this proposed change? 11. Do you plan to stick with your proposal to have a "conditional" permit for detached ADU's and a "use by right" permit for integrated and attached ADU's? Is it your intent that neighbors should have no input into attached or integrated ADU's? Have you considered a process (included in other ADU model ordinances) where neighbor objections or complaints could automatically trigger a "conditional" review? 12. What specific subletting policies will apply to ADU's under your prop9sal and the current code? How do you intend to enforce the three-month lease requirement? How will you track and address abuses of this requirement? How will this requirement affect summer employees who cannot sign a three-month lease (because, for example, many colleges do not have a full three months summer vacation)? Is the intent just to "fudge" or ignore these issues or do you plan aggressive enforcement? 13. Are there currently any state regulations regarding ADU's? To your knowledge, has r any legislation been proposed or anticipated? 14. Who will enforce the parking provisions of the new ADU regulations--and how aggressively? Under your proposal how many guests may park in ADU parking areas and for how long? How will this be enforced? 15. Do you anticipate a fewer or great number of challenges or appeals regarding ADU's to the Board of Adjustment (or other government bodies) as a consequence of your new ADU policy? Why or why not? 16. What constituency is best served by your new ADU policy--residential homeowners, general citizens of the Estes Valley, builders and excavators, developers, realtors, architecUdesigners, or city administrators? What specific evidence do you have to support your assumptions? Have you done due diligence to gather evidence from the general public? 17. Of the "kitchen sink" full of reasons proposed for instituting the new ADU policy, which reasons are your highest priority and why? What evidence do you have that these "reasons" will be successfully achieved by the new policy? 18. Since the code you wish to change was instituted not long ago, and after very extensive Community input, how do you feel this change (and the manner in which you are doing it) will affect public confidence in the stability, predictability and fairness of the zoning process? In the Lexington Lane controversy, members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees repeatedly reminded nearby homeowners, "you knew what the zoning was for this adjacent property when you purchased your property, correct?" How do you reconcile those statements/questions and neighborhood concerns with your current proposal? Can you truly say you accept with a straight face the Board of Realtors' statement that "an ADU either attached or detached, rented or not, would have no negative impact on adjoining properties"? 19. The multiple reasons stated in support of the proposed ADU policy change make it clear that the intent is to encourage the frequency of ADU's. What frequency (e.g. number of additional ADU's established annually) is either anticipated or desired by planning staff and why? What ADU threshold density would be considered "too many" for a neighborhood area or for the town as a whole in the view of planning staff? 20. Since the grab bag of reasons stated to support the new policy understandably causes the goals to be somewhat ambiguous and sometimes contradictory, how wi}l the "Decision-Making Body" be able to fairly "grant exceptions and modifications to these standards" based on whether they "find the requested modifications and/or waivers..."advance the goals and purposes of this code." Does this give far too much discretion to the decision-making body and open it up to even more frequent challenges of favoritism or capricious decision making? Estes Park **5@-OVE-Ffl --.-E Â£8122~1~ i:% . . - 1-DAW:.64 40;4*4'19.99.L -'~'0'911*!!d*liNtiÂ¤mâ€¢,â€¢.-- ....1MZ, 1.1-:;~L~,11 1 1 9,~1 ' ~1 u -4-11 '1 - - February 12, 2Â¢~FI c>tlsllng ~-Ut}1. C)1311zj, TO: Members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission Frorn: The Estes Park Housing Authority Re: Accessory Dwelling Units The Estes Valley Development Code and the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, upon which the Code is based, strive to create the balanced and appropriate development of the Estes Valley while meeting the residential and economic needs of the Valley. The Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA), as an entity formed to address the housing needs of Estes Valley, supports the adoption of a code provision to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and to allow these units to be rented. The Comprehensive Plan lists a variety o f policies that support the creation of ADUs including the encouragement of"housing infill", a "variety of housing types and price ranges" and "housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods." Most directly, the Comprehensive Plan, section 7-A.5-3, recommends for housing, not as policy, but as action, to "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." The Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment prepared for EPHA last year, estimates a need for 756 to 959 new housing units by the year 2015 including a current need of 221 units. The adoption of ADUs will not fill this need for housing, but it can be one of the solutions. ADUs will assist this community's needs for housing of its employees, the care of an aging population, and to simply allow our children to be able to stay in a community where housing prices are outdistancing the means of our current residents. The Estes community will continue to grow. If we wish to maintain the character of this town and to preserve the open spaces and wildlife that inspire our residents and our guests, then our codes need to allow for the best uses of the developed neighborhoods we have. For these reasons, the Estes Park Housing Authority urges the Planning Commission to recommend the integration of Accessory Dwelling Units and their abilitv to be rented into the Development Code. Respectfully, .64Â« Rita Kurelj a Executive Director On Behalf of the EPHA Board of Commissioners 170 MacGregor Avenue, RO. Box 1200 e Estes Park, CO 80517 â€¢ (970) 577-3730 â€¢ Fax (970) 586-0249 1 r ~F~a*V~l 4 Kint-3 g February 11, 2009 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission ADUs Are "Responsible Development" There has been some misrepresentations lately of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), what they are and their purpose in the newspapers. Presently, the Estes Valley Development Code only allows 27% ofthe combined residential lots in both the Town ofEstes Park and the unincorporated Estes Valley to have an integrated ADU within an existing single-family dwelling. This policy is a radical departure from past zoning regulations and many property owners have been upset by the loss of their right to have an ADU, whether for private use or rental. The Planning Commission is now re-evaluating the current ADU Code policy for several reasons: problems in code language, increasing demand for ADUs on lots not allowed the use, aff6rdable housing issues, new building codes and recent Larimer County code changes that allow ADUs on any residential lot in the County. The Planning Commission has been following the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, a guideline for Responsible Development that encourages infill housing in existing neighboorhoods, that helps preserve the beauty ofthe remaining open spaces in the Estes Valley from further sprawl: One such infill housing project supported by the Planning Commission has been Habitat ofEstes Valley's latest affordable single-family housing project on Riverside Drive. The Comprehensive Plan encourages ADUs as part ofthe r infill housing for the unique benefits they provide: 1. Private ADUs allow opportunities for year-round, part-time and retired residents by - providing accomodations for elderly parents, visiting family and guests, or on-site housing for caretakers and domestic caregivers. 2. Rentable ADUs provide needed income for their owners and represent an affordable and long-term housing opportunity for local working residents, currently challangdd by the housing shortage. 3. ADUs support local business by housing the employee base within the 6ore commercial districts. Increased living opportunities in close proximity to various employment sectors is an enviromentally preferred land use policy, which reduces automobile dependancy and takes full advantage of the community' s paved trails system reducing parking problems, noise and traffic congestion. 4. ADUs also reduce infrastructure cost by making efficient use of existing utility .. services and roadways. Our community has already been reaping these benefits from the existing and often unnoticed ADUs found in our neighborhoods.Their presence hasn't altered the unique mountain appearance and character ofthe Estes Valley any more than other dwellings; some even enhance it. They are not the source of increased traffic congestion, parking, ( noise and rental problems. That is mainly caused by the three million tourists that yearly swarm over this community and blatantly violate short-term rental agreements. They have not harmed property values, which continue to outpace most ofthe nation. Nor have they overloaded the public utilities or infrastructure. Opponants ofthe proposed ADU zoning code revisions would lead you to believe we need an encumbering public review process to ensure the least amount of impact in our neighborhoods, but the facts above do not support their case. Paul F. Brown and Family 254 Solomon Dr, Estes Park CO P.S. For the record, Our Family were renters in this community for 16 years and we fully understand the lack of available affordable housing for working people. In 1994, we bought a lot in the Town OfEstes Park because zoning regulations allowed us to have either an intergated or an attached ADU. In January of 2000 we received a Certificate of Occupancy for our new home that we built ourselves on the lot with hopes of adding an attached ADU for our elderly parents. You can imagine how we felt when one month later on February 1, 2000 we lost the right to have the ADU. 1, 3-LEE-CIEDVIE7 011 C This Letter to editor appeared in the Estes Park News Feb. 6,2009 This Letter to editor appeared inihe Estes Park Trail Gazette Feb. 6,200 February 3,2009 Letter to the Editor: The Association for Responsible Development (ARD) has several major concerns regarding the Planning Commission' s proposal for Accessory Dwelling Units, (ADUs). This proposal would be a major change the existing CODE and Zoning in the Estes Town and Valley. The proposed changes could allow for uncontrolled growth and alter the unique mountain character of the Estes Valley. Currently, ADU's allow for an attached guest quarters or dethched buildings with sink, stove and toilet. By changing the existing CODE and Zoning requirements, making'it less stringent to add an ADU, there will be an increase of infill in existing residential neighborhoods. In addition, it is highly likely that many of these ADU will be used as rentals. Owner occupied properties are usually not a problem, but absentee owners frequently turn these units into apartments, which sometimes have enforcement problems with both short term and long terms rentals. Currently there is no way to control or enforce problems such as: number of occupants, inadequate parking, increased noise and traffic. A second major issue is that of the "Use by Right" status that this proposal for the ADUs permits. This will allow for a code change that permits an accessory dwelling unit to be built without having the owner/builder go through the proper Planning Commission process which is already in place. This code change would allow construction of ADUs without public review or comment. Individual property owners and neighborhoods should have the opportunity to attend public meetings and voice their concerns. ARD is in agreement that the current system of a case-by-case assessment based on merit and reviewed by the Planning Commission with public comment has been effective in the past in approving appropriate requests. There does not seem to be a need biased on the number of requests or the desire on the part of residents to make such sweeping code and zoning changes at this time. Maintaining the integrity of current neighborhoods is essential to the character of the town and valley. You are welcome to attend the next ARD meeting, February 13th at 8:30 am at Good Samaritan. ARD encourages all Estes Town and Valley residents who are interested in the proposed changes by the Planning Commission regarding ADUs, to attend the next Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 23rd at 1:30 pm in the Town Hall. bave Albee < President, Association for Responsible Development Al 970-586-6413 K7 ~@* D y [E' 3\ 111 FES 1 0 ?2009 :'1,1~ j, c #AnOrtfolioidroup, I ti~~ '~~ _~--~ c ) 1 '44 be M I. Residential Design and Construdtion ,{ Â·q ,Â·- i . Â· ~t . 1 I+6,â‚¬66Aildi~Soitesl4-8â€ž*U..TbfÂ·N4*RieriM*Â·.P.O. Box 2735; Estes'Park, CO' 8051~7 Â· (970)586-9436 Â· FAX (970 586-9437Â·Â· (604{494%95'*VE< 7..t: r. I --11 4 2 1- 7 4 00: ME .6/41#C \ Ndâ‚¬ft-aft I Â£ J Comment and Opinion ' -Estds Park PhikTrail Gazette ,~ - Dear'Editor: ' ''.. ' '' I { , We are writing regarding the prbposed chaNges tb tlid Estes Valley Development Code (code) on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The remarks below also res~nd to three lettersto,the editor Which appearedbnthe Friday, January 3Oth pages of the Trail Gazette. . These y ' lett@rs canhb from Elaine Downing, Don Sellets, and Frdd Mares. i First we agree with all three letters in that we encourage concerned citizens; - ~' iÂ¢ for and against the AbU proposal&, to attend the' Plhnning CoMmission heaAngs on this issue. As Don Sellers put it "the need for citizen itiput is crucihi." Secondly, we:agree with FredÂ·Mares that concerned citizens should "read and ~ understand thesâ‚¬proposals.Â¢ ')With &ii<iri mind, weard-offeAtig.some thoughts 'f-* Whith nUV fai6tate< a basic understandingÂ£of the proposed ADUchankes. In our - , view, these ADU changes address th;ee bbjectives: '. 1) To better define what exactly constitutes an ADU. 1.\ 1 2) u To expand permitted *DUs withiA theihine Residential Zoning A i - Districts wherb theÂ¥~ard neE Allbwadbyright. Â¢e7. 3) To allow such ADUs to be rented for a minirhum of 90 days. ADUs defined. The Town Staff report outlining the ADU bhanges *efers to , ~ 4. acase Where a propdrtyowher was denied a :'Wet bar". We (Thei Pobtfolid Group),wereth@reknodeling -&#ttractor}for this project.-The owner hired us i)1 ' to convert an RV-*aU-geintoj twa guest bedfooms.with a cdmmon li*ing area. ~ The comE on area includeda proposed sinkand dishwasher. iT6wn Staff denied ' the sink and dishwasher:on the grourids that this--constituted an ADU, which was ~ ~ not permitted-on this.Lot. Ih fakt, the property owner had nointentidnof using these quest quarters as* a pefmanent Â«dwelling unit", nor cotild they be since Â· 4 T it had no kitchen. We propos*Unlessa space clearly has'a kitchen, with installed ktove and/ or cooktÂ®tandire4uisite space for cabinets, counters, refri#erktor, etc. the accompanying Â®arters should not be considered an ADU : For those of you witlit'wet bars"or "brealdast bars" or a Ihidrowave/cdunter / 2 for the convenience of youtself or your $iests; such clarification willrelieve you ofhaving (perhaps "illegallf') 6 non-conforming ADU. ' Â£ ' I ' ' li G + ' . 21 ;Permitted ADUs. Please dhderstand that ADUs are now allowed by right. The'changes relhx the requirement that a lot ha4 1.33 times thdminimbin lot size to beeligible, and would permit detached ADUs od lots one ace or ~ latger. The latter would requird Planning Commissionreview. The Staff ; Report notes a number of uses for ADU&:tsuites for elderly parents; onsite '- facilities for,caregivers or caretakers; and guest quarters for visitors. Itr f' seems these are legitimate needs for citizens of the Valley.;, The code chhngesÂ· 2sdek to expaWd eligibilityfor such needs to citizens with smaller lots, and allow: p increa@ed privdcy with detitched ADUs on largdr lots.'In a.number:of our residential projects, we have incorporated a "kitchenette" in guest spaces. ;None of these cases has led to.increased density. Therefore, we don't feel it is' + i totally:clear *at AbUs used for the abov@ pintposes would, as Elaine Downing- + ,- puts it: Osignificatly changeÂ· the character and structure of neighborhoods". Rent@ of ADUs. Fred Mares states thatthese codd, cha*kes re~;resent."a total. reversal of the Town's policy with:the stated purpose of providing more affordablkrental housingund more rental housing for seasonal wdrkers. ; ~ ~~.within residenUal: neighborhoods". Well...is itÂ·self-evident thesk Are, inapprÂ®riate objectives? Do We have an affordable dnd/or seasonal housing problem or don't we? If no, then perhaps ADUs shouldn'tbe rentabld. Ifyes, ~, the t@ntal of ADUs might mhke sense. Many of us-who Adw livein the Estes ~ Valley.permanently, once came}kre ad visitors. 3 Then,;we were dependent dii tf: ro ?: <f :theseasdnal helpin kdstaurant#and motels. Shood seasohal helpbew@coine to: ~ ;~ I -~ Â· *8rk here, but not reht here? Like*ise; should< those needing affordable:, ff) ' i .it housingi live elsewhere? And, to the exteht seasonit Antd other, workerk are ~ 7. blready her&, it is also not self-evident that ADU rentaIs, as Don Sellers.puts it/ . "will allow ahuge increksd'in the housing density throukhout the Valley." ; ~ ~ ~ Thank you... Steve and-Betty Nickel ; ~ - ~ The Portfolio Group; Ink -, ' . ~EÂ©EUVIg3 A FEB 9 2009 Appeared on January 30,2009 in-the Trail gazette and the Estes Park News January 27,2009 , , Trail Gazette: Editorial Page Dear Editor: I am writing to express my concerns and to alert others to the proposed ADU code change. Most disturbing, is the "Use by Right" status allowed by the proposed code. The change supersedes current zoning requirements and allows building of an Accessory Dwelling Unit of up to 1,000 square feet without community input or planning commission review. There is currently a process available through the planning commission to add an ADU in appropriate residential locations, so it seems unnecessary for this broad, sweeping code change. Should this ADU code change be passed, it will most certainly lead to increased density and the accompanying noise, traffic and parking problems. In addition, there is the possibility of ADU' s being used to generate income as rental property. Many people are concerned that an increased number of ADU's used as c rental units, will significantly change the character and structure of their neighborhood. Please contact the Planning Commission to learn more about this proposal or plan to attend the next meeting on Tuesday, February 17th at 1:30. Elaine Downing Estes Park 586-6413 n n Karen Thompson (~3.-rom: Don Sellers f : ~ ' Sent: Wednesday, Decernber 17,2008 12:39 PM To: Karen Thompson Subject: Prohibit ADU Rentals Karen - During yesterday's Planning Commission discussion, there was a suggestion to eliminate the paragraph in the Accessory Dwelling Unit code modifications concerning rental provisions for ADUs. I think elimination of rental capability for ADUs is a very good idea which will make the proposal much more palatable to Ihany residents in Estes Park. In addition to striking the paragraph, however, I suggest adding verbiage to specifically prohibit renting ADUs. Without a clear statement prohibiting rental of ADUs in the code, the possibility of rentals will remain murky. Could you please make my comments part of the public record and copy the Planning Commission members, and Bob Joseph and Dave Shirk? Best regards, Don Sellers POE-1 ~ DEC 17 2000 200% 1 7Q SUBKITTâ‚¬b To -ME ESTES vul,EN 1746,/N/04 CoMM/55'04 ed :2ibe~oa -El~ 1186, 6 -AWk,,4 254 50,0404 Ale, 657E5 %44"fi. 17.12.010--17.16.010 Chapter 17.12 FF***glAi ZONING DISTRICTS ~In) | m m DEC 16 2008 ~t Sections: 17.12.010 Designated. lituLIZZLJ 17.12.010 Designated. In order to regulate and restrict the location of trades, callings, industries, and other uses, and the location of buildings designed, erected, altered or occupied for specific purposes, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yard, courts and other spaces, and to regulate and limit the denisty of population, the town of Estes Park is divided in the following zoning districts: R residential district; R-1 residential district; R-2 multiple family residential district; R-3 mobile home park district; C-1 commercial district; C-2 restricted commercial district; I71 restricted industrial district; E estate district; E-1 estate district; E-2 estate district; and DR developing resource district. (Ord. 27-82 Â§2, 1982: Ord. 5-79 Â§3, 1979: Ord. 12-75 Â§1, 1975; Ord. 27-72 Â§1, 1972: Ord. 295 Â§2: Ord. 287 Â§1: Ord. 269 Â§1: prior code Â§12.3: Ord. 185 Â§2 ( parn ) , 1958) . Chapter 17.16 R RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT* Sections: 17.16.010 Boundaries. 17.16.020 Permitted uses. 17.16.030 Yards. 17.16.040 Lot area per family. 17.16.050 Floor area per dwelling. 17.16.060 Minimum lot width. 17.16.010 Boundaries. The boundaries of the R residen- tial district shall be as set forth in this section. Included * For statutory provisions authorizing division of the ( municipality into districts, see C.R.S. 139-60-2. 218 (Estes Park 12/82) 11 17.16.020 within the R resid@Atial district shall be the following described lands: 1. All of the lands included in County Club Estates, a resubdivision of Lot 10, South Saint Vrain Addition; 2. Majestic Fines Subdivision, a part of Dekker Ad- dition; 3. One Thousand Pines Addition; 4. Village Acres Addition; 5. All of Lots 100 through 122, inclusive, Lots 126 through 136, inclusive; Lots 138 through 142, inclusive, of Al Fresco Place Addition; 6. All the lands included within Thompson's Pinewood Acres Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Thompson's Pinewood Acres Addition; 7. Tracts 1 through 20, Tracts 24 through 54 and Tracts 83 through 96, Fall River Addition; 8. Black Canyon Hills Addition; 9. All of the lands included within the Kidwell Ad- dition; 10. All the land bounded on the east by MacGregor Avenue on the south by Wonderview Avenue and on the west by the east line of Alfresco Place; 11. All of the lands included within Palmer Addition; 12. / All of the lands included within Connelly Addition; 13. Lots 4 through 8, Block 4, Lot 6 and Lots 8 through 19, Block 5, Lots 1 through 10, Block 6, and Lots 1 through 7, Block 7, all in Lone Pine Acres First Addition; 14. Prospect Estates Addition; 15. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, -24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,.49, and 50 Grand Estates Addition. town of Estes Park; 416. Lots 41, 42, and 43 and Outlot A of Fall River Estates First Addition to the town; /17. Lots 4 through 25, 27 through 34, 36 through 40, Block 1, Lots 1 through 12, Block 2, and Outlots B, C, D, E and F of Fall River Estates Second Addition; J 18. The amended plat of Peak View Subdivision, being a replat of a portion of Lot 1, Dannels Addition. (Ord. 12-83 Â§1, 1983; Ord. 20-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 16-82 Â§3, 1982; Ord. 10-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 7-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 3-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 15-81 Â§1, 1981; Ord. 2-80 Â§1, 1980; Ord. 24-79 Â§1, 1979; Ord. 12-79 Â§1, 1979; Ord. 23-77 Â§1, 1977; Ord. 8-77 Â§1, 1977; Ord. 20-75 Â§1, 1975; Ord. 17-73 Â§1(part), 1973; Ord. 13-72 Â§4, 1972; Ord. 10-72 Â§Â§2, 4, 1972; Ord. 8-72 Â§1, 1972; Ord. 350 Â§2; Ord. 302 Â§Â§2, 4: prior code Â§Â§12.4, 12.4-7). 17.16.020 Permitted uses. No building or premises shall be used, and no building shaljl be hereafter erected or structurally altered, unless otherwise provided herein, except for one or more of the following uses: 1. One-family dwelling; 2. One quest dwelling; 3. Uses customarily incidental to any of the above uses, when located on the same lot and not involving the conduct of a business on the premises; 219 (Estes Park 11/83) 24 17.16.030--17.I6.060 4. Accessory-buildings limited to private garages; 5. Domestic animals, provided such animals are house- hold pets and that kennels are not maintained; 6. Public utility mains, lines and substations, where no public office and no repair or storage facilities are maintained; 7. Fences, hedges and walls, provided such uses are less than three and one-half feet in height when located within one hundred feet of the centerline intersection of two streets or roads. 8. The use of licensed mobile vehicles of radio or television stations or newspapers used to gather and transmit news to their place of publication or broadcast, so long as that place is not a street, alley, sidewalk or other public way or place within the town limits, and there is no audible or visual transmission from said vehicles; 9. Uses permitted by special review: nursing homes, carillons, and electronic instruments imitating a carillon. (Ord. 2-76 Â§1, 1976; Ord. 23-75 Â§1, 1975; Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§Â§12.6-C, 12-6-C-1). 17.16.030 Yards. For every building there shall be a front yard, rear yard and side yard of not less than twenty- five feet. (Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§12.6-C-2). 17.16.040 Lot area per family. For every one-family C dwelling there shall be provided a minimum lot area of twenty- I one thousand seven hundred eighty square feet. (Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§12.6-C-3). 17.16.050 Floor area per dwelling. There shall be per- mitted, upon each lot, one residence building containing not less than eight hundred square feet of floor area, one guest house containing not less than six hundred square feet of floor area, and one private garage which may be either a separate structure or combined with the residence house or guest house. Basement floor areas shall not be included to determine compliance with the above minimum floor area require- ments. (Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§12. 6-q-4). 1 17.16.060 Minimum lot width. Every lot shall have a width of not less than thirty feet as measured along the front lot line, as such line is defined in Title 16 of t*is code, and a width of not less than seventy-five feet as measured along the lot setback, as such setback is defined in Title 16 of this code, which may be more than the minimum set forth within this chapter. Corner lots shall be at least one hundred twenty feet in widths at the front setback line. (Ord. 2-74 Â§2, 1974: Ord. 21-71 Â§2, 1971: prior code Â§12.6-C-5). 219-1 (Estes Park 8/82) 1 < Proposel square footage for detached accessory dwellng units based on lot size. 300 SF min.- 400 SF max. on lots 10890 SF to 21779 SF 300 SF min.- 600 SF max. on lots 21780 SF to 43559 SP 300 SF min.- 800 SF max. on lots 43560 SF to 108899 SF 300 SF min.- 1000 SF max. on lots 108900 SF or greater 1 / 14 r-N . 1.41.:I:. ../.: / 0* . ti Â· tÂ·i UlikkE t, tÂ·L * f hai~ 21 '[ 1 M Mfal: f , 1 +4-AU=. 1 3*1 2. 9 , ~W==121Â¢EmliB . .. II C 13'-0" X 8'-4' ~ 3.90 X 2,50 * la=el 1 1 [[El] Â® 1221 -0-1 1/ - I 19'-0" X 10'-4" F=9 5.70 X 3.10 ~-Â· ~ 3 , U U ]1 -6-1 H 1- 1' 11/lilli e 11 = 3 U 400 SF one bedroom cottage with 3/4 bath and kitchen This cottage is the same size as a small 2 car garage. L A7 111-tili>KAL lFN.BRrff 7-f.-'-Â·Â·br--1 . -~ i-,~~"~~#,53144.11#~2 4'19,@ ' --7.U-= ----- d . - L â€¢Pgr:G Â· $ . C 1*b!2 4 7-- 1!A 14 4 4#4!. ,:422 2 4 6 & 41 I. 1 14-râ€¢ 111' , ' , f/li..2 1, 1':1! 11 1 '! =i fri =Whim Â· ' 11 .: 4 il . . ' t~l' 1~ill,If C It i 11.1 If d 111:li 1 Alttlim . ., C' Ii,1!III ,Ibil, t . 4 "H'Ul#l. Li. . ;11 ... . t 2400" .... 1 Br.2 /- icx , 6 1.- Br. 1 t. M,11 * :0 10 CRAWL /' tl j 'f , Aâ‚¬CESS XI f ft J b I 4-'Sylot:hukk i REF, 1 Liv.Rm. WH'' ..... 128 1 11' i. 4 5: STOVE Ick,1 r-~ Â·Â·2 -6,1 1 576 SF two bedroom cottage with full bath, closets and kitchen. The cottage is the same size as a standard 2 car garage. 21- 4.-!F'" â€ž D..,1 ' -4 z .' 21 C-+..0 Â· '. . ...â€žU 0 + ..2 #A 'le 1 ./.0 lâ€¢,4 -WITI i . ... I. I ./ ... I. ' 1 ' :. 470 -Â· t ... .. 261* -- Pat/0 , -7 k G /=gas meptace Bedroom fÂ¥ Great Room 11'6 x 10' 13'2 x 12 '8 ~ ~ vau#ed Gemng i n A n n 1206[ ' LumÂ»Â· 1 ,# to - 10#thZ 1 Ell'xll'W sh' I I Llt down 1 C Y 574 SF one bedroom cottage with 3/4 bath, closets, laundry, kitchen/dining nook and living room with fireplace. This cottage is the same size as a standard 2 car garage. nOSZ .44. . % i &.64.. 0...-w:-i-j/Fi. +Â·Â·0 -ve .i , 4 55 37:21{' Fl . .34.': 9! Â·-1 2 4 -2- - : , ..le-# 11.: 4nl 1;,40~- 24~**4**4 Â·i~r + 4, (Â· fl- f Â·t ,Â·G*072Â£~â‚¬9.<*Â»98~ 4%~ .4. - ' i 464 <51 0 / '1'. 2 1-12%~ ; liz i--~ I lilli:i Â¢110 ~ ~ . !|' ....--.I . i Â·9449 ' <.Tae, Jjjil. . - 4 10 .....2 . . . .9 ..:--:r-'.31 Â·3:-P"Et:litxMRAIR~3 - J siat L KIT. 12 x 12 0 0 00 *Â£1!V 18=21 - Immill' 111111111111 ladder - Alll 1 CJ loft over- ~1 BEDROOM 11~ 99 BEDROOM ~ 14 x12 ~**3, ~~*~ 14 x 12 lilli LIVING FLOOR PLAN 12 *19 1 750 4 1 1 DECK Houses that range from 600 SF to 800 SF have more creative floor plan opportunities, second bathrooms, more storage and larger rooms. They may also be multi-story and have attached garages. ho 1- L -0 y g ' 94&916. â‚¬â€¢c 41/11/li.fi, jiligES,Viltd, tf 'jJ I .I ' -,1 1,1 1 .4**44 Flii?:.1, i. Â·:TtiI ,Â· 3*n~:T:t:I,, 6,:.'111 1. *4.2-.0v9"'44â€¢aAamare Â· 4 -3--17-6.47-,irrÂ· 1 -- . -- , .2 - 1.---I-~ -*14/zak- -- -=- /fi* â€¢ 38'-0' What You're Looking For No.92030 RÂ¢}~in~ frun~**Jcs.c~â€¢tedcat~, ud /2-B *d frÂ©,7 1,1*dows Jivc dh~ 962 6Â¥â€¢- foot PQ]L-,11=A/l it . noch flanthe c,â€¢b ipped th= tod.,h first tune 1:. W 11 1. Brl bu, i: lot>kkng forÂ· Upxm ex<,in: the Ing, 8-6*11 Â¥91 lip 11X11 EEI:L .Ell r -7/9 1""cycloggi Cy .. Main living ma -962 Z. n. Living '0| Bra | Br2 AA 11-4*16_ ,]~ 9-4)(8-8 19-4Xleâ‚¬ {<D Ton,1 living area - 962 sq. ft. Â· 2 or More Occupants Â· 1*hrc-Â» No. 92030 1 ,-I 4. -,-=-Af:3=6.1*-'.---=.-1Â£aL=Â»-'.,1-4,0Â»-42~~8ZhÂ» - 4 .- -t--- 344 1 Life On Two Levels No. 92035 . --r Wi:h Ir' 11411-car.lached g:,40 =i.ovred ~ m IWI:, li Rent-y. d= 1000 .9. M. r.0-*90=has just .1.1 1" .fe 10Â©ki, for b, a 613â€¢Â·16= 1,1,gr 60,06 ThÂ®mal,flo/<fcat-*1,18Â¢fomnal ~ 200~ - ~_ /11:=~ Eva:=rn. cu-in kil,110 &01 1-dry clowi The uppir floor fc:guf- eâ„¢ 51*2'" uaut 9804Â¢10,clewadâ€¢shartdbalh. Â· Brl 1 8,2 M# 1-4 Lowerieve!-48019.1 14.- ~ 9-10*619](100 Upper level- 520 34, A. i Garage- 1-Car .. A i Totaltivingwea-1,000:q. n. li Elik lorMorcO. ts 1 1#10| 1 8,1 [ ~10â‚¬*11-6 1 ! I~, _ -- ~ .~, LOWER PLAN |l-.....-J , ~|~9~JiOOR / Houses that range from 900 SF to 1000 SF can have 3 bedrooms. I9 .% P.,2 1 -'~2Â©E Il VE'- ~ DEC 15 2008 ~ The Portfolio Group, Inc. ~ Www. port61 nun i iq -- g --r- Residential Design & Construction ; 1204 Graves Avenue . P.O. Box 2735 . Estes Park, CO 80517 . (970) 586-9436 . Fax: 586-9437 ' 2 Decehiber 15, 2008 . I Estes Valley Planning Commission c/o Dave Shirk, Estes Park CoMmunity Development Estes Park, Colorado Subj: Amendments to Existing Regulations of Accessory Dwelling Units' t Â¥ 2 . 'Dear Commissioners: We are writing to express-our suppbrtfor the propdsed changes to-the Estes Valley Development Code fegarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).. We find these changes respond to a growing need and desire for such facilities among our clidnt base. In addition, we would like to make the folloking comments and suggestions for your consideration... , Cooking' Facilities defined. We believe that "permanent provihions for cooking" needs more specific definition. For example, the following or similar language could be adddd: "Cooking facilities shall include the permanent installation ~ of an oven and cooktop norinally requiring 220 volt electricity or a dedicated natural gas or propane line." Such definition would preclude sleeping facilities in excess bf 1,000 square feet having a microwave for the use of poptorn from being ponstrued as an ADU. t . r Setbacks,for Detached ADUs. We suggest.that ADUs.in.Zoning Districts RE and RE-1 be exempted from the requirem@nt that "at leastÂ·oheÂ·exteriorÂ·wallof the' ADU shall be closer to the principal dwelling unit than any extetior wall of the ADU may be to any property line." We feel this requirement may be unnecessarily restrictive, particularly for these Zoning Districts. 17.TiT We further suggest ika following language (similar to that contained on Page 9) be added 20 this setback requirement... "ihe Decision-Making Body shall have authority to grani exceptions and modifications *to this requirement in all Zoning Districts, provided they find the requested modications and/or waivers: t 1. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; and . 2. Eithdr results in leds visual in*act mqre effective envirorimental or open space preservationâ€žrelievespractical diffidulties in developing a sitd, tr results in the use of superior engineering and/or architectural standards than those required by this Cpde. . . Architectural Requirements., We strojigly gupport that the ADU should be designed to be combatible with the design of the prihcipal d*Qbig uAit.-5 butlined in paragraph (14). Betause.gatages, barns, or other accessory structures are not subject to such requirements is ho reason not to tequire them 'for ADUs., Possibly all accessory structures should be subject to ~such requirements. 11 . One again, we thank the Planning Coininission for attending to this develpmeht need. We also want to thank the Planning Staff, particularly Da*e Shirk, for the thoughtful drafting of the proposed chankes. I .. 4 , N ert tx,~3 lows, d t 2 7744*r Steve Ni*el, Managing Principal - . - 4 ..41 Dec 10,2008 Dear Commissioner, I am writing to urge you to not allow the building and renting of accessory dwelling units as a use by right in virtually every single family zoning district as proposed by City Staff. This action in effect is a rezoning action that allows two family dwellings Ind/or duplexes in single family zoning districts. Residents have a right to expect the integrity of their zoning district to be upheld unless there is appropriate rezoning action with public hearings that justify such a change. The proposal before you from the Staff was generated by trying to define an accessory dwelling unit and hardly qualifies as an excuse to rezone all single family zoning. The main issue in the proposal is the right by any homeowner to build an accessory dwelling unit either attached to or detached from the original hbme and then be able to rent it out. The ability to rent the "ADU" creates the economic incentive to build these units for rental income and not simply be for a mother-in-law or aging relative as is the usual case for an "ADU". Rented out "ADU"s in effect completely changes the character of a single family neighborhood, particularly if several occur in one area. With a use by right there is no way to try and make sure there are not too many in one area or to prevent over taxing of a narrow residential street or toprotect wildlife conidors etc. A use by right takes away the ability for review of the impact 6n the neighborhood and the circumstances of each situation. In some areas "ADU"s would have to rely on a well system and even though the proposal says there needs to be approval by the State Engineer on the well permit there is no set criteria for whether permission would be granted or not. The State could easily assume that since the property has single family zoning they are not going to be involved in how many people can use the property. There also have been questions raised about how to enforce against rental of "ADU"s. That 1 can be said about enforcing a lot of laws, but the main argument would be in this case that if it were illegal to rent an "ADll" then people would not risk the money to build an "ADU" solely for rental since they would risk not being able to rent in out to recoup their investment If people were renting out an "ADU" that was causing a problem then the neighbors would complain like they would with other type of perceived violations. The allowance of an "ADU" should be site specific and should allow input from neighbors as with other land use issues. The Staff has said there is not that big of demand for "ADU"s even though local architects see a demand. There would not be much demand for an "ADU" unless in the case of rental where many people who may be deasonal residents anyway see a way to make some money in a resort type community such as this one. The proposal says it has to be a minimum of thirty days rental, but how in the world would that be enforced, especially with a lot of pressure to rent for shorter terms of one to two weeks. Let's not use this issue as a way to increase affordable housing as was also mentioned by Staff. Keep "ADU"s as specialized situations that can be permitted as the individual circumstances may dictate. Thank you for consideration. Regards, Alan Miller 2700 Eagle Rock Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 DEC 1 0 2008 -1 -=~. !~IMORY[517% 16 26 LEO 92 3 DEC - 9 2008 -=f~ Association for Responsible Development Position Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Updated December 9,2008 Introduction: The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain character and natural beauty o f the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. During the October Planning Commission meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding the original ADU proposal. Several ofthese concerns have been excerpted from the October 21 Planning Commission minutes and are summarized below for context: â€¢ Is this just a way to increase density in some areas? - Tom Ewing â€¢ Allowing ADUs in E1 areas would de feat the true purpose o f zoning; proper enforcement of the current code should take place prior to [developing] a new code. - Greg Sievers â€¢ The potential number of ADUs would, in effect, change zoning; ADU approval should be site specific; property buyers in the area have a right to know and understand the zoning where they are buying, without expectation that it may change. - San* Lindquist â€¢ Concerned about loss of control in the number of units that could be built in an area; individual property owners have the right to continue to live in an area as it is currently zoned. - Alan Miller â€¢ The character of the neighborhood will change if ADUs are allowed and the density increases. - Todd Jirsa â€¢ People should be able to expect their property will be used in the manner in which it is zoned.- George Hockman â€¢ Use-by-right status would allow construction of ADUs without public review. This could result in much higher building densities, without neighbors having the right to comment on or challenge such changes. Such de facto rezoning is not compatible with the interests of existing property owners, nor with the intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. In addition, according to the Town Attorney, we cannot legally enforce rental provisions in our existing code. - ARD Principles: At the November 18 Planning Commission meeting, much of the discussion focused on how to change the code in a way that addresses the above concerns. ARD strongly supports this thoughtful approach, and proposes that the following principles be used by the Planning Commission to guide their actions regarding ADUs: 1. We must have the ability to enforce our code, or the code is meaningless. 2. We must clearly state the purpose of ADUs (i.e., Are they for caregivers? Relatives? Seasonal workers? Unrelated, paid guests? Local employees?) 3. We must respect the rights o f existing property owners by providing a case-by-case review process for approval of ADUs, including public meetings and the opportunity for public comment. We must not make ADUs a use-by-right that in effect supersedes * current zoning. , Association for Responsible Development Position Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Page 2 ARD's Position: â€¢ .ADUs, and rentals in general, are a current, ongoing problem, in that: o The Town is not able to properly enforce current code requirements, and o The Town cannot legally control renting of ADUs, pet the Town Attorney â€¢ The original proposed code changes will adversely impact current residential zoning â€¢ Changes to the code regarding ADUs should clearly state the purpose of ADUs. â€¢ Current property-owners' rights and expectations should be preserved by requiring a case-by-case review ofADU proposals. Recommendations: : 1. Revise the code to allow rental of ADUs only if the Board of Trustees and the County Commissioners provide a plan, staffing, and funding to adequately enforce rental provisions. , 2. When an adequate enforcement plan is in place, then revise the code to: a. Explicitly state the purpose ADUs are intended to serve. b. Allow attached ADUs on residential lots of 1 acre or larger, on a case-by-case basis, if approved by the Planning Commission in a public review. c. Allow detached ADUs on residential lots of 2.5 acres or larger, on a case-by- case basis, if approved by the Planning Commission in a public review. d. Limit the size of ADUs to 1000 square feet or less. ARD supports giving the Planning Commission authority to approve or reject applications to build ADUs based on each application's individual merit. This will provide the citizens of Estes Park with the flexibility to build quarters for relatives and caregivers on a case:by-case basis. We hope you find these comments helpful in making your decision. / Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development 14' To: members ofEstes Valley Planning Commission Copies: Town Trustees and Town Staff 0 Request: that this Letter be indfuded in the Public Record From: Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Ct., Estes Park, 970-586-3667 December 5,2008 Comments Concerning Proposed Code Amendments re ADU's May 1 express my high level ofconcern following the meeting ofthe Planning ------------1 Commission on Tuesday, November 18, 2008. My concern is shared by many other residents ofthe Estes Valley with whom I have spoken and who have urged me to write. We residents of Estes Valley believe that the interests of average property owners are not being adequately represented. At the November 18, 2008 meeting of the Planning Commission we witnessed development interests en masse pleading with the Planning Commission for approval ofthe proposal ofthe Estes Valley Community Development Department to amend existing regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Representatives ofthese interests spoke as ifa denial ofthe Proposal would deprive them ofthe opportunity for business that was their "right and due" while at the same time choosing to ignore the negative impact that approval of the Amendments would have on property owners in affected residential zones. Why, in publicizing in Valley media and holding "several 'focus group' discussions" concerning the proposed Amendment, did Staff spend a great amount of time with members ofthe above-mentioned development interests and businesses (and groups and organizations representing them) while having just one meeting with Homeowners Associations scheduled on Friday afternoon of Labor Day weekend? Despite public notices, because ofvacations and travel out of Town and summer indolence most residents were unaware of the proposed changes and their imblications, and, therefore, concerns and objections did not surface until recently when Planning Commission hearings began. Why, when members of the Planning Commission at their October 18 meeting had expressed concerns and made several suggestions for changes or refinements to the proposed Amendments concerning Accessory DwelIing Units, did Community Development Staff request the Town Board to discuss these Amendments at its Study Session on November 11, and why at that time did Staffmembers make no reference to the prior discussion and comments ofthe Planning Commission, some ofwhose members had raised some real questions about the wisdom and integrity ofthe proposed Amendments? When questioned by the Planning Commission at its November 18 meeting about the Town Board Study Session, Staff reply was "We wanted to bring them (the Town Board) 'up-to-speed' on this proposal." Why was that necessary? Why the quick "end run" around the Planning Commission and attempted "sales job" to the Town Board when this matter still in the discussion stage by the Planning Commission and had { been under consideration for several months? Why, on the one hand, the "downplaying" statements that research shows that other municipalities average only one~application for an ADU for every 1000 residences per year and that there have been here in the Estes Valley "perhaps 6 requests a yeaf', while, on the other hand, there is a long list (page 2 of the original Proposal dated 9/4/08 and page 2 ofthe Town Board Study Session Agenda dated November 11, 2008) of "benefits" that may be provided by ADU' s that have apparently piqued the great enthusiasm ofthe development interests? A member of the Development Staff at the Town Board Study Session stated that adoption of these ADU Amendments would providebpportunities for new building and residences in the Valley where available space is becoming less and less. The printed Proposal uses Es\Einguage: "5.6Encourage housing iqfill within the existing urban area " In effect, this means: "Legally packing more people into our residential zones." An attempt to 18gally increase density! And along with making possible a doubling of the number of structures and increased number of residents, there will be more noise, traffic, emissions, light, air pollution, pets, wear-and-tear on roads, utilities, etc., to say nothing ofthe impossibility of monitoring and enforcing the many regulations and restrictions involved in the code changes. What's the motivation behind these Amendments? Who really benefits from the proposed changes that would grant a use-by-right to double the number of structures in most residential areas? A specific interest group benefits at the expense ofthe privacy and property value of hundreds of lot owners in residentially-zoned areas. A boost to the architect/designer/excavator/developer/builder/realtor interests; a betrayal of hundreds of resident homeowners, who have invested in their homes under existing zoning restrictions and now face the possibility of having their neighborhoods undergo dramatic negative impact. Why the big push for sweeping changes when the whole process was initiated by a small incident which could, for the future, be corrected by a few simple clarifications and definitions in the present code, which was the intent of the original request concerning ADU's? 1 urge you, the Planning Commission, to say "NO" to the unnecessarily elaborate and eminently unwise and unfair proposal to amend existing regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Respectfully submitted, Il{U Q. 21' IL Association for Responsible Development Position Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) November 14, 2008 Introduction: The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain character and natural beauty of the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. We support clarifying the Estes Valley Development Code regarding definition of kitchens for ADUs, which we believe will be helpful to developers and homeowners alike. However, we do not believe that extensive revisions of the code are justified, as they are not supported by the public at large, and could have major unintended consequences. Background: â€¢ There has been an ongoing problem regarding definition of what is or is not a "kitchen" when assessing whether to grant approval for ADUs. â€¢ The Board of Adjustment receives 1-2 requests per year to rule on such items. (per Dave Shirk) â€¢ The Board of Adjustment asked that the Estes Valley Development Code be clarified to provide a more precise definition of a "kitchen". â€¢ Demand for ADUs is expected to be low: nationally one in 1000 residences. (per Dave Shirk) â€¢ ADUs could be used to provide additional affordable housing. â€¢ Staff reviewed the code related to ADUs, and proposed a better definition of"kitchen". In addition, they presented draft recommendations to the Planning Commission which would allow ADUs in all single-family districts (except the 8 unit/acre "R-1" district). â€¢ ADUs are already permitted within the current code for lots that are at least 1.33 times the minimum size specified by current zoning. Close to 1/3 of the lots in the Estes Valley meet this requirement. â€¢ Focus group meetings held by staff with realtors, developers, contractors, other business groups, and a small number of neighborhood groups revealed little or no opposition to these extensive code revisions. â€¢ However, discussions with ARD leadership and members, neighborhood associations, and many other citizens throughout the Valley revealed widespread concerns about the need to make such extensive changes, and the potential for major, adverse, unintended consequences. During the October Planning Commission meeting, many of the Planning Commissioners raised similar concerns about the need for such extensive code changes. @0Â©EDVEr=5 ~-~ NOV 1 4 2008 ~ ~ Our Position: 1. ARD supports revising the code to clarify the difference between "kitchen", "wet bar", and other such improvements, so that homeowners, developers, Planning Staff, and the Board of Adjustment are provided with better guidance when future improvements are considered for approval. 2. ARD opposes the extensive and widespread code revisions presented to the Planning Commission in October, for these reasons: a. The expected demand for ADUs is low. With the clarifications mentioned above, decision-making on these issues will not be excessively time-consuming or burdensome. b. Current code already permits ADUs on almost 1/3 ofresidential properties. c. The proposed changes would, in effect, revise most residential zoning within the Estes Valley, creating a use-by-right which could double the number of structures and radically change the appearance of the entire Valley. Many people view this proposed chanie as a covert attempt to rezone the residential areas of the Valley. _ d. Such de facto rezoning is not compatible with the rights of existing property owners, nor with the intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. e. Increasing the number of structures would greatly increase the load on utilities and 6ther public infrastructure, and increase traffic and parking problems. f. It will be virtually impossible to enforce the proposed changes. g. The focus group approach to discussing ADUs did not provide ad6quate outreach to most residents, and did not provide most residents with an adequate understanding of the implications of these code changes. 3. ARD supports existing procedures that allow for special review for ADUs. These procedures give the flexibility to provide quarters for relatives and caregivers on a case- by-case basis. We believe the current review procedure will be adequate for this purpose once the clarifications noted in Item #1, above, have been incorporated into the code. We encourage you to consider the proposed revisions carefully so that any actions taken are compatible with the intent of the Comiehensive Plan, and will not have "unintended negative consequences" on the future of the Estes Valley and its residents. If, in the future, the Planning Commission sees a significant increase in the need for ADUs (such as for affordable housing), our Association will be happy to work with you to investigate such options and provide forums for additional public discussion. Please let us know if we can be of help. Respectfully Fbmitted, r . ../. pt /(#60>4 fRon Norris, President Association for Responsible Development E'ECE-NE~ |Pl| NOV 1 4 2008 i U Ul- L_ | f O October 20,2008 ... V ~I Qnm I 8 100*~ TO: Estes Valley Planning Commission and Town Development Staff FROM: Sandy Lindquist -LEADEÂ© ~ 1980 Cherokee RE: ADUs After observing the Planning Commission study session today, I have a few comments I'd like to get on record for your considerations (note that this is NOT a "nimby" issue for me or my neighborhood). This ADU concept has been around for some time, but I have the following concerns relative to if and when the actuality becomes more widespread: 1. It results in a frightening "back-doof' way of effectivelv changing single-family residential zoning after the fact, particularly if it turns a residential neighborhood into an "accommodations" neighborhood with the rental option, and 2. It inappropriately can double housing densitv from that intended and expected by property owners. Thus, I don't believe EVERY residence (particularly smaller lot sizes) ought to be able to build detached ADUs, although I agree with potentially being able to have adequate quarters available for housing guests, relatives, caregivers, or caretakers. The stranger-rental option is what destroys the positive spirit of this concept for neighbors who concur with known zoning designations in which they purchased homes for single-family ownership. On one hand, it has been suggested that there likely would not be much demand for ADUs (now), but on ( the other hand it also has been pointed out that ADUs could be a major part of "low-income" or "affordable" housing. Such housing (e.g., ADU stranger-rentals) is fine when advance-planned into a development but NOT when appended onto pre-existing neighborhoods not so zoned. I believe that such widely interspersed ADU rentals would reduce home values and quality-of-life for adjacent properties and could arguably detract from the unique attributes of the Estes Valley. Construction and Really industries stand to gain much from liberal ADU policies, but not residents who don't want to be landlords. When the Estes Valley is "full" in its residential buildout, it's full. Period. Our space is finite. Growth cannot be infinite, so at some point such "growth demands" will no longer be met. Just because a real family might have numerous members and multiple vehicles, it's no excuse to justify EVERY property potentially doubling its housed occupants and vehicles with ADUs. My understanding is that a maximum of 8 unrelated people can live in one residence - but that there is no limit to the number of related occupants - and that the same limitation would exist even if an ADU was added to the property. Who enforces the 90-day ("long-term") minimum rental stipulations? What is to stop a large number of individuals from claiming to be relatives of the primary residence owners (and maybe providing false documentation) so that they can cheaply overload an ADU for seasonal (or longer) employment? It was discussed in the September 16 EVPC meeting that perhaps there could be a cap on the maximum number of ADU residents by limiting the number of bedrooms and people per bedroom. Maybe vehicles also? I encourage you to consider ADU permissibility revisions carefully and to try to avoid the "unintended negative consequences" that could result for the future of the Estes Valley and its residents. I thought the study session discussions were a very good start in this regard, but I hope to see the policies more restrictive than the current draft. Thank you for listening! 0 1.L " 9/16/08 1- ~ SEP 1 6 2008 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Paul F. Brown Re: Accessory Dwelling Units My name is Paul Brown. At the July 15 scheduled Planning Commission Meeting, I presented a letter in support of adopting a policy that allows "by right" integrated, attached and detached Accessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning districts on exidting and future developed legal lots regardless of lot size. A policy similar to that found in the Larimer County Land Use Code which treats all residential property owners more equally. I would also like to add Ridgway's and Steamboat Springs' simplified ADU codes to the list. Like Estes Park, both communities have tourism/retirement based economies. Their policies are straight forward, without complicated, costly or -strongarin regulatory barriers intended to protect the neighbors but has the unintended consequence of discouraging most property owners from ever considering an ADU. The Planning Commission should also consider the following four points when judging the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regulating Accessory Dwelling Units as presented today by the Estes Park Community Development Department. Point # 1. Most all the stock ofexisting ADUs found throughout the Estes Valley are quaint cabins or cottages built between 1910 and 1940 wlien there were no govermental agencies regulating them. At a time when our grandparents didn't see niuch need for regulations and personal freedoms were more important. After WW2, returning G.I.s were encouraged to leave the cities, to become suburbanites, This required new communities to employ planners to devise endless regulations to control suburban development which in turn erodeil more personal freedoms.,Planners then viewed ADUs as old fashion forms ofhousing not suited for a contempory society, so ADUs were relegated to the inner-cities of America and outlawed in both urban and rural suburbs. This has certainly been the case in the Estes Valley for the past 20 or more years. America is now facing a severe affordable housing problem, one that even extends to tHe Estes Valley. In a nutshell, the problem has slowly developed because ofthe lose of high paying jobs in the industrial and high-tech sectors and the low wages in the service sectors have not kept pade with the cost ofhousing, especially in suburbs where housing cost are the highest. This is especially true in mountain communities were housing cost are even higher yet. Nationally, at all govermental le*els, steps are slowly being taken to find solutions for the "affordable housing" problem. State, regional and local planners have rediscover the merits ofthe obsolete ADU, which our grandparents knew all along. Planners are now promoting ADU's as an option because it requires the least amount oftaxpayer dollars to impliment, with most funds coming out the private residential property owners pocket to develop the "affordable housing". In 1979 Daly City, California, a suburb af San Francisco adopted one of the first ADU regulatory policies. The policy soon became the model for regulating ADUs in other large metropolitan communities. AARP publication, Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance guidelines and the Municipal Research and Services Center ofWashington's, Accessory Dwelling Units guidelines are two well known models used by other urban community planners drafting ADU regulatory policy. The various guidelines offer planners a smorgasbord of choices many ofwhich however, wouldn't be appropriate ifapplied to drafting an ADU policy for a rural mountain community. Section 5.8 ofthe Estes Valley Comprensive Plan suggest to regularly evaluate zoning regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements that hinder the development of new housing. This proposal has too many complicated regulations and costly requirements that will c certainly hinder the development of new ADU housing in the Estes Valley. The following items ofthe proposal should be deleted entirely: All Covenant Requirements Review by the Plan*ng Commission All Detailed Architectural Requirements Parking Area Landscaping Requirements Parking Restrictions in the Yard Setback Areas (especialty for existing dwellings) Requirments for Electrical, Phone amd Cable Wiring to be Placed Underground (especially for existing dwellings) The next following items should be modified: Definition for Integrated Accessory Dwelling Units Definition for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units Definition for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Please give a new breed of cabins and cottages a chance to exist. Restore some of the lost personal freedoms and traditions like our grandparents once enjoyed to a new generation of homeowners in the Estes Valley. If problems arise, then re-evaluate the codes, but for now, just give ADUs a chance to evolve again. Remember also, that for every new ADU built, the whole community benefits from more ( much needed jobs, more building permit fees, more materials sold, more sale taxes collected on the materials, highdr property taxes and the list can simply go on and on, everyone winsl ! ! Point # 2 The proposed changes in Section 5.2 B.1 Table ofPermitted Accessory Uses and Stnictures shows that an Attached ADU is not permitted in R Residential Zoning Districts and a Detached ADU is not permitted in either E or R Residential Zoning Districts. From the numbers in the Lot Size Analysis Chart, that amounts to 2681 property owners that are denied a choice ofan attached and/or a detacted ADU option. The only justification presented for this is "Generally Speaking, the larger the lot, the more independent the unit may be from the main house". If one takes the time to research individual lots in each residential zoning distrist, one will soon discover that zoning district designations may have little bearing on the actual lot sizes found in a particular zoning district. To illustrate this point lets consider several examples. Large sections of WindcliffEstates, Hondious Heights, Carriage Hills, Fall River Estates, and Al Fresco Place which are all zoned E-1, have numerous lots that don't even meet the minimum lot size required for the E Zoning District and some don't even meet the minimum lot size required for the R Zoning District. Then on the other hand, - there are many example of lots that are in E Zoning Districts that exceed the minimum lot size required for the E-1 Zoning District and some even exceed the minimum lot size required for the RE Zoning District. It should be clear that a different formula than the one proposed should be considered. Most all of the existing historic detached ADUs (R-2 cabins) found in any ofthe residential zoning district classifications, R, E, E-1, RE, and RE-1, are smaller than the minimum 600 SF now required by the Larimer County Land Use Code and Building Code to be classified as a full time residence. R-2 cabins are no longer allowed to be built south of the Poudre River in Larimer County. The formula should allow all existing detached ADUs to be upgraded to the new minimum standards as defined by the Larimer County Land Use Code. All new detached ADUs in the unincorporated Estes Valley would be required by the Larimer County Building Department to comply with the 600 ' SF minimum as well. The Town ofEstes Park Building Department may also have the same 600 SF minimum requirment. Using the proposed calculation of fourty-nine percent (49%) ofthe size ofthe floor area ofthe principal dwelling, the principal dwelling would have to have a minimum of 1225 SF inorder to have a minumim 600SF detached ADU This would eliminate a great many properties throughout the Estes Valley, regardless of residential zoning distritt designation, the opportunity to have a detached ADU. The Planning Commission should consider a formula that is equitable to all residential property owners.The formula should use actual lot sizes, not zoning district designations, L as the chief criteria for determining where detached ADU should be allowed. It should C be based on a percentage ofthe Maximum square footage allowed for uses accessory to a principal residential use based on net land area and principal building size. The Accessory Use Chart should be modified by replacing the 1000 SF principal building size with 600 SE One Possible Suggested Formula: Size ofAccessory Unit. No accessory dwelling shall exceed fifty percent (50%) ofthe maximum allowed square footage allowed for uses accessory to a principal residential use based on net land area and principal building size. No new detached accessory dwelling unit shall be less than 600 SF. The Table 5-1 should be modified to include attached ADUs in the R Residential Zoning districts and detached ADUs in both the R and E Residential Zoning Districts. The benefits ofthis formula include: Allows all homeowners the choice of either an Integrated, Attached and Detached ADU in all residential zoning districts regardless ofthe principal building size. Allows all existing ADUs to be upgraded to modern housing standards. Allows detached ADUs in lots less than than 1 acre (43560 SF >) which are not disproportional in size for a smaller lot. Unlike the other proposal which has a 1000 SF size cap on the ADU, this proposal limits the size ofthe ADU to 50% of the maximum square footage allowed for uses accessory to a principal residential use based on net land area and principal building size. This formula allows larger lots to have larger ADUs that are proportional in size to larger lots. This approach more closely follows the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan's Housing guideline 5.1 that encourages a variety ofhousing types and price ranges. This Proposal also more closely follows the Estes Valley Comprehansive Plan's Housing guideline 5.2 that encourages housing for permanent residents ofall sectors ofthe community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Point # 3. Despite all the efforts starting in 1985 to promote the development ofADUs by various affordable housing advocacy groups like AARP, only 1 in 1000 urban homesowners Â· develops an ADU per year. Why then are ADUs not more popular when they seam to offer so many benefits? Several reasons that are most oftened sighted include: zoning and neighborhood covenant restrictions, enviromental and ecological issues, regulatory barriers such as ( owner occupancy requirements, costly architectural design standards which usually -5- /0-1 A' include parking and landscaping re-quirements, deed-restrictions, complex staff or planning commission review processes, higher property taxes and more maintenance. The biggest reason, however, is really construction costs. ADUs by their very nature are very expensive to build because oftheir compact size, newly adopted building and energy code requirements, and modern living trends and housing expectations. They're really miniature size versions oftodays MoMansions. For many single-family homeowners, ADUs are simply "Unaffordable". It seams unreasonable to expect most sound minded local residents to build an expensive ADU and be required to "babysit" it for three summer months for some meager rental income from unknown transient employees. However, it's more reasonable to expect that more affuent local residents would consider building an ADU for personal reasons for use by family members, on-site property caretakers, caregivers, and guests, as it was historically and is currently still the case for most existing ADUs in the Estes Valley. This is more in line with past community policy and the prior Estes Park Municipal Code definition for "Guest House", which means an accessory structure on the same lot as the single-family dwelling containing a single dwelling unit for occasional occupancy by nonpaying guests ofthe residents ofthe principal dwelling. The Estes Park Community Development Department Staff have indicated that yearly, 6 to 12 local residents inquire about building detached guest houses or"granny flats" for (~ family use only and occasionally over the past years a resident may inquire about rental oftheir existing ADU. As a residential designer and builder with 25 years working in this community, I know there is a high demand for detached guest houses for owner use only. Despite the need for affordable housing for seasonal employees, at this present time, there is no strong indication that local single-family homeowners would actually suppon changing existing ADU zoning regulations inorder to build a rental ADU on their properties to help alleviate that ned. The Planning Commission should strongly consider using wording simular to that found in the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding Limit on Tenancy. Suggested Tenancy: Limit on Tenancy. The Accessory Dwelling Unit must not be rented or leased seperately from the principal single-family dwelling or vice versa. A thought to consider, the Estes Valley Development Code is a land use code that regulates land use. A tenancy proposal that mandates an owner to occupy either ofthe units goes beyond the intent of a land use code. The Planning Commission should strongly consider a citizen's civil rights regarding this requirement and seek the counsel of a attorny on this matter. Point # 4. Lf There are several examples of nmltiple detacted ADUs on lots larger than five acres in the RE-1 Residential Zoning Districts. One could be used by a caretaker, others by family or guests. The Planning Commission should consider allowing more than one ADU on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling as proposed. Suggested Limit on Number: Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot less than five acres in size (217800 SF net), in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. There shall not be more then two (2) accessory dwelling units on a lot five acres (217800 SF net) or more in size, in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. The combined square footage ofthe two accessory dwelling units shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the maximum allowed square footage allowed for uses accessory to the principal residential use based on net land area and principal building size. .... -3*5~E Â°y Elli' 7/15/08 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission ft JUL 15 2008 lid; From: Paul F. Brown 1 --4 1 Re: Accessory Dwelling Units L-----1 My name is Paul Brown, I and my wife, Brenda, and our children have lived full time in the Estes Valley since 1983. During this time, I've been engaged as an architectural designer and general contractor in this community specializing in residential projects. I'm quite familiar with the history of zoning changes in both the Laimer County Land Use Code, the current EstesValley Development Code and the prior Town gf Estes Park municipal zoning code, especially regarding residential land uses, setbacks, lot area, building heights, and accessory uses. In 1990, I designed an attached accessory dwelling unit that complied with the prior Town ofEstes Park municipal zoning code regulations and presently, I'm designing another attached ADU that complies with the current version ofthe Larimer County Land Use Code. Staying abreast of any residential zoning changes is especially important to myself because I can better advise and serve my clients regarding their plans for developing their residential property. Mr. Shirk recently informed me, that the Estes Valley Planning Comission was considering revisions to Estes Valley Development Code regulating ADUs and He gave me a copy of a memo, dated 6/23/08, from the Town ofEstes Park Community Development Staff'to the Planning Commission with suggested changes for its review. He also gave me a survey ofzoning ( Front Range cities and mountain communities. In addition, He informed me the the Commission regulations governing ADUs in various jurisdictions in Colorado including several counties, and Staff were seeking opinions from the public regarding the proposed regulations governing ADUs and invited me to attend any Planning Commission hearings regarding ADUs. I've reviewed the Staff's memo and the survey of zoning regulations from the other sampled jurisdictions. I have also discussed the matter with Russell Legg and Samantha Mott, both planners with the Larimer County Planning Department. I'm ofthe opinion regarding regulating ADUs, the Planning Commission should consider moving closer in line with the regulations as found in the Larimer County Land Use Code, rather than continuing withthe current ADU funcionality requirements as outlined in section 5.2.B2a of the Estes Valley Development Code. Certainly the Planning Commission should look for trends that are being established statewide that both benefit and protectthe rights of all residential property owners and don't just favor the select few. Prior to the adoption ofthe Estes Valley Development Code in 2000 all residential property owners in the incorperated limits ofthe Town of Estes Park "by right" could have an Assessory Dwelling Unit in the E, R-S, R-M, C-D, and C-O zoning districts. Prior to 2000, Larimer County did not allow Accessory Dwelling Units in any oftheir zoning districts. After the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted in 2000, all residential property owners in the R-M, C-D and C- O zoning districts lost their"by righf' to have Assessory Dwelling Units. Furthermore most all residential properties that were formerly in the R-S zoning districts were assigned to the new E zoning districts which required 28968 S.F. for an Assessory Dwelling Unit. So most all former R- S zoned residential property owners lost their "by right" to an Assessory Dwelling Unit because their lots were now considered sub-standard in terms of lot size. Many of the properties affected < were less these 6 years old in the newest developed subdivisions. cl Under the new Estes Valley DeveUpment Code all of the residential zoning districts in the unincorperated areas ofthe Estes Valley, formerly under the jurisdiction of the Larimer County Land Use Code were now given the right to have Assessory Dwelling Units if the properties met the adjusted minimum required lot sizes. Again very few residential property owners in the unincorperated Estes Valley would benefit because their their lots were sub-standard in terms of lot size. Meantime in 2000, Larimer County adopted revisions to their Land Use Code to allow assessory dwelling units 'to be incorporated into or added to a single family dwelling for the use of guests ofthe occupants ofthe single family house.' This "right" was granted to all residential properties regardless oflot size. Furthermore it applied to all zoning districts in which single- familv dwellings were permited. The districts include: FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1,O, E, E-1, RE, RE-1, R, R-1, R-2, M, M-1, A, and T. It seams everyone was treated equally in Larimer County, notjust the "select few". In 2005 Larimer County again revised their Land Use Code to allow detached Assessary Dwelling Units on all residential properties regardless of lot size or zoning districts in which single-family dwellings were permitted. Commendably, Larimer County is following a statewide trend that is responding to a public demand for detached assessory dwelling units as indicated by Mr. Shirk's survey. It certainly bothers me everytime I see the disappointment on a retired couples faces when I have to inform them our zoning regulations don't allow attached to or detached ADU's for the use oftheir visiting children and grandchildren. Isn't it finally time that the Estes Valley Planning Commission stand up for equal rights for C E.the residential property owners served by the Estes Valley Development Code instead of devising property swindles that favor only the remaining Lord Dunravens. I would like to propose adopting a policy that allows "by right" integrated, attached to and detached Assessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning districts on existing and future developed legal lots regardless of lot size. This policy would truely take a giant step forward in fulfilling the goals ofthe Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 1 ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve - Habitat and Wildlife Estes Park Community Development Department *I~-=0 Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue ==* PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 17, 2009 TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve REQUEST: To make a number of revisions to the habitat and wildlife protection regulations. LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town of Estes Park. APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph and Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a complete packet of proposed code language addressing wildlife and habitat protection. Staff is continuing to refine the maps to accompany this code language. 1 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 1.9.D SETBACKS - BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS. 2. Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridorsi and Wetlands, Aquatic and Riparian Habitat. a. Stream and River Corridors. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth in Â§7.6.D.2, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1-2. b. Wetlands. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated wetland edge, as set forth in Â§7.6.D.3, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1-2. c. Aquatic Habitat. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated aquatic habitat edae, as set forth in Â§7.6.D.4, and the furthermost proiection of a building or structure alona a line at riaht angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the around to the skv except as otherwise specificallv allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. d. Riparian Habitat. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated riparian habitat edge, as set forth in Â§7.6.D.5, and the furthermost proiection of a building or structure alona a line at riaht anales to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the around to the skv except as otherwise specificallv allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. Â§ 7.4 PUBLIC TRAILS AND PRIVATE OPEN AREAS C. Locational Criteria. 1. To the maximum extent feasible, where significant natural and scenic resource assets exist on a property, the Applicant shall give priority to their preservation through trail dedication or as private open areas. In reviewing the location of trails and private open areas, Staff and the Decision-Making Body shall use all applicable plans, maps and reports to determine whether significant resources exist on a proposed site that should be protected, with priority being given to the following areas (which are not listed in any particular priority order): a. WetlandsA b. Floodplains. c. Lakes, River, and Stream/Riparian Corridors, and Aquatic and Riparian Habitat. d. Wildlifo Migration Corridors. Critical Wildlife Habitat. e. Steep slope areas. f. Ridgelines. g. Geologic or Wildfire Hazard areas. 2 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.5 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS B. Applicability. Thesc landscape and buffer standards shall apply to residential subdivisions created after the adoption of this Code, and to all development whoro development plan review is roquirod by Â§3.8 of this Code. 1. These landscape and buffer standards shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses, and rezoning. 2. Section 7.5.H Fences and Walls shall apply to all new fence and wall construction. H. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls are permitted as elements of a landscape plan and, in some locations, may be used to conceal storage or other unsightly or conflicting land uses. All fences or walls shall meet the following requirements: 1. Materials. e. Barbed-wire and similar fence materials, and sharp pointed fences, may only be used in conjunction with a permitted agricultural use or in conjunction with the permitted keeping of horses or livestock on lots of five acres or more. 4. Fences and Walls In Critical Wildlife Habitat. Sco Â§7.8.G.1.c below for standards. a. In critical wildlife habitat, no fencing shall exceed forty (40) inches in height, except service area fencing, fencing approved bv Staff to confine permitted domestic animals, or fencing to protect landscaping in accordance with Â§7.5.1.2. b. In all other areas, fences higher than fortv (40) inches mav be allowed if adequate openings are provided for the passage of deer, elk, or other identified wildlife. These openings shall be at least six (6) feet wide and spaced a maximum of fortv (40) feet apart alonq continuous fence lines and shall be unobstructed from the around to the sky. 3 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.6 WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION RIVER AND STREAM CORRIDORS, WETLANDS, AND AQUATIC HABITAT AND RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION. A. Purpose and Intent. The following requirements and standards are intended to promote, preserve and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river corridors, associated riparian areas and wetlands, aquatic habitat, and riparian habitat provide. D. Boundary Delineation. 1. Qualified Professional. Stream/river corridor and wetland area Boundary delineation shall be performed by a qualified professional that has demonstrated experience necessary to conduct site analysis. Delineations shall be subject to Staff's approval. 2. Stream and River Corridor Boundaries. Stream and river corridors shall be delineated at the annual high-water mark, or if not readily discernible, the defined bank of the stream or river, as those terms are defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. Regulated stream and river corridors shall include only those streams and rivers as identified on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. The rivers delineated on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map are the Big Thompson and Fall River. Streams delineated on the Map include various named and unnamed streams and minor drainages, some of which are intermittent. 3. Wetland Boundaries. a. Mapped Wetlands. Boundary delineation of wetlands shall be established by reference to one (1) of the following wetland maps and identification documents, which are available for reference in the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department and which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this Code: (1) National Wetlands Inventory prepared by the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; and (2) Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps. b. Unmapped Wetlands. The review of a development Fped application may discover a potential wetland that has not been mapped or for which the boundaries have not been clearly established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified wetland expert to delineate the boundaries of the wetland according to accepted professional standards. 4. Aquatic Habitat Boundaries. a. Mapped Aquatic Habitat. Boundarv delineation of aquatic habitat shall be established bv reference to the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. b. Unmapped Aquatic Habitat. The review of a development application mav discover potential aquatic habitat that has not been mapped or for which the boundaries have not been clearly established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional to delineate the boundaries of the aquatic habitat according to accepted professional standards. 4 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review 5. Riparian Habitat Boundaries. a. Mapped Riparian Habitat. Boundary delineation of riparian habitat shall be established bv reference to the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. b. Unmapped Riparian Habitat. The review of a development application mav discover potential riparian habitat that has not been mapped or for which the boundaries have not been clearly established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional to delineate the boundaries of the riparian habitat according to accepted professional standards. E. Buffer/Setback Areas. 1. Stream or River Corridors. a. Building/Structure Setbacks. (1) Stream Corridors (except in the CD zoning district). All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least tt#Ftrt@Q> feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. See Figure 7-10. (2) River Corridors (except in the CD district). a. General Rule. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. b. Excoption for Lots Developed Prior to the Adoption of this Code. All buildings and accoccory structuros shall bo cot back at least thirty (30) foot horizontally (plan view) from the annual high water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discerniblo, from tho dofinod bank of tho river. Soc Figuro 7 10. (3) Stream and River Corridors in the CD Zoning District. In the CD district, all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the approval of the Decision-Making Body. b. Parking Lot Setbacks. Except in the CD zoning district, parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. In the CD district, parking lots shall be set back at least twelve (12) feet from the delineated edge of the river or stream corridor. 5 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review 2. Wetlands. a. To the maximum extent feasible, wetlands shall not be included as part of a platted development lot. b. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. See Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt. 3. Aquatic Habitat. A\\ buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fiftv (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of aquatic habitat. 4. Riparian Habitat. A\\ buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fiftv (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of riparian habitat. 5. 3. Private Open Areas and Landscaping Credit. A\\ stream corridor and wetland setback areas shall be credited toward any relevant private open areas requirements or landscaping and buffer requirements. 6 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. To maintain and enhance tho diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to bo harmonious with wildlifo habitat and the spccioc that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental bonofit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley. B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses and rozoningc. This Section shall not apply to development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of this Code. C. Exemptions. The procedures and regulations contained in this Section shall not apply te; 1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, grazing iDeAâ‚¬|Gi 2. Maintenance and repair of oxicting public roads, utilities and other public facilities within an existing right of way or easement; 3. Maintenance and repair of flood control structures and activitios in rosponsc to a Need-emeigeFIGyi 1. Maintenance and repair of existing residential or nonrosidential structures; or 5. Wildlife habitat onhancomont and restoration activities undortakon pursuant to a wildlife conservation plan approved undor this Section. D. Other Regulations. This Section of the Codo doos not repeal or suporsodc any existing federal, state or local laws, caccments, covenants or dood restrictions pertaining to wildlife. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard, this Section Shallapply~ E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following sources shall bo used to identify important wildlife habitat aroac for purposes of review under this Section: 1. Wildlife Habitat map (datod December 1996), as sot forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended from timo to time. 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps for Larimor County, as amondod from timo te-timer 3. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Maps dated December 1996, or as amended from time to time. 1. Other information and maps as Staff or the Estes Valley Planning Commission may from time to time identify in cooporation with tho Colorado Division of Wildlife, such as wildlife maps produced spocifically for tho Ectoc Valloy. Said maps chall bc applicable only following adoption of an amendment to this Code. 7 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review 5. Wildlife habitat information required by this Section is intended for general planning purposes. Obvious errors or omissions may bo corrected by the Staff after consultation with the Division of Wildlife. F. Review Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to all applications for develepment 1. Application. The Applicant shall submit a dovolopmont plan, subdivision plat or sketch plan, as applicable, dopicting the general location of tho proporty, location of structures on the sito, prominent natural arcac such as streams and wetlands, and other features that Staff may require for review pursuant to this Section. 2. Preliminary Review. Staff chall refer the submitted plan or plat to tho Colorado Division of Wildlifo for review. Applicants aro also advised to moot with tho Division of Wildlifo and other agencies as determined appropriato by Staff to onsuro compliance with the requirements of this Section. 3. DOW Roviow. For applications roforrod to it, the Division of Wildlife will determino whothor tho proposal will rocult in significant adverse impact on wildlifo or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts tho following: a. An endangered or thrcatonod cpocios, b. A calving, lambing or fawning aroa, c. Big Horn chcop or Big Horn choop habitat, d. Raptor nest cite, or c. Riparian arcac and wetlands. 1. Review Dctormination. Based on rocommondations from tho Division of Wildlife, tho Staff will dotormino whether the Applicant must submit a wildlifo conservation plan prior to approval of any dovolopmont application. Tho consorvation plan should bo submitted to tho Division of Wildlife for roviow and rocommondation as to whcthor tho plan adoquatoly addreccoc the advercc impacts identifiod by tho Divicion of Wildlife pursuant to subsoction F.3 abovo. (Soo Â§7.8.H bolow.) 5. Waivors. Staff may waivo or approve minor modifications of any dovolopmont standard or roviow critoria contained in this Section upon a finding that such waiver or modification: a. Is consistent with tho statod purposoc of this Section; b. Will havo no significant advorco impacts on wildlifo cpocicc or habitat; c. Any potential advorcc impacts will bo mitigatod or offsot to tho maximum extent d. practicable; and c. Application of the standard or criteria is not warrantod based on the location of the f. dovolopmont, tho abconce of a particular spocics on the sito or other relevant faetefa- G. Review Standards. Tho following roviow standards shall apply to all development applications as cpccifiod, unless Staff dotorminoc that a specific standard may bo waived pursuant to subsection F.5. abovo. It is the intont of this Section that theso 8 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review standards bc applied in a flexible fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost effective fashion. 1. Roviow Standards. a. Buffers. All development shall provide a setback from any identified important wildlife habitat area, as specified by the Division of Wildlife, to the maximum extent feasible. b. Non-Native Vegetation. Thoro shall bc no introduction of plant spccios that aro not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C on any sitc containing any important wildlife habitat area. To tho maximum extent feasible, existing horbaccous and woody cover on the cito shall be maintained and removal of native vegetation shall bo minimized. c. Foncing. (1) No foncing on a cim containing important wildlife habitat shall oxcood forty (10) inches in height, excopt to the extent that such foncing ic approved by Staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protect permitted ornamontal landscaping or gardens. (2) Fences higher than forty (10) inchos may bc allowed if adequate openings aro provided for the passage of door, olk or other idontifiod wildlife. Thesc openings shall bo at least six (6) fect wide and spaced a maximum of fifty (50) foct apart along continuous fence linos excooding this length. (3) No foncing using barbed wire shall bo allowed. (1) The type of foncing (matorials, opacity, ctc.) shall bc dotcrminod by Staff or the Decision-Making Body as appropriate for the wildlife species on tho site basod on advice from tho Colorado Division of Wildlife. d. Extorior Lighting. Usc of cxtorior lighting shall bo minimized in areas of important wildlifo habitat, and lighting shall bo designed co that it docs not spill over or onto such critical habitat. Soo also Â§7.9 bolow. c. Rofuse Disposal. Dovolopmonts on sitos containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refucc disposal containers and enclosures may be electrified. f. Domestic Animals. Development applications for property that includes important wildlife habitat must include a plan with specified onforcoment measures for the control of domestic animals and household pots. Tho plan must include provisions to prevent the harassment, disturbance and killing of wildlife and to prevent the doctruction of important wildlife habitat. H. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 1.. Plan Preparation. A wildlife conservation plan roquirod by this Section shall bo prepared for tho Applicant, at tho Applicant's oxpenco, under the rosponsiblo 9 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review direction of a qualified person who has demonstrated expertise in the field and is accoptablo to the Staff. 2. Plan Content. Any wildlife conservation plan required to bc prepared pursuant to this Section shall include the following information at a minimum. Specific requirements may be waived by Staff duo to the location of the development, the previous use of tho site, the sizo and potential impact of the development, the absence of particular spocies on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable use of tho sito and other relevant $84046: a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of tho wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or uso the citc, including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of tho proposed dovolopment on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of tho probability of success of such measures. o. A plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation moacurcs. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A domonstration of fiscal, administrative and technical compctonce of tho Applicant or othor relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. 10 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. To plan and design land uses so that when property is developed: 1. Sufficient wildlife habitat is maintained to support viable populations of native wildlife populations in the Estes Vallev. 2. The health and diversitv of native wildlife habitat and native wildlife populations that occur in the Estes Valley is protected. 3. Wildlife habitat and wildlife are protected from adverse impacts of development. B. Applicabilitv. This Section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses, and rezoning on property that contains critical wildlife habitat. C. Other Regulations. This Section of the Code does not repeal or supersede anv existing federal, state, or local laws, easements, covenants, or deed restrictions pertaining to wildlife. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard, this Section shall apply. D. Qualified Professional. All maps and reports required by this Section shall be prepared bv or under the responsible direction of a qualified bioloaist/ecologist. The qualified biologisVecoloqist shall sign and date these submitted maps and reports. The Community Development Department shall maintain a list of qualified biologists from which a qualified biologist mav be selected. E. Wildlife and Habitat Database. 1. Adopted Map. The adopted Critical Wildlife Habitat Map is set forth in Appendix A of this Code and is incorporated bv reference. This map, as amended from time to time, shall be used as the basis for review under this Section of the Code. 2. Unmapped Habitat. Review of an application mav reveal potential critical habitat that is not reflected on the Critical Wildlife Habitat Map. In such instances, the Review- or Decision-Making body shall have the discretion to require review under this Section of the Code. 3. Revisions to Adopted Map. a. In the event a property owner questions the presence critical habitat on their property, the property owner mav submit evidence with respect thereto from a qualified biologist. This evidence shall be reviewed, together with all other applicable evidence, bv the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners. The Board of Trustees or the Board of Countv Commissioners is the entity with final approval of Wildlife and Habitat Map revisions, depending on the location of the property. If the Board of Trustees or the Board of Countv Commissioners determines that the property does not contain critical habitat, the Community Development Director shall update the Wildlife and Habitat Map and remove the critical habitat designation. b. Property mav be re-designated as critical habitat if conditions change resulting in the renewed presence of critical habitat on the property. c. The Community Development Director and Estes Valley Planning Commission shall also have the authority to initiate proceedings to add or remove a critical habitat designation from the Critical Habitat Map. The Board of Trustees or the Board of 11 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review County Commissioners is the entity with final approval of Wildlife and Habitat Map revisions, depending on the location of the property. F. Review Procedures for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. 1. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment Submittal. a. A Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment shall be submitted for sites containing critical habitat. The cost of the studv shall be paid for bv the applicant. b. The Community Development Director, Planning Commission, Board of Trustees, and the Board of County Commissioners have the discretion to waive submittal of the Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment in one or more of the following circumstances: (1) Upon review of a signed and dated document from a qualified biologist stating that there is no critical habitat present on the property: (2) For development applications that do not impact wildlife habitat and wildlife species. For example a special review application to permit a new use in an existing structure with no additional construction mav not impact wildlife or wildlife habitat. (3) For rezoninq applications that reduce development potential: or (4) For development applications in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district. The applicant shall have the option to request a determination about a waiver prior to submittal of a development application. Anv review bv the Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners shall be subsequent to review and recommendation bv the Planning Commission. 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff shall refer the submitted application and Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review. The Division of Wildlife mav comment on the submitted application and assessment and mav provide an evaluation of whether the application and assessment complies with the requirements of this Section. 3. Other Agencies. Applicants are advised to consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other agencies responsible for regulation of wildlife and habitat, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior-Rockv Mountain National Park, US Forest Service, and Colorado Natural Heritage Program. These agencies may maintain maps and databases that can aid in the site-specific confirmation of the presence or absence of wildlife and habitat on a specific site. 4. Review-Body and Decision-Making Body. a. The Review and Decision-Making Bodies shall issue a finding as to whether the application, including the Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment, complies with the requirements of this Section. b. Plans found to be adequate bv the Decision-Making Body shall become binding upon the Applicant. 12 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review G. Significant Adverse Impact Defined for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. 1. Significant adverse impacts to wildlife shall mean impacts that threaten the health or viability of a native wildlife population in the Estes Vallev. 2. Significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat shall mean impacts that threaten the health or viability of native wildlife habitat or wildlife population in the Estes Valley. H. Review Standards and Criteria for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. All applications shall be planned and designed to ensure that significant adverse impacts are avoided. If that is not feasible that significant adverse impacts shall be mitiqated to the maximum extent feasible. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate whether significant adverse impacts are avoided or mitiqated to the maximum extent feasible: 1. Wildlife Impact. Impacts on wildlife that: a. Disrupt necessary life cycle functions of wildlife; b. Cause stress on wildlife: or c. Cause physiological damage to wildlife To the extent that the health or viability of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. 2. Wildlife Habitat Impact. Impacts on wildlife habitat, including but not limited to elimination, reduction, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat to the extent that the health or viabilitv of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. 3. Impact on Wildlife Movement Patterns/Displacement and Adaptation of Wildlife. Impacts on wildlife movement patterns/displacement and adaptation of wildlife, including but not limited to: a. Disruption of wildlife migration or movement patterns that keep wildlife from using their entire habitat, such as blocking migration patterns from summer to winter rancte; b. Displacement of wildlife into areas that cannot support or sustain the wildlife over the lona term, such as causing wildlife to find new routes that expose them to significantly increased predation, interaction with motor vehicles, intense human activity or more severe topographv and climatic conditions; or c. Inability of wildlife living within or in close proximitv to development to adapt to the new conditions and thrive To the extent that the health or viability of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. 13 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review 1. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessments for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessments shall include the followina information at a minimum. 1. Existing Conditions. An analysis of existing site conditions. Including, but not limited to: a. Habitat. A description of the location, type, size, quality, and other attributes of the habitat on the site, including, but not limited to: (1) The total acres of each species' habitat on the site: (2) A description of any vegetation or natural communities that are ranked Sl, S2, S3, Gl, G2, or G3 bv the Colorado Natural Heritage Program: and (3) The health and viability of the habitat in the Estes Vallev. b. Wildlife. A description of the wildlife that inhabit or use the site, including, but not limited to, a description: (1) The species spatial distribution and abundance: (2) Use patterns of wildlife habitat within the site, including, but not limited to movement corridors and feeding areas; and (3) Critical connections or relationships with adioinina habitats outside the site. (4) The health and viability of the wildlife population in the Estes Valley. 2. Assessment of Potential Development Impacts. An analysis of the potential impacts of the proiect on habitat and wildlife using the review criteria in Section 7.8.H. 3. Avoidance and Mitigation of Development Impacts. A description of how development impacts will be avoided. And if not feasible to avoided, a list of proposed mitigation measures for each wildlife habitat, wildlife species, and/or wildlife movement patterns/displacement of wildlife populations and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures in pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases. Mitigation efforts shall directly address the potential adverse impacts of the proposed land use. Examples of possible mitigation efforts include, but are not limited to: (1) Clusterina or locating development to avoid intrusion into migration or movement areas and/or to avoid intrusion into or fraamentation of habitat; (2) Minimizing the development footprint: (3) Creation of buffers around critical areas, with larger buffers for higher quality habitat: (4) Locating structures awav from nesting, birthing, or feeding areas; (5) Limiting/prohibiting fencina that might interfere with migration and movement patterns: (6) Restricting location, hours of illumination, and intensity of lighting; (7) Controlling domestic animals and household pets: (8) Timing construction to minimize impacts such as reducing impacts from vehicles and construction equipment bv limiting hours of operation and/or seasonal timing of construction. 14 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review (9) Minimizing disturbance of native vegetation: (10) Eradicating existing noxious weeds on site and preventing of introduction of noxious weeds: (11) Avoiding or minimizing use of fertilizers and other chemicals; (12) Enhancing or restoring equivalent habitat on the site or elsewhere in the Estes Valley. 4. Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement Plan. (1) A plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring, and enforcement of mitigation measures, including cost estimates for the implementation of the plan. Describe the role of a homeowners association, if applicable. (2) A demonstration of the competence of the entity responsible for successful implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of the plan. 5. Enhancement or Restoration. A plan for anv relevant enhancement or restoration measures. 6. Certification and Professional Qualifications. A certification that the person preparing the plan has the expertise to evaluate the proposed development application and the wildlife populations and habitat on site and description their professional qualifications of the plan preparer. 7. Additional Information. Any other information deemed necessary bv the Review or Decision-Making Bodies to adequately assess the impact of the proposal. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Habitat, Aquatic shall mean a water bodv in which communities of organisms that are dependent on each other and on their environment live. Examples include lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, marshes, springs, seeps, and boas. Qualified Biologist/Ecologist shall mean the following: 1. A person with at least two (2) years of demonstrated experience and expertise in evaluation of development impacts on wildlife habitat and species in the Colorado Rockv Mountains: and qualified to work on the specific site that: (1) Has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university in wildlife bioloqv or ecoloqv: (2) Is a Wildlife Society of America Certified Wildlife Biologist, or holds a higher certification from this society or (3) Is an Ecological Society of America Certified Ecologist, or holds a higher certification from this society. Vegetation, Riparian shall mean terrestrial vegetation that is contiguous to and affected bv surface and subsurface hydrologic features of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (for example, rivers, streams, lakes, or drainacle ways). Riparian areas have one or both of the following characteristics: 1) distinctly different veqetative species than adiacent 15 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review areas, and 2) species similar to adiacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust arowth forms. Wildlife Habitat, Critical shall mean aquatic habitat: wetlands, riparian vegetation: Potential Conservation Areas as defined bv the Colorado Natural Heritage Program: Big Horn Sheep Winter Concentration Areas as defined bv the Colorado Division of Wildlife: raptor nests and a one-half mile area surrounding the nest; Severe Winter Ranae for elk: and Severe Winter Ranae for mule deer; migratory bird habitat associated with riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat. Â§ 7.10 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS In addition to any standards required in the underlying zoning districts, all development shall meet the following performance standards: A. Noise. NOTE: NO CHANGES PROPOSED. B. Refuse Disposal. All development shall use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures mav be electrified. B.C. Operational/Physical Compatibility. The following conditions may be imposed upon the approval of any development to ensure that it is compatible with existing uses, including but not limited to, restrictions on: 1. Placement of trash receptacles; 2. Location of loading and delivery areas; 3. Location, intensity and hours of illumination; and 4. Additional landscaping and buffering. C.D. Evidence of Compliance. NOTE: NO CHANGES PROPOSED. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Habitat, Aquatic shall mean a water body in which communities of organisms that are dependent on each other and on their environment live. Examples include lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, marshes, springs, seeps, and boas. Habitat, Wildlife shall mean the regions or environment containing those elements necessary for the survival and health of a wildlife species and consisting of principle feeding areas, winter ranae, summer ranae, shelter areas, concentration areas, production areas, movement corridors, buffer zones, areas providing essential minerals and water and special habitat needs. A particular area need not be occupied bv a particular wildlife species in order to be considered habitat for that species. Wildlife habitat mav include those areas which were historicallv occupied and are still suitable for occupancy. APPENDIX B.111.C DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS gg. Anticipated Phases of Development and Timing. A graphic phasing plan shall incorporate recommendations found in submitted Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment. 16 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Information provided by Plinner Alison Chilcott Acres % of Valley Estes Valley Planning Area 18,854 100% Proposed Critical Habitat 6,694 36% Acres % of Critical Habitat Proposed Critical Habitat Protected as Public Open Space 975 15% Proposed Critical Habitat Protected as Private Open Space 1,366 20% Proposed Critical Habitat on Slopes of 30% or More 973 15% Total 3,314 50% Conclusion: Of the mapped critical habitat 35% is already protected as open space and 15% is too steep to develop. 1/16/09 F-*Ef=fil February 17, Subject: Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife), draft 4 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission I want to complement the Planning Commission and Staff for last month's meeting. I think the January meeting might have been the best Planning Commission meeting I have yet attended due in large part to the in depth discussion between each of the Commissioners, the Staff and the public. It was a long meeting but a worthwhile process to work through each paragraph of the proposed Wildlife and Habitat Protection code and to reach a consensus. Thank you! I have read the new draft, Draft 4, and am sorry to report that it seems to represent a major step backwards. I have included a list of specific comments in this handout. I won't read them all here today but there are four topics of major concern which need to be discussed. 1) The explicit language providing the Planning Commission the authority to deny an application has been removed. This is a major flaw in the existing code and is the motivation for doing this revision. 2) The opening paragraph of Section 7.8.H, Review Standards, page 13, reads "All applications shall be planned and designed to ensure that significant adverse impacts are avoided." It then states "If that is not feasible that (then) significant adverse impacts shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible." It is understood that there will be impacts with any development, and some will be negative. The goal is not to have zero impact; the goal is to have no "significant adverse impact" in only those areas identified as critical. 3) As this proposal is written today, when a Wildlife & Habitat Assessment is required, the Staff and Planning Commission will receive one document paid for by the developer. The document is expected to contain an unbiased evaluation of the wildlife and habitat present on a property and an assessment of potential impacts of the development by a qualified biologist. In addition, the document is to contain the developer's plan for mitigating potential impacts. I would suggest these should be two separate documents. The first would be the biologist independent assessment of the property and the effect of the proposed mitigation plan, comprised of items 1 and 2 of Section 7.8.I. The second document, the developer's plans for mitigation would be comprised of items 3,4, and 5. To avoid a conflict of interest, the biologist should be responsible for the evaluation; the developer should be held responsible for the mitigation plan, each plan under their respective signatures. 4) There is no language in this proposal stating that a mitigation plan must be effective to be approved; another major problem uncovered by Wapiti Crossing. This omission, taken in conjunction with no language for denial and the "i f not feasible" statement in thelteview Standards has resulted in a proposal which has no real requirements, no means of enforcement by denial, and is no different than what is on the books today. The Planning Commission is being asked to do a difficult job but is not being given the tools needed to do that job by this code. Issues with Wildlife code revision - Draft 4 â€¢ Wildlife code proposal 0 7.4.C.1 -What does this paragraph mean; if yes then what -pg 2 0 7.6.E. 1.a. 1 -The 30 ft setbackfor streams has been lined out, shouldn't it be the same 50 ft as it is for rivers, aquatic, & riparian habitats - pg 5 7.8.F. 1.b - Shouldn't this be linked to the map revision process as defined in 7.8.E.3 -pg 12 7.8.F.2 - "Staff shall refer, (add IN WRITING), .....to CDOW"-pg 12 7.8.F.4 - Draft 4 removes the previous language for denial, need to add explicit language to provide the Planning Commission the authority to deny a proposal - pg 12 0 7.8.H - Need to remove the second sentence because the reason for the code is to avoid "significant adverse impacts". It is understood there will be impacts, but the code is to prevent the "significant adverse impacts". - pg 13 7.8.I.3 - typo, grammar, syntax - pg 14 7.8.I.3 - add "reduced density" as a means of mitigation and change "minimizing the footprint" to "reducing"the footprint. - pg 13 â€¢ 13.3 Definitions of Words... 0 13.3-Shownintwoplaces, pg 15&16 0 13.3 - Need to add the definition of"population" â€¢ Need to add language requiring an unbiased wildlife habitat analysis to be completed by the biologist, and then separate mitigation plan to be provided by the developer. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court 00 00 0 %-2 5@ 0 9 E En 1 ~df--39-1-I~~_ PUBLIC COMMENTS pilsented to the Estes Valley Planning Chr~ 1 + L I On the Topic of Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve -Habitat and Wildlife Draft 4 Tuesday, February 17,2009 Meeting Concern: 7.6 D 1. If a qualified Professional is employed to established Boundary delineation, WHY is such delineation subject to Staffs approval? Concern: 7.6 4.b....the Applicant shall retain a imalified professional to delineate the boundaries of the aquatic habitat according to accepted professional standards. The applicant should pay for such a study, but some other entity should employ the professional to conduct the study. This would remove any thoughts of bias on part of the applicant and or qualified professional. Concern: 7.6 5.b same concern as in 7.6 4.b above Concern: 7.6 E a (1) Why was the set back (of) at least thirty (30) feet removed. What is the proposed set back if not 30 feet? Q sti Â·â€¢f'~67 0 (1) . g dis Question: 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection: Why was this section deleted and what appears to be a new, less descriptive section inserted? Concern: 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection (new proposed version) 7.8 E. 1.: "...This map, as amended from time to time..." Define "as amended from time to time." Does it mean annually, every ten years every thirty years?? An up to date Critical Wildlife Habitat Map is critical to wildlife and habitat protection. Concern: 7.8 E. 3. a. In the event a property owner questions the presence of critical habitat on their property, the property owner may submit evidence with respect thereto from a qualified biologist. To avoid any concerns of conflict of interest, a report from a biologists hired by a property owner to conduct said study should not be acceptable. Have the property owner pay for the study, and the biologists employed by a third part entity. Concern: 7.8 f. 1. a. and b.(1) Again I have problems with "paid for by the applicant" as written. The applicant should pay, but the qualified biologists should be employed by a third part entity, not the applicant who is paying for said study. By doing so, you simply - eliminate any thoughts of CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Robert Ernst 147-A Stanley Circle -0-[E 0 V [El 3\ Estes Park, CO 80517 ~8 1 7 2009 1 1 21) i 4 1 & L I -Il .@Â·[*2 0 V IE, P Este,s.Valley Planning Commission -f~ FED 1 6 2609 l~J~ - February 17, 2009 1 Comments from Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court - I d 1- Estes Park, CO Draft #4, Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve-Habitat and Wildlife provides... Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES ... Qua#fied Biologist/Ecologist shall mean the following: Suggestion ... eliminate the term "ecologist" as being too limiting, and being already included in the general term "biologist". 1. A person with at least two (2) years of demonstrated experience and expertise in evaluation of development impacts on wildlife habitat and species in the Colorado Rocky Mountains; and qualified to work on the specific site that: (1) Has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university in wildlife biology or ecology; Suggestion ... reference should be to a higher degree in biology or related sciences and not just wildlife biology or ecology. It appears that the post graduate degrees are offered under many titles. University of Northern Colorado recognizes advanced degrees in Biological Education; Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences. The University of Colorado recognizes advanced degrees in Chemistry and biochemistry and Ecology and evolutionary biology. While Colorado State University recognizes advanced degrees in Botany and Zoology. Biology generally recognizes the following types of biologists ... Aquatic; Marine; Biochemist; Botanists; Microbiologists; Physiologists; Biophysicists; Zoologist; Wildlife and Ecologists. (2) Is a Wildlife Society of America Certified Wildlife Biologist, or holds a higher certification from this society or Suggestion ... eliminate reference to such certification. We know that such membership is not required for any licensing or regulatory purposes in Colorado. It is a voluntary organization, so it goes to reason that very qualified biologists may not be members of this organization but would not qualify for purposes of our Code just because they are not members and so certified. This organization's website lists 138 Colorado members, of which 122 have a certification issued by this organization. So why limit qualified biologists to these 122? (3) Is an Ecological Society of America Certified Ecologist, or holds a higher certification from this society. Suggestion ... eliminate reference to such certification. We know that such membership is not required for any licensing or regulatory purposes in Colorado. It is a voluntary 1 3- df- L organization, so it goes to reason)hat very qualified biologists may not be members of this organization but would not qualify for purposes of our Code just because they are not members and so certified. This organization's website lists 23 Colorado members having certification issues by this organization. So why limit qualified biologists to these 23? Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. 2 From: Mark Elrod Sent: Friday, January 23,2009 4:55 PM TO: Karen Thompson CC: Alison Chilcott Subject: ~'Qualified Biologist" -Estes Valley Planning Commission Consideration When reviewing how to define "Qualified Biologist" for the Estes Valley Development Code the Commission was advised by Directot Joseph that Colorado has no licensing or certification requirements. The Commission was advised by a local Ph.D. Biologist Ecologist that there are in fact ' some organizations and associations to which certain biologist may belong, but cautioned the Commission that just because such groups exist does not mean that very qualified biologist belong to such groups. That being said it would appear that "Qualified Biologist" needs to be defined for the purposes of our Code based upon education, training, geographic experience, and length of service. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has reviewed "Biological Scientists. See www.bls.aov/oco/ocos047.htm . In this report various biologist are referenced; Aquatic; Marine; Biochemist; Botanists; Microbiologists; Physiologists; Biophysicsts; Zoologist; Wildlife; and Ecologists. In 2006 they estimated there were 87,000 biological scientists employed in the United States. The Bureau went on to discuss training. They mentioned that a Ph.D. degree is usually necessary for independent research; a master's degree is sufficient for applied research, or inspection, or research technician or teacher; a bachelofs degree is adequate for some nonresearch positions. This is what led me to suggest that the term "Qualified Biologist" be an individual with a master's degree or a Ph.D because of the research aspect. Again keeping in mind no Colorado state licensing or certifications are required for research. If we believe that our community is unique, and that the Colorado Rocky Mountains add to that uniqueness, then the requirement that for the purposes of our Code that this person possess experience and expertise in identification of natural habitats and vegetative communities in the Colorado Rocky Mountains makes immanent sense. However, to go on to suggest that in the Director' s sole discretion a biologist deemed to have experience in habitats "comparable" to the Colorado Rocky Mountains is qualified seems to run contrary to our belief that our community is unique. Now we are saying there could be "comparable" habitats to our "unique" one. This seems to be an oxymoron. I further believe this opens up the possibility of getting into the situation of"my dun is bigger than your gun" expert opinion shopping. I believe we really want to avoid that at all c?sts. It would also seem to suggest that qualified biologists with Colorado Rock Mountain experience do not exist. I am not hearing that argued, so why open the door to finding someone with "comparable" experience? I believe the Commission has every right to require the education, length of experience, and geographic exposure to define "Qualified Biologisf' and not deprive anyone using such for the purposes of our Code just because comparable is not recognized. Thank you for allowing me to clarify the comments made to the Commission at their last meeting on January 20, 2009. 1 would further appreciate that the Commission be provided with these comments as well. Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 51 0~[E Â©EOVE 1-E\1 -~ JAN 2 0 2009 1 ~ Estes Valley Planning Commission Tuesday, January 20,2009 1 &21- Proposed Development Code Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection Comments From Mark D. Elrod 675 Summerset Court, Estes Park, Colorado The term "qualified biologist" is used seven times in this proposed Code section. See section 7.8 (D); 7.8 (E); 7.8(F) (1) (a) and (b); and section 13.3. In Section 7.8(1) (a) a "qualified biol6gist" must be mutually agreed to by an applicant and the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director is required to maintain a list of qualified biologists. Section 13.3 provides "The Community Development Director at his sole discretion shall have discretion to approve biologist with at least two (2) year experience in habitats comparable to the Colorado Rocky Mountains." My concern is that in the unlikely event that we mdy have a less qualified Community Development Director than Mr. Joseph; these provisions seem to unreasonably empower the Community Development Director to make decisions ovir who would be qualified to assist an applicantorour Town in providing biological information. It seems to me that to take any kind of appearatice of partiality out of the hands of Community Development Director the term "qualified biologist" should speak for itself, as defined by education, training, geographic experience, length of service, etc. To fratiie an analogy it is as if the Code were to allow for the employment of an attorney by an applicant, as long as the attorney was one approved by the Community Development Director in his sole discretion as qualified. I would suggest the following changes to 7.8(F) (1) (a) ...The assessment shall be prepared by a qualified biologist mutually agrced to by the Communit~ Development Director and thc applicant. ...The 50 106 2- Community Development DepartmerEsha#may maintain a list of qualified biologists known to itfrom time to time from which selections may be made. I would suggest the following changes to 13.3 ...Qualified Biologist shall mean a biologist ho/ding a master'sdegree in biology, or higher, from an accredited United States university, with two (2) or more years of demonstrated experience and expertise in identification of natural habitat5 and vegetative communities in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Thc Communit;' Development Director at his cole discretion to approve biologist with ot least two (2) ycors experience in habitats comparable to tho Colorado Rocky Mountains. These suggestions focus on the qualifications of the biologist to the Colorado Rocky Mountain area and remove any potential allegation of partiality from the Community Development Director. 49 I am a retired stream ecologist and have studied streams for over 40 years. It is well-known in our science, and backed by a wealth of scientific research, that a river or stream reflects the valley that it drains because of the linkages between the terrestrial and aquatic environments. These linkages include groundwater, surface runoff, canopy drainage, organic matter inputs, flooding, and others. This has led to the truism "the stream is the valley;" a healthy, unperturbed landscape will produce a healthy, normally functioning stream. Thus, any impacts to a stream's valley or environment will eventually be reflected in the stream itself. The closer the impact, the quicker it will be manifested in changes in the stream, and the greater the magnitude of the impacts, the greater will be the impacts within the stream. Thus the question before the Planning Commission is not whether there will be impacts, but how severe they might be. The further you stay away from the shoreline, the less severe will be potential impacts. C. E. Cushing Town Resident ' ~ -5-_U i l-'(l January 14, 2009 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, I recommend a plan that would eliminate many pressures a biologist would face as an employee of someone needing a wildlife or assessment study. The goal is to achieve a more objective and accurate study. Community Development staff would set up an escrow account. The party that requires a wildlife study or assessment places an agreed amount that would equal an established contract amount in escrow. Staff would have a list of a minimum of three qualified biologists which a party may choose. The chosen biologist will not be one who is currently or previously employed by that party. Guided by the requirements of the wildlife study, the chosen biologist will submit the study or assessment to the Planning Commission for their approval and such payment issued from the escrow account. Sandy Osterman 1735 Red Tail Hawk Dr. Estes Park, CO 4J t,f-3 January 14,2009 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission Subject: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment and proposed EVDC changes For the past several sessions the Planning Commission has undertaken discussion of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment and a proposed code change to the Wildlife & Habitat Protection sections of the EVDC. In addition a significant change to the ADU regulation has been proposed by the Planning Staff and an Open Space Study is waiting for the Town Board to approve funding. These are all complex topics with very far reaching implications. We have heard testimony from the public, from the construction and development community and from a biologist, expert in the field. All interested parties have provided helpful and insightful comments, however the result remains that these topics are very complex, interrelated and have no apparent easy or universal solutions. Rather than providing additional comments regarding the details of each proposal, I offer what I think might be an orderly path through these issues. While not a solution itself, a systematic process might make the resulting solutions more comprehensive and provide for greater continuity. I would offer the following three step process: 1) Correct an apparent flaw in the Development Application Process 2) Identify the objective (or problem to be fixed) for each of the studies and code proposals 3) Complete the two studies, combine their findings and understand the results, then produce code changes which move Estes in the direction of the stated objectives. 1) The Development Application Process Problem statement: It is my observation that the Development Application Process itself is the cause of a significant portion of community upset, developer dissatisfaction and Staff frustration that has been evidenced in the recent past. Today's process allows for a developer to work with the Planning Staff for months, perhaps years, on a proposed development prior to any public or Planning Commission awareness. Only after the developer has spent many thousands of dollars on architectural, engineering, and legal services, and sometimes land purchase, is a Development Application filed. It is this event which triggers a public notification and a Planning Commission hearing. This is the first opportunity for the developer to learn of any additional Town requirements and to hear public comments. This is certainly late in the cycle for a developer to easily and cost effectively accommodate changes. 4L 1 +3 Proposed solution: Adding a "Concept Phase" check point early in the process would alert all interested parties at a time when all input could be considered, requirements verified, even the need for a Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Plan decided. For this filing, the documents required of the developer could be less formal (requiring less time and money investment) and the Staff' s evaluation and report could be less detailed. The Planning Commission would now have an early notification of the proposal with the ability to express questions or concerns. The developer would have the opportunity to assess the feasibility and cost of any required changes and would learn the probability of the development being approved. All interested parties would benefit. 2) Define the Objective of the proposals Problem Statement: Currently in process are two studies (the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment is awaiting acceptance and an Open Space Study is waiting for Board funding approval) and three significant proposed changes to the EVDC (Wildlife & Habitat Protection, ADU's, and Short-Term Rentals, Vacation Homes, Bed & Breakfasts). Each of these undertakings should have a clearly defined objective, however the only objectives I have heard stated to date are: â€¢ the EVDC Wildlife Habitat Protection Section 7.8 is being rewritten to prevent another Lexington Lane/Wapiti Crossing from ever happening again â€¢ the Housing Authority's hope to ease the affordable housing and summer worker' s housing shortage by encouraging the use of ADUs Proposed Solution: Ideally the development code should be the implementation tool which helps move Estes Park toward the community its citizens want it to be in the future. It is imperative for the Town to create and publish a vision of what Estes wants to look like in one year, five years, and in ten years. Such a vision could include the development goals for single and multifamily housing, affordable housing, accommodations, provisions for ample commercial zoning and growth, incorporation of the Performing Arts center, Community Center, and Fairgrounds improvements and, what we are considering today......how Estes will accommodate wildlife habitat and viewing areas in the future. In the absence of such a forward looking, documented view of the Estes Valley, we can concentrate on one aspect of that vision by clearly defining the objective ofthe studies and code changes now under consideration. For example, the integrated objective ofthe Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, the Open Space Study and the Wildlife & Habitat Protection code revision might be "to define the type o f thoughtful, planned growth in the Estes Valley which protects valued wildli fe habitat and viewing areas important for the economic viability and quality of life of the community". 43 563 3) Code changes which move Estes in the direction of meeting the objective Problem Statement: Making complex changes to individual sections of code without the forethought of how the pieces interact or how they come together to complete the picture of Estes' future only serves to continue what might be viewed as a piece meal approach to development. Proposed Solution: With the objective stated above, a logical course of action might be: 1) Complete the discussion of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment and adopt it into the EV Comprehensive Plan with the understanding it is not "hard science". 2) Authorize and complete the Open Space Study. When complete overlay the Open Space findings on the Wildlife Habitat map to help identi fy areas of particular interest. An additional map overlay of not yet developed land might further refine the possibilities. 3) Once the information has been collected, analyzed and a direction (with an implementation plan) established, revise the EVDC to implement the objective of the studies. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court . 49 December 16,2008 TO: Estes town and valley representatives (and for public record) FROM: Sandy Lindquist, 1980 Cherokee Drive, Estes Park RE: Development/Growth and Land Stewardship (e.g., ADUs, wildlife, etc.) I have some observations about recent comments by those who earn their living from growth and development - and because of the general disdain I've heard from some of those people towards wildlife and towards valley residents who differ with them. Estes Park is the most unique community in Colorado. With its proximity to the urban front range and its gateway status to the most stunning side of Rocky Mountain National Park, it is NOT like any other mountain resort or ski town. The rare combination of scenery and abundant wildlife MAKE this community as desirable as it is to visit or to live within. It has attracted a highly educated and talented group of residents, and I think that valley and town officials don't always appreciate this valuable human resource all around them. We should compare ourselves to other communities, but we do not need to EMULATE them. In the year-and-a-half I've lived here and attended these meetings, I've come to conclude, alarmingly, that the Planning Department wants Estes Park to be like "everybody else" in terms of growth and development at the expense of every$hing else. But I believe we have the responsibility to be more-carejid stewards of this natural-world gift that makes us so unique. I believe that most valley residents want their representatives to set NEW high standards in their stewardship of these lands - and to be leaders, rather than followers, in that regard. This valley needs a unifying vision I've not yet recognized in its planning. At these Planning Commission and Board meetings, there can be extreme opinions regarding development and preservation, but most people really just want balance. It's just that no one can agree where that balance point should be. We all have interests (including self-preservation). In this case the development side also includes financial gain; whereas the preservation side does NOT financially benefit. And the preservation side includes all "voiceless" wildlife who can't pay for their own lobbyists! So, where's the tipping point in ruining the ecosystem and the beauty in this environment? Even the experts don't really know for certain. But those who favor continuous growth always take the viewpoint of "just let me do this one" because IT won't be the breaking point. One contractor last month even went so far as to say that wildlife can just "stay in the park" where there's more room for them! Well, the town is in the bottom of a bowl-shaped topographic depression where natural wildlife migration is going to focus, especially in the winter. Wildlife behavior is already described as "abnormal" in terms of its local habituation to humans. Unwise and ever-more-dense development will cause that to worsen and will result in more conflict between wildlife and people. The critical guiding point for this special community and physical setting should be that every development changes things forever, so decisions should always be on the side of caution. l believe . the MAJORITY of people who live here treasure this land resource and don't want or need financial gain from land speculation or from development endeavors. They'd also rather not spend all their personal time repeatedly fighting such battles in meetings. Our challenge is making the right decisions with respect to this balance for ALL parties involved and for the Estes Valley ecosystem as a whole. I also reference my formal letters of the last year to you, as an individual, which have made similar points before (11-15-07; 12-28-07; 1-4-08; 1-29-08; 5-14-08; 10-20-08). Within the ever-looming shadow of development profit, this more cautious point of view apparently needs to be made repeatedly. 43 ,:~:~:5>ESTES VALLEYÂ·~04- CONTRACTOR& AN ASSOCIATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS - ASSOCIATION Contractors, Engineers, Architects, Designers & Developers DATE: December 16, 2008 TO: Members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission FROM: John A. Spooner, P.E., Chair Engineers, Architectsand Designers Committee RE: Comments on the proposed Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife) Members of the Engineers, Architects and Designers Committee of the EVCA, at a recent meeting, discussed at length the proposed code revisions regarding wildlife and have authorized the following comments to be communicated to the Commission and staff. - Some of these same concerns were also discussed with the staff at a meeting held on November 26'h. The EVCA is not opposed to the concept of incorporating wildlife studies into some of the planning functions administered by the Commission. We are concerned that the process be clearly defined to provide guidance to all parties involved. We believe the following issues should be addressed prior to adoption. 1. The map ('Priorities for an Ecological Network" from the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment), which is proposed to provide guidance for the determination of areas to be studied under the Code, should be reworked. As it exists within the Report, it is difficult to read and confusing. It would be very helpful to provide a larger map with the four habitat areas superimposed upon the property ownership boundaries along with the zoning districts. Areas within conservation easements, under governmental ownership and other uses which are presumably never to be developed should be identified. 2. If the suggestions above are followed, it should be relatively easy to provide some graphic and statistical information related to the amount of land within the valleyiNhich would fall under wildlife study purview. This would provide very important information to the Commission in deciding on adoption of the amendments. 3. This map revision would assist property owners in determining the status of their property. 4. Paragraph 7.8, F.2 suggests that the ~Review of an application may reveal potential ... habitat .. that is not reflected .. on the ..map ... In such instances, the Review- or Decision-Making body shall have the discretion to require the Applicant to retain a PO BOX 2942, ESTES PARK, CO 805 17 - (970) 586-6 190 4 L lit- L . qualified biologist to assess the habitat." This paragraph affords no assurance to property owners that any development proposal without an assessment could not be denied by completely discretionary means. Preferably the adopted map would delineate all properties required to provide a site specific assessment, or at the very least, there should be a process allowing property owners to determine with staff whether such a study would be required before a full submittal is made. 5. We believe that it is of significance that there is no "standards" section in paragraph 7.8. Note that other paragraphs in Chapter 7 have "standards" (7.1 -"development restrictions", 7.2 - "grading standards", 7.4 -"locational and design criteria", 7.5 - "design standard", 7.6 - "development standards", etc). 6. Paragraph 7.8 also states that the "Decision-Making Body shall issue a finding as to whether the application and plan complies with the requirements of this Section, including adequately mitigating adverse impacts". Without the standards as noted in item 5, this language also creates a discretionary means of review. Presumably the Decision Making Body, without the same professional expertise, shall judge within a half-hour review whether a document prepared over hours, days or even weeks by a "qualified professional" adequately mitigates wildlife impacts with no provision in the code to guide them. Either the standards should be clearly delineated or the assessment submitted with a development proposal should become the adopted standard for that project site. 7. With other requirements of the code, if the applicant adheres to the requirements and doesn't ask for variances, they have a reasonable chance of success. The proposed code amendment does not afford proberty owners with this same level of assurance. 8. Under the "Applicability" section, "maintenance and repair" of existing residential...structures" is exempted. Presumably under the listed applications for which the section applies, all single- family residential development is already exempted. This should be clarified so there is no confusion. 9. Several definitions of "Riparian" have been suggested in the proposed code revisions. A definition should be adopted, if possible, which makes it clear to the land owner, the owner's surveyor and the regulatory officials where the boundaries are before having to engage a biologist to delineate these boundaries. 10. Setbacks issues should be open to further discussion. By changing the requirements currently in effect, it will often be possible to have a land owner (including single family residence construction) that is burdened with more severe restrictions than those who have already constructed on either side of the owner's property. In addition, some members have suggested that larger setbacks should apply to rivers as opposed to streams (including intermittent ones). Finally, as a suggestion, the setback distances really should be dependent on the quality of the biological habitat on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket requirement. 11. Depending on the results of a possible analysis as outlined in items 1-3 above, the EVCA believes that potentially impacted property owners should be notified about the proposed changes to the code due to the potentially far-reaching restrictions. PO BOX 2942, ESTES PARK, CO 80517 - (970) 586-6190 41 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission November 17,2008 Comments on Section 7.8 Code Revisions Please include as part of the public record. Summarv: Please see comments below. In summary, while a few important clarifications and additions are noted below, this revision represents a major. step forward in updating and clarifying this portion ofthe Estes Valley Development Code, and I appreciate the time and consideration that Staff'has obviously put into this draft. Specific Comments: 1. Section 7.4.C.1: Is there a need to clarify what we mean by, or provide specific definitions for, private and public open areas? 2. Section 7.5.H.4.: Good upgradest 3. Section 7.6.E.1: It's not clear how an "annual" high water mark is determined. Should this be 10-year or 20-year highest water mark, for instance? 4. Section 7.8.F.2: Suggest adding that review input from site visits and documented observations from residents (if available), as well as review of the application forms. 5. Section 7.8.F (Review Procedures): o Great thanksforincluding both "important" habitat and "critical" habitatin Section 1. This is a very important addition. o Good clarification of Stalf and DOW roles in Section 2. This really clarifies this part ofthe review process. o In Section 4, recommend adding "Plans not found adequate may be rejected." Lack of such specific language has been a major issue in the past. o In Section 5, recommend adding a clause to state that wildlife conservation and habitat plans may be waived "if there is no public objectioh." 6. Section 7.8.F.3 (Mitigation of Development Impacts): o Many good additions and clarifications. , I o Fei:y happy to see inclusion of an item jelated to migratory bird nesting o Suggest hicluding documented observations from residents as part of identifying/understanding wildlife movement corridors. 7. Overall: Recommend adding language to "require annual review of how well these regulations are being implemented and complied with" by Staff, Commissioners, and representatives of the public. P pen*rtÂ·flillv e,Al,m;#04 -~ECEDÂ¥EIFii , ton Norris 1905 Cherokee Drive L f-2-J 2008 ju ~4-ESTES VALLEY<:n~:.,..~ Â£22.-2.-7235 ASSOCIATION DATE: November 12,2008 TO: Members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mike Menard, President, 01;Ue-,-ME~.a,AR Estes Valley Contractors Association RE: Comments on the Proposed Revisions To Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife) The Architects, Engineers and Designers Committee of the Estes Valley Contractors Association has reviewed the proposed revisions to the Development Code relating to Wildlife as attached to Bob Joseph's memo to you dated October 16,2008. We have identified some items of concern which we believe should have considerable discussion prior to adoption of these revisions and we would urge the Commission to not act to adopt these changes without having this discussion. Some ofthe items we have identified include: â€¢ A clear definition of a "riparian habitat" in the code. â€¢ Would the proposed setbacks apply to all the Creeks, etc. in the Valley as opposed to just the major river systems? â€¢ There is a section on wetlands in the code. How does a riparian habitat differ from a wetland habitat and should the two sections of the code be combined in some manner? â€¢ The "Estes Valley Habitat Assessment" document suggests different setbacks than the proposed code. Will the document be changed to be consistent with whatever is approved? â€¢ "The types of fencing... shall be determined by staff..." We believe this should be clearly defined in the Code. â€¢ What criteria will be used by the Planning Commission in issuing a finding as to whether a conservation plan addresses adverse impacts? Is the Planning Commission qualified to issue this finding? For example, are 30 foot open corridors between buildings adequate or are 50 foot widths needed? â€¢ In general, we believe better definitions of the acceptable conditions for decision making by the Applicant, Staff and Commission are needed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. The Association stands ready to assist in these deliberations. As Chair of the Committee, you may contact John Spooner if you wish to discuss further (586-9388 ext. 15). PO box 2942, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - (970) 586-6190 lot- 1/ Associationt for Responsible Development Proposed Action Related to Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment Submitted to Estes Valley Planning Commission 10/21/08 (Please include as part of the public record) Introduction: The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain character and natural beauty of the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. We believe the recently-completed Wildlife Habitat Assessment provides a needed foundation for determining what is, and is not, responsible development, in terms of the impact of development on wildlife habitat. We believe the proposed revisions to Chapter 7 of the Estes Valley Development Code are a step in the right direction, but do not fully address many important areas. We have recommended several additional items for inclusion in the code. Comments on Proposed Code Changes: Our Association has reviewed the proposed code changes (Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC, October 16,2008) in detail and appreciate the work done by Staff in developing this draft. As a result of our review, we: a) Support replacing the 1996 Wildlife Habitat map with the 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment; b) Support replacing the.term "significant adverse impact" with more specific guidance for developers and the public; c) Support providing riparian zone setbacks of fifty feet; d) Support changing the code to require preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan for all areas designated as "Critical Habitat": Critical habitat includes areas which are extremely important to specific species, such as riparian corridors and bighorn sheep habitat. 3K 1 + 2_ The following five areas have not been addressed by the proposed code changes. We recommend: 1. Adding provisions to require preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan for all areas designated as "Important Habitat", in addition to those areas designated as "Critical Habitat". "Important Habitat" contains rare or sensitive resources, including rare vegetation communities, raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, and elk movement corridors. Most of these areas do not currently enjoy any special protection. We believe additional protection for such areas must be incorporated into the code in order to ensure a viable ecological network as described in the Habitat Assessment. . 2. Adding provisions that require Wildlife Conservation Plans and Mitigation Plans to be reviewed, validated, and evaluated for adequacy in writing by CDOW representatives or other qualified, independent professionals. 3. Adding provisions that provide the option for Staff to require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan and Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan for property which falls within the "Other Valuable Habitat" category when such property has unique characteristics such as: a location which provides continuity or linkage to other protected habitat, an important visitor wildlife viewing area, or is otherwise essential to providing a viable ecological network. 4. Adding provisions to allow denial of a proposal based on negative impact the development would have on wildlife and/or habitat as identified in the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and adequacy of the Mitigation Plan. 5. Adding provisions that require an annual audit, by a team including members of the Planning Commission, Town Staff, and representatives of the public, to assess compliance with these provisions. Closing: We believe the changes proposed by Staff, in combination with the recommended additions, will provide improved understanding of wildli fe protection requirements for developers and the public, increase public trust in the process, and promote future development that preserves the unique aspects of our Valley. We urge you to implement all the above recommdndations. Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development 31 ~' NOV 1 8 2008 ~ November 18,2008 1-- _1=N Subject: Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife), dated November 13, 2008 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission I want to express my appreciation to Director Joseph and his staff for the obvious time, energy, and amount of thought that has been put into this proposed revision to Section 7.8 of the EVDC. 1 believe this revision is a significant improvement in clarifying terminology and adding enforcement measures to this important section of our code. After careful review I offer the following specific comments and questions: 1. Section 7.4.C.1 and Section 7.8 Purpose statement - The phrase "to the maximum extent feasible" is used in both of these paragraphs. Although the intent of this language may be clear, I think it is most important that it's meaning be explicit. When used in Section 7.8, it refers to minimizing the negative impacts ofthe development, but the meaning of this phrase is very different for each of the parties involved in evaluating anÂ¢ apblication and a Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Plan: â€¢ Does this mean what the applicant thinks is feasible in regards to schedule, finances, aesthetics, or is it just what he might be willing to do voluntarily? â€¢ Does this mean what a wildlife biologist thinks is feasible to protect a habitat, or a plant community, or to link habitats into an ecological system? â€¢ Does this mean what the Planning Commission thinks is the most that can be asked of a developer or else he will file a suit against the Town? â€¢ Does this mean the maximum mitigation that can be required before the legal community would consider a "taking"? 2. Section 7.8.F.2 (Review of an application....) - states "the Review -7 or Decision- Making body shall have the discretion to require the Applicant to retain a qualified biologist to assess the habitat." Does this mean they have the authority to require a Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Plan? 3. Section 7.8.F.1 (Wildlife Habitat Data Base) - My thanks to the staff for including "important" as well as "critical habitat"! 4. Section 7.8.F.2 (Review Procedures) - Please add "in writing" to the first sentence o f this paragraph. "Staff shall refer. in writinÂ£, the submitted application and Wildlife and Habitat ConservatiorfPlan to the Colorado Division ofWildlife for their review. 5. Section 7.8.F.4 (Review Bodv & Decision-Making Procedures) - This section states the Decision-Making Body will issue a finding as to whether the application 36 2--+2_ and the Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Plan comply with the code and adequately mitigate the adverse impacts. What ifthe finding is: a. either the application or the Plan does not comply, or b. the Plan does not adequately mitigate the adverse impacts? Is this cause for denial? 6. Section 7.8.F.5 Waivers - The waiving of a Wildlife Conservation & Habitat Plan by Staff (or the Planning Commission) should only be done after a public hearing. Sincerely, 4fl' --I )(1--ek K Ql~/3 Fi'ed R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court ~12Â©EDÂ¥Erm 1 ~ ~ NOV 1 8 2008 ~ 35 To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners From: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: October i, 2008 Re: Revised Suggestions to be added to August 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment Dear Commissioners: Following is a document comprised of "netted-out" suggestions made to you in our Sept. 15,2008 letter. As we told you at the time, that letter was drawn up very quickly between the time we received a copy of the Assessment and your meeting. We feel that this revision more clearly states our concerns. While only a start, we would hope that you would use this document as an addendum to EDAW's EV Habitat Assessment in making future planning commission decisions. Sincerely, An- U.gu-V.*D. '4 Alice Gray EVIA President -~ EÂ©E 0VE~9\ ~~ OCT 10 2008 I l 14- _3 RECOMMENDATIONS to the ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION by the ESTES VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION October ~, 2008 To study the Estes Valley habitat is to try to understand the interrelationship ofhuman development and occupation onthe onehand; and fish, birdand animal habits and habitat, as well as water resources and vegetation, oh the other. Habitat is not only affected by buildings, driving lanes and parking lots, but also by other man-made features and human activities which do not require government oversight, such as picnic grounds, hot tubs, zip lines, decks, campfire areas, etc. Since Planning Commission decisions are focused exclusively on the Estes Valley, the information upon which those decisions are made should first take into account the unique conditions of the Estes Valley. Because known ranking systems may not be directly applicable to our area, we have, for the sake of clarity, created a local rating system which would correlate with the Natural Heritage Ranking System. We are using"EV" to indicate the value within the Estes Valley, rather than"S" or"G" to indicate generalized State or Global priorities. As in other systems, the relative degree of imperilment would follow a 1-5 scale, with 1 = "Critically Imperiled" and 5 ="Demonstrably Secure." We remind you that - protected species do not need our protection; - it is those unprotected by federal or state laws that we must protect on our own. 1. ELK AND ELK CORRIDORS: Elk: Â£145) While the total number of elk must be reduced, smaller herds are still a very high value and desirable attribute of the Valley, both in terms ofwildlife/habitat interrelationships and tourism. Elk Conidors: dEM-1) Connectivity of multiple corridors, and their accompanying natural supportive vegetation, must be established and maintained to assure the protection ofwildlife and habitat for centufies to come. - Include in the Assessment the Elk Habitat & Migration Corridor on the *Spur 66 Mgmt. Plan (See Figure 6, atrache,0 - which includes the Elk Conservation Easement along Spur 66 established as part of Thunder Mtn. Park, and consider other corridors not mentioned in the Assessment, as well. 2. ASPEN AND WILLOW: Aspen: (EF-1) Aspen is of very "high value" because of it's importance to elk, beaver and other interrelated Wildlife. (For instance, aspen is an important breeding habitatfor many species of migratory birds, particularlyfor cavio; nesters.) The Assessment shows that 70% ofPark visitors come to view elk, but large numbers of tourists also frequent Estes in the fall to view aspen leaves, which makes aspen commercially important as well. The number surviving aspen groves of any significant size are few and far between in Estes -1- 93 D- i_3 Valley. (See Map 2 ofthe AssessmenO Obviously the overpopulation ofelk has decimated the aspen stands. Most of the survivinglrees are the ones mature enough to withstand elk feeding ' and antler rubbing, and few, if any, young trees or emerging saplings even have a chance of survival. This condition is worsening every year. We recommend that Estes Vallev's Aspen should now be ranked EV-1 / "Criticallv imperiled" and be considered as the highest prioritv level for protection. Carr Willow (El/-2): While Carr Willows are an integral element of the riparian habitat but are not shown on the Assessment's Vegetation Communities (Map 2.) They, too, are imperiled due to the pressure of too many elk, drying wetlands, etc. and should be considered high value for protection purposes. 3. BEAVER OfF-1): With global wanning and the resulting shrinking ice fields, water flowing from these resources are expected to diminish over the years. Except for man-made reservoirs, beavers may become the only salvation for retaining water in the few remaining wetlands. Yet, beavers consistentlv leave areas devoid of aspen and/or those disturbed bv man. Beaver habitats must also be given significant importance in develop,Wental decisions. i I Again, the interrelationship ofaspen, willow, elk and beaver is a good exampie ofthe mutual dependability ofthdse various species. 4. BIRTHING DOMAIN. RIPARIAN AREAS. SETBACKS AND PROTECTION AREAS (E v.4): Estes Valley is essential to the wildlife oflhe National Park. While many birds and mammals frequentthe higher regions ofthe Park, the birthing of innumerable mammals and birds (only a ,/bw qfwhich are listed below) takes place in the lower altitude of Estes Valley and is key to maintpining the vitality ofnumerous kinds ofwildlife in the broader regicSIL Knownbirthing domains of all species must be a part of all development considerations. While town development plans menlion protection ofweliands, they generally specify 20% green space and 20' setbacks~from streams and wetlands. This may not be adequate for some crilical habitats such as: - Birthing areas for deer, elk, bighom, and beaver, and , - Nesting areas for raptors, land birds, waterfowl, etc. / For outside town limits, we recommend at least 50% or more green space and more substantial setbacks to protect streams, ponds and wetlands. I.t 5. FISH. BIRDS. POLLINATORS. BERRIES. FLOWERS & RELATED FOODSOURCES: All of these species form significant parts ofthe ecological interrelationship. It would take considerable time to prove tbis point in writing, Oust one example would the be broad-tailed hummingbirds that breed in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen and riparian woodlands) but the importance of fish, bee and bird pollinators; berries; flowers; noxious weeds; monarch and other butterflies; milkweed and other fo6d sources must all be taken into consideration. -2- 9L 3 +3 CONCLUSIONS - 1. Until a more comprehensive habitat study can be done, we recommend that this document be added to the Assessment as an addendum, and the following studies also be considered in making Planning Commission decisions: - Wildlife study for the Wapiti Crossing on Highway 7; - RMNP studies regarding critical beaver loss, - RMNP Related Lands Evaluation, 1998; - the studies done when Thunder Mountain subdivision was planned in 1979. - Spur 66 Management Plan of 1996 2. We feel it is very important to - not only study the habitat now, but - tolrack the changes that have taken place in the past and - could take place in the future (for example, marmots have almost completely disappearedftom the valley.) 4. Rather than paying large sums of money to outside environmental firms who may not understand the specific wildlife and habitat challenges within our Valley, We stronglv recommend a Citizens Committee of local interested individuals to embark upon a vallev-wide. in-depth habitat studv of the priorities of our own bio,Beographical area which could serve as guidelines for making future planning and development - decisions. The success ofthe Spur 66 Management Plans attests to the success a wider - study could provide. 5. Every time any area, large or small, is impacted by human development or activities, that big ar little bit ofhabitat is robbed from nature - usually forever. We applaud the Town and Commissioners for wanting to further investigate the habitat of our Valley and enthusiastically support your intentions to focus on careful long-term planning which will assure, for instance, that open space will remain; that vegetation will remain balanced; that shelter and birthing areas not be disturbed; that beavers will still be building dams; that food sources will be plentiful; and that connectivity between deer and elk corridors will remain intact 100 years from now. You, the Planning Commissioners, hold in your hands the duty of good stewardship ofthe flora and fauna of our land - to assure the continued health of the abundant Estes Valley wildlife habitat that residents, tourists and biologists hold so dear - and will hopefully be able to enjoy, not only for generations but for centuries to come. GÂ©22,<2â‚¬aÂ« 0 Alice Gray, President Estes Valley Improvement Association -3- 3' IkE Estes Valley Planning Commission Current Proposals for Changes to the Estes Valley Development Code Block 12 Amendments - Wildlife Habit Protection Adoption of the Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment October 21, 2008 Summary 1. The hydrological information on the maps, and the resulting assumptions, is flawed. 2. Notice to current or future real estate owners of the impact of the maps on development of such real estate is in fact neither actual nor constructive as proposed. C 3. The burden of"proving" the maps to be inaccurate is shifted to current or future land owners. It appears that in working with the maps of the Estes Valley Development Code the prevailing attitude of the Community Development Department is one of an ashumption that maps of Estes Valley Development Code are scientific and accurate. 4. There appears to be no clear responsibility or duty on any public employee, official, department, board or commission t~ dorrect errors in the maps of the Estes Valley Development Code when proven. Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 30Â©EDVE=% 1 1 ~~ OCT 15 2008 I ~ 3o 4- Estes Valley Planming Commission i Current Proposals for Changes to the Estes Valliey Development Code Block 12 Amendments - Wildlife Habit Protection Adoption of the Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment October 21, 2008 Details 1. The hvdrological information on the maps. and the resulting assumptions. is flawed. (It appears that the hydrological information on the maps derive from the United States Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5 minute quadrangle map created in 1976 using the standards in existence from 1972. Extensive standard revisions were made in 1993, but absent some catastrophic event, USGS maps are not updated to take into considerations new standards. Further, the USGS has opined "that stream classification was done in the field during a limited time period and relied on observations and information obtained from local residents and, thus, was a subjective process. No scientific measurements were made to determine the classification." Consequently, the assumptions and analysis found on the Estes Valley Habitat Assedsment is suspect. Hopefully it is not the intention to play Horseshoes with our Development Code ... "close enough".) 2. Notice to current or future real estate owners of the impact of the maps on development of such real estate is in fact neither actual nor constructive as proposed. (When you, a friend or a neighbor purchased real estate, did you or they first check ( 1 19 8 4-5 the maps of the Development Code? The Estes Valley Development Code Area? Flood Insurance Rate Map? Flood Plain Map? Geologic Hazard Areas Map? National Wetlands Inventory Resource Map? Ridgeline Protection Areas? Stream and River Corridors Resource Map? Street Map? Trails Map? Wildfire Hazard Areas Map? Zoning Map? Will you soon be checking the new maps of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment you are being asked to adopt? The Study Area Map; Vegetation Communities Map; Composit Analysis Map or the Priorities for an Ecological Network Map? I doubt you checked any of those maps prior to purchasing your real estate. However, did you do a title inspection? Did you find out about the recorded zoning and recorded easements? I bet you did. What is the point being made? There is certainly a significant difference between a public record and a publicly recorded document in imparting knowledge on a land owner or purchaser. The adoption of new maps can hardly be imputed to impart knowledge on a current or future landowner as to the impact of such maps on the development of the lands.) 3. The burden of "proving" the maps to be inaccurate is shifted to current or future land owners. It appears that in working with the maps of the Estes Valley Development Code the prevailing attitude of the Communitv Development Department ib one of an assumption that maps of Estes Vallev Development Code are scientific and accurate. (Once a map is adopted as a part of the Development Code it appears that should a land owner wish to challenge the veracity of a map and the restrictions applicable to it because of the location of the real estate on the map the recourse is through a hearing before the Board of Adjustment. It appears you arm the Community Development Department with the need to uphold the validity of a map when dealing with land owners. By adopting a flawed map you are ultimately 2 4 f -5 shifting the need to dispute the map to a land owner to be ! resolved by the Board of Adjustment. Depending on the issues with the map it could cost a land owner thousands ofdollacs to prove the science and fact of the map to be in error. Is this shifting of responsibility to the land owner equitable? Is it an attitude of"better them [the real estate owned to bear the cost of correcting the map than the cost to the town for adopting an accurate map?") 4. There appears to be no clear responsibilitv or dutv on anv public employee. official, department, board or commission to correct errors in the maps of the Estes Vallev Development Code when proven. (If any map of the Development Code is found to be in error, even if it is site specific, where does the responsibility to correct the map reside? Is it the responsibility of the Director of the Community Development Department? Is it the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment? Is it the responsibility of the Planning Cominission? When and under what circumstances have you ever been advised of errors on any map of the Development Code? Where in the Development Code does it provide a modicum of responsibility to any public employee, official, department, board or commission to see that errors or misrepresentations on Development Code maps are rectified? Where is there any responsibility to cdrrect erroneous information on Development Code maps or their underlying foundation map found in the Geographic Information System [GIS] ? When we hire consultants who use the GIS system, shame on us for not correcting such information on the system when we could have. Are we again just playing Horseshoes with the responsibility of having accurate maps as part of our Development Code? Is "close enough" good enough for land owners in Estes Valley as far as this Commission is concerned?) 3 37 545 Thank you for your time in reading through this detail of my concern. Again I represent no special interest group nor am I a member of any organization, formal or informal, having an interest in the Development Code. I am just presenting my personal views as an individual who has had a Development Code map, which was in error, used against me in building on my lot. I just think that all real estate owners in Estes Valley deserve more than Horseshoe (close enough) Development Code maps. Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 4 1 ~EVIA~ ESTES VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. Box 597 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Phone: (970) 586-9519 Fax: (970) 586-6685 TO: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Email: HobertOffices@aol.com FROM: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: September 29,2008 Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 Dear Commissioners: We see the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment as a commendable first step. We also believe the revised plan for open space will include wildlife and give much more detailed consideration to specific specie habitat issues, biodiversity, and impact on habitat from invasive weeds to maintain pine beetle control. We also recommend citizen education concerning such issues and our strongest recommendation is the creation of a community wide entity to collate wildlife knowledge and provide advisory strategies and options for the Estes Valley Planning Commission. This advisory group should include or consult stakeholder groups and organizations as: Colorado Department of Wildlife, Rocky Mountain National Park, Roosevelt National Forest, Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, Town Parks, Estes Valley Land Trust, Estes Land Stewardship Associa- tion, Larimer County Park, Estes Valley Improvement Association, Estes Tree Committee, The Nature Conservancy and any other similar groups. The group should also educationally consult with: conservation groups, Homeowners Associations, Trout Unlimited, The Elk Foundation, Estes Park Bird Club, gardeners, landscapers (xeriscapes), animal rehabilitation (Greenwood), beaver relocation (Wildlife 2000), school and nature groups, Macgregor Ranch, Cheley Camp, YMCA, and hiking clubs. Sincerely, 3,-18,4 e;- ~*~UEillvE-=A Bryan Michener Vice-President, E.V.I.A. lEFEb cc: Mayor Pinkham Town Trustees Printed ou Recycled Poper TO: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners FROM: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: September 16, 2008 Re: ' Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 Dear Commissioners: We see the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment as a commendable first step. We also believe the revised plan for openspace will include wild life and give much more detailed consider- ation to specie specific habitat issues, biodiversity, and impact on habitat from invassive weeds to mountair pine beetle control. We also reccomend citizen education concerning such issues and our strongest reccomendation is the creation of a commality wide entity to collate wild life knowledge and provide advisory strategies and options for the Estes Valley Planning Commission. This advisory group should include or consult stakeholder groups and organizations L as: Colorado Department of Wildlife, Rocky Mountain National Park, Roosevelt National Forest, Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, Town Parks, Estes Valley Land Trust, Estes Land Stewardship Association, Larimer County Park, Estes Valley Improvement Association, Estes Tree Committee, The Nature Conservary and any other similar groups. The group should also educationally consult with: conservation groups, Hpmeowners Associations, Trout Unlimited, The Elk Foundation, Estes Park Bird Club, gardeners, landscapers (Xeriscaping), animal rehabilitation (Greenwood), beaver relocation (Wildlife 2000) , school and nature groups, Macgregor Ranch, Cheley camp, YMCA, school groups and hiking clubs. Sincerely, CC: Mayor Pinkham Town Trustees Bryan Michener Vice-President, E.V.I.A. U) ~~ SEP 2 9 2008 \ \~ 1 Of- 5- To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners ~ EÂ©ED Â¥011.]1 ~ SEP 1 6 2008 From: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: September 15, 2008 - Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 Dear Commissioners: At a special meeting of the Estes Valley Improvement Association on Thursday, Sept. 1 lth, the group discussed the newly released Estes Valley Habitat Assessment by EDAW of Ft. Collins for the Town of Estes Park. This response has been drawn up over the very few days between that meeting and having it ready to present at the Public Comment portion of your Tuesday, September 16th meeting. To study the Estes Valley habitat is to try to understand the interrelationship of human development and occupation; fish, bird and animal habits and habitat, water resources and vegetation. Habitat is not only affected by buildings and parking lots, but also by other man- made features and human activities which do not require government oversight, such as picnic grounds, hot tubs, campfire areas, etc. Everyone agreed that EDAW did a good job on the report in terms of it's being clear, concise, easy-to-read and understandable, and covers many important aspects of the Valley's habitat. However, our group also concurred that there were many omissions, especially regarding the inter-relationship of the Valley's habitat. Just some of these are: 1. Elk Corridors: While the assessment gives major attention to the elk population and showed elk corridors on Map 4, Ecological Network Priorities, it ignored, for instance, - the Elk Habitat & Migration Corridor on the *Spur Corridor 66 Mgmt. Plan [See Figure 6, attached] - which includes the Elk Conservation Easement established below Thunder Mtn in 1979, and remains a well-used passageway for large numbers of elk. - and perhaps others should have been included, as well. The Assessment does refer to elk habitat "along US Highway 34," Ipg. 121 (which could be anywhere from the Big Thompson Canyon to Old Fall River Road) and, "south of Hwy. 34 and north of Hwy. 66" which is again only a vague reference to where elk actually tend to migrate. Since the Thunder Mountain elk conservation easement lies south of Hwy 66, we were further confused. While the number of elk must be reduced, smaller herds are still a very high value and desirable attribute of the Valley, both in terms of wildli fe/habitat interrelationships and tourism. We believe that the connectivity of multiple corridors must be established and maintained to assure the protection of wildlife and habitat for centuries to come. 23 -1- 2. Aspen and Willow: While aspen is mentioned as "high value" vegetation in Table 2 on page 9, no mention is made of the precariousness of our aspens' very survival, nor of its importance to elk, beaver and other interrelated aspects of wildlife. (For instance, aspen is an important breeding habitatfor many species of migratory birds, particularly for cavity nesters.) In looking at Map 2, Vegetation Communities, the number of significant aspen patches are few and far between in Estes Valley. Obviously the overpopulation of elk has decimated the aspen stands and few, if any, emerging saplings even have a chance of survival. This condition has worsened every year and may not be reflected in the resource studies included in this Assessment. We believe that Estes ValleÂ¥ aspen should rank as the highest level priority for protection. We also note the Assessment stated that 70% of Park visitors come to view elk, but there was no mention of the large numbers of tourists who also frequent Estes in the fall to view aspen leaves. Carr Willow habitats are hardly mentioned. In fact, the Vegetation Communities shown on Map 2 does not even show willows, yet they are an important element of the riparian habitat. 3) Beaver: With global warming and the resulting shrinking ice fields, water flowing from these resources are expected to diminish over the years. Except for man-made reservoirs, beavers may become the only salvation for retaining water in the few remaining wetlands. Yet, beavers consistently leave areas devoid of aspen and/or those disturbed by man. For example, as recently as early this summer a number of beavers were sighted on the Wind River along Spur 66. However it appears now in September that few, if any of the Keystone beavers that have historically populated the Wind River, remain. Why? We believe that new and more intense human activity (including a new zip line that crossed the beaver habitat, and a relocated hay-ride / campfire / picnic area on the YMCA property adjacent to the Wind river, etc.) have caused this abandonment. Again, the interrelationship of aspen, willow, elk and beaver is a good example of the mutual dependability of these various species. 4. Birds. Pollinators. Berries. Flowers. and Related Food Sources: While pages of the Assessment are devoted to elk, except for raptors, only one sentence was included about the 300 species of birds. (For instance, broad-tailed hummingbird breed in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen and riparian woodlands.) Nothing was included about the importance of bee and bird pollinators; berries; flowers; noxious weeds; monarch and other butterflies; milkweed and other food sources. 21- -2- 3 6-5 5. ValleY is Birthing Domain: The Estes Valley is essential to the wildlife of the National Park. While many birds and mammals frequent the higher regions of the Park, the birthing of innumerable mammals and birds (only a few of which are listed below) takes place in the lower altitude of Estes Valley and is key to maintaining the vitality of numerous kinds of wildlife in the broader region. 6. Setbacks and Protection areas: While town development plans mention protection of wetlands, they generally specify 20% green space, and 20' setbacks from streams and wetlands, this may not be adequate for some critical habitats such as: - Birthing areas for deer, elk, bighorn, and beaver, and - Nesting areas for raptors, land birds, waterfowl, etc. For outside town limits, we recommend at least 50% or more green space and more substantial setbacks to protect streams, ponds and wetlands. 7. Sources - Used and Unused: While EDAW cites a number of sources used in the Assessment, we felt that some of the sources, like Colorado Natural Heritage Program, are more state-based and their priority ranking system may not equate to Estes Valley' s unique needs. Other studies we felt important were apparently not considered, including: - Wildlife study for the Wapiti Crossing on Highway 7; - RMNP studies regarding critical beaver loss, - RMNP Related Lands Evaluation, 1998; - the studies done when Thunder Mountain subdivision was planned in 1979. - Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan of 1996 ( - which was the only area outside the town limits that was studied when the EVPC was established) Cone copy of which is being submitted for your reference) *Note: We find it interesting that: a) Along with multiple other agencies, the YMCA helped plan and voluntarily signed onto the principles of the Spur 66 Plan, which included: - the preservation of rural atmosphere along Spur 66; - the elk habitat and migration corridor through the YMCA property [See Figure 6, attached]; - and, by inference, the high value beaver population and aspen groves on Y grounds. b) EDAW drew up the 20 Year Master Plan for the YMCA of the Rockies and is well aware of the Spur 66 Management Plan of 1996. (It wasfi,rnished copies last year when other Spur 66 residents voiced concerns regarding the proposed development in the aspen grove on YMCA property along Spur 66.) c) Now, just a year later, EDAW has - chosen not to include that Spur 66 Plan in the Assessment; - has excluded the YMCA/Spur 66 area in "larger areas with higher habitat values" [pg. 14] - and made only passing mention of the high value of aspen or beaver. It is also our understanding that the EDAW's YMCA Master Plan did not include a wildlife and habitat study because EDAW was not requested to do so by the YMCA. We wonder how this plan got approved without the Commissioners understanding of the impact of such a massive project on the wildlife and habitat? Was a separate wildlife study submitted? If so, why was that information not included in the Assessment? 24 -3- 4 + .5 Conclusion: 1) We applaud the Town and Commissioners for wanting to further investigate the habitat of our Valley, however, in reviewing the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, we.found very little new information and many omissions. In fact, it was very generalized and "nearly all the data presented ... is from available published sources" [pg. 7] which was obviously already readilv available to the Planning Commissioners. 2) We remind you that protected species do not need our protection; it is the habitat and species that are unDrotected by federal or state laws that we must protect on our own. Every time any area, large or small, is impacted by. human development or activities, that big or little bit of habitat is robbed'from nature - usually forever. 3) We feel it is very important to not only study the habitat now, but to track the changes that have taken place in the past (for example, mannots have almost completely disappearedfrom the valley) and could take place in the future. We enthusiastically support your intentions to focus on careful long-term planning which will assure, for instance, that open space will remain; that vegetation will remain balanced; that shelter and birthing areas not be disturbed; that beavers will still be building dams; that food sources will be plentiful; and that connectivity between deer and elk corridors will remain intact 100 years from now. You, the Planning Commissioners, hold in your hands the duty of good stewardship of the flora and fauna of our lahd - to assure the continued health of the abundant Estes Valley wildlife habitat that residents, tourists and biologists hold so dear - and will hopefully be able to enjoy, not only for generations but for centuries to come. Sincerely, '1 1 k ~ A 1 Alice Gray EVIA President I . CC: Mayor Pinkham Town Trustees Attachment: Figure 6, from the Spur 66 Mgmt. Plan; ' Also provided: One copy of the Spur 66 Management Plan, 1996 for your reference. 00 -4- 511-5 M Easia G 5 %% u L 2 C '- i 0 U ' 33 U U CIM. I 50 W UO M ElÂ¢4 i.,/:2 &4 5 A * 4 20 :4 A-t # u) C 0 8 - 2 254 5 4 3 52<6Â«< = -U Cd W El "Al UD *de w= 01 MM 0 40 A.< 4 COÂ·< 0 *0 4 â‚¬4 d G 4 %% 9 Â·,bAKBIOAD 5. 0 1 / UL!Â¢d~ %5 Z - U m -1 61~ I 4 i 1 0 . - -O- ... 20 .. 9L A ly// r- I . ...... , -1 /r , I . M ' [fE ~Â« j , -Â·Â·- ~ i :lif, El AL.29- ...1- :1. - ..i . . I.Ntli i i li 1 NA 1 4 1 C t, 1.2 1-gog I A Â¢23 *9 \ 19 ANOUO 3. WETLANDS 4. BEAVER POND Od IN[-2[03 99 Z[f Glilrlar 1 +3 Association tfor Responsible Development Proposed Action Related to Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment Submitted to Estes Valley Planning Commission 9/16/08 (Please include as part ofthe public record) Introduction: The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain character and natural beauty of the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. We believe the recently-completed Wildlife Habitat Assessment provides a needed foundation for determining what is, and is not, responsible development, in terms ofthe impact of development on wildlife habitat. General Comments Regarding the Wildlife Habitat Assessment: We have reviewed the Assessment in detail and want to thank the Board of Trustees, the Planning Commission, and the Community Development Director for providing this study. It provides thoughtful guidance that can be used to assess the impact of all future developments. Key points made by the study include: a) Estes Valley is admired for its abundant wildlife, natural vegetation, scenic vistas, and rich history (page 1) b) Steady growth has led to habitat loss (page 1) c) Results of this study can be used to identify specific lands that could be considered for some form of protection, and can be used to evaluate planned developments (page 1) d) Estes Valley has become a year-round refuge for many wildlife species, adding to its tourist appeal and importance for regional habitat conservation (page 3) e) This assessment is aimed at identifying the resources that are most important to sustaining the wildlife resources ofthe Valley (page 7) f) Establishing an ecological network for the Valley will make it more probable for populations of native plants and animals to be healthy and even improve over time. This ecological network proposes a series of habitat patches and linkages that collectivelv will create a healthier ecosystem (page 13) We have also noted important considerations arising from this study that must be addressed: 1. The study itselfnotes that it is based, in part, on maps that are decades old, and are in many cases out of date in terms of hydrological and geological features. The study recommends field verification of what the maps show. We support this recommendation, but also recommend that the Town and Copnty develop a plan, budget, and timing for updating these maps. ~ ImÂ©EUVE~ ~ SEP 16 2008 lt 14_3 9- 2. The study identified a surprising abundance ofrare vegetation communities, but did not address the issue of noxious weed invasion and its impact on rare vegetation communities and local wildlife. We recommend that the Town and County fund an effort to map and monitor the impact of noxious weed control programs. 3. Results from this Habitat study must be integrated with results from the recently- authorized Open Space study, as soon as that information becomes available. Description of Important Habitats: The study identifies which habitats are most important and urgent to conserve, and defines three levels ofhabitat: â€¢ Highest Value Habitat: Areas already regulated by laws or policies, and areas which are extremely important to specific species. This includes riparian corridors and bighorn sheep habitat. (page 13) Most ofthese areas are identified in the code, but may not be adequately protected unless the code is amended to clarify enforcement provisions. â€¢ High Value Habitat: Areas with rare or sensitive resources, including rare vegetarian communities, raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, and elk movement corridors. (page 13) Most ofthese areas do not currently enjoy any special protection. We believe that additional protection for such areas should be incorporated into our development code, along with enforcement provisions. â€¢ Other Valuable Habitat: Additional, extensive areas within the Valley, such as forested or shrubland areas with steep slopes. (pages 13-14) "Steep slope" and "limits of disturbance" provisions of the current code may provide some protection to these areas. We recommend clarifying enforcement provisions for protecting such areas. Approach to Code Changes: The Association for Responsible Development asks the Planning Commission to adopt the following as minimum essential reauirements for any meaningful code changes. This approach will help ensure that future development in the Estes Valley preserves the natural features and abundant wildlife that make our valley such a unique place. 1) Require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan (WCP) to determine the impact of any development which affects areas classified as "Highest Value" by this study (e.g., wetlands, bighorn sheep habitat). Require a formal Mitigation Plan from the developer for any negative impact caused by the proposed development as identified in the WCP. Our code should explicitly call for such plans. Developers should pay for, but not directly hire, the certified wildlife biologists who produce these plans. f7 3 23 2) Require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan to determine the impact of any development which affects areas classified as "High Value" by this study (e.g., raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, elk movement corridors). Require a formal Mitigation Plan from the developer for any negative impact caused by the proposed development as identified in the WCP. These areas typically do not now enjoy special protection, but are critical to establishing a viable ecological network for the Valley. Our code should explicitly call for such plans. Developers should pay for, but not directly hire, the certified wildlife biologists who produce these plans. 3) Provide the option for Staffto require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan and a Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan for property which falls within the "Other Valuable Habitat" category when such property has unique characteristics such as: a location which provides continuity or linkage to other protected habitat, an important visitor wildlife viewing area, or is otherwise essential to providing a viable ecological network. 4) Require Wildlife Conservation Plans and Mitigation Plans be independently reviewed, validated, and evaluated for adequacy (in writing) by CDOW representatives. 5) Modify the dode to add provisions for denial of a proposal based on: â€¢ the amount of negative impact the development would have on wildlife and/or habitat as identified in the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and â€¢ the adequacy ofthe Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan. 6) Incorporate the recommended buffer widths listed on page 16 ofthe Wildlife Habitat Assessment. 7) Require an annual audit, by a team including members ofthe Planning Commission, Town Staff, and representatives of the public, to assess compliance with these provisions. Closing: We believe this approach to revising the code will provide improved understanding of wildlife protection requirements for developers and the public, increase public trust in the process, and promote future development that preserves the unique aspects of our Valley. We urge you to ask staff to begin work now on this comprehensive package of changes, with a goal having a draft available for review within two months. We ask that you not~consider other, piecemeal changes to the code in the meantime. We hope you will view these comprehensive changes as one ofyour most important legacies as Planning Commissioners. Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development IL I + ID ~@LEÂ©[SOVE,3 -~ SEP 1 6 2Â°08 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment - August 2008 "Don't Bother Us With Science" A Cautionary Tale Estes Valley Planning Commission, Tuesday, August 19, 2008, presentation of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment by Iii)AW, Inc.... opening comments by EDAW, Inc. representative ~There has been no scientific veri6cation of information used in this reporr. "We analyzed existing information, we reviewed what is already out there". Stated objectives "... intended to update the 1996 map and enhance an understanding of wildlife resources within the Estes Valley." "Geographic Information systems (sic) (GIS) were used as the primary method of analysis for this habitat assessment, which was supplemented by existing research studies and professional opinions." The ctilical questions you should be asking your consultants are what is the basis or source of the underlying map used in 1996 to overlay the Wildlife Habitat information, and consequently what is the basis or source of the underlying maps used in their report on which they oveclaid their information? What is GIS? It is a geographic data base. It does no reseuch or scientific verification of information. It is an aggregation, not a generation, o f geographic infoÂ¤nation. This information can then be questioned, interpreted, analyzed and visualized based upon the criteria of the user. Why is it so important to understand the basis or foundation for the maps being used? Based upon the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan ofDecember 1996 the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted in 2000 and appended a number of Estes Valley Planning Maps which appear therein have arisen from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The Wildlife Habitat map of the 1996 Plan carries the footnote... "rhe map is a general representation of wildlife and related hydrologic systems within the Estes Valley. The information depicted on this map is subject to scientific verification and mayberevised as more accurate information becomes available." 15 1 + lo 4 ./ The cautionary tale...We purchased a lot in 2004 We noted a dry swale running across our lot. We had two architects examine our lot to make certain that we could build our home on it No problems were discovered; just some unique design elements would be needed to bridge the swale. Upon submitting our plans to the Gmmunity Development Department we were advised that according to the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map of the Code that a stream ran though our property, and that Code restrictions relative to setbacks and bridging stearns would prohibit us from building our home. The Â«face' that there was no stream on our property was inconsequential to the Community Development Department it was the map that indicated there was a stream and the map controlled. I started researching the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map. I was interested in determining where it came from. What science was used in its dieation? The Community Development Department never was able to verify the source of the map. I even corresponded with Design Studios West, the consultant engaged for the 1996 Plan. I was never favored with a courtesy o f a reply to my query. Upon my own investigative research I learned that the basis of the map was the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 quadrangle map which was generated in 1976 using standards then inexistence to generate the hydrological information on the map. It was this map that was used for the basis of the various maps of the Plan and the Code. I also learned that in 1971 an "intermittenf' stream was defined as "containing water only part of the year" and was to be shown in USGS maps with a blue dashed line. Keep in mind that the map used in our Town's Plan and Code was generated in 1976. In 1993 the USGS issued new standards and Â«inteimittene' was defined as "containing water for only part ofthe year, but more than just after rainstorms and snowmeW', they further coined a new term Â«wash" gild defined it as "the usually dry portion of a stream bed that contains water only during or after a local rainstoim or heavy snowmeW'. On any new USGS inaps a wash would not be denoted on their maps. In an undated report John Conroy, USGS Nalional Mapping Program Standards Team, concluded in his report Â«we like to remind people that stream H 3 k /9 and classifications was done in the field during a limited time period and relied on observations and inforniation obtained from the local residents and, thus, was a subjective process. No scientific measurements were made to determine the classification." So the Code adopted a USGS map for Stream and River Corridors which appears to have been generated in 1976. A static map that is not updated for new classifications that occurred in 1993. A map that even according to the USGS is not scientific in nature. So here we are today dealing with an analysis which seems to be based upon a 1976 USGS 7.5 quadrangle map, which according to the USGS is not based on science, and has not been updated to reflect new classifications relative to hydrological characteristics. So when I review Map 4 of the new assessment captioned "Ecological Network Ptiorities", our lot is shown as 'THigh Value Habitat" by virtue of a mapped stream corridor through our lot that in fact does not exist Thebest advice youhavebeen given byEDAW is found on page 7... "The use of this information is therefore subject to site specific verification and potential refinement" and footnoted on Map 4 stating "Mapped data was obtained from available sources and is subject to site-specific verification and refinement". Not unlike the footnotes to the maps used for the original 1996 Plan. But the maps were adopted as part of the Code without such cautionaiy footnote. So the Community Development Department evidently has no ability to question the veracity of a map of the Code. I f you adopt these maps as part of the Code you must do so realizing the impact to the public. The cautionary tale continued... in our own case we were required to go before the Board of Adjustment to seek relief from code restrictions for the non-existent stream on our lot We were successful, despite the objection of the Community Development Department, in obtaining the valiances necessary to build our home after a two hour presentation from us and our other professional advisors to show the science and fact relative to the hydrological characteristics of our lot notwithstanding The Map. The out of pocket expense to us was between $14,000 - $15,000, and a three month delay in being able to start our construction. So if you adopt this Map 4 as a part of the Code and make certain development restrictions apply to it, you may again be forcing a lot owner to go through the 1-3 4 4 10 costly and time consuming process of proving the science and fact of the map to be in error. Another consideration you may wish to discuss with the Town Attorney is how to put property owners on note that their property has certain characteristics that may in fact be restrictive in development by virtue of map adopted as part of the Code. For example, the Code was adopted in 2000; we purchased our lot in 2004. The Community Development Department argued that by virtue of the Code being adopted in 2000 and it being a public document that we purchased our property with imputed knowledge of a stream being on our property according to the Stream and River Corridor Map of the Code. The Community Development Department is confusing a public document with a publicly recorded document In the title search on our property in 2004 we were made aware of the publicly recorded easements, zoning and subdivision building listrictions. There were no such publicly recorded documents against our lot showing that that a stream was running though it So I believe you face a challenge when adopting maps without benefit of scientific basis or public recordation on specific parcels of real estate in successfully proving an innocent larid purchaser had actual notice of development restrictions. , In summary... Understand the underlying foundation map is not scientific, as cautioned by your consultant and the USGS. The application of such maps as a part of the Code may in fact work a burden on innocent land owners or purchasers. The position of the Community Development Department seems to be that the Maps of the Code are not subject to revision or interpretation. The maps speak for themselves. Thus you end up shifting the burden to the Board of Adjustment to deal with these issues, and put the financial and research burden on the innocent land owner to disprove. It also seems that if a map is successfully challenged through the Board ofAdjustment, there is no resulting report from the Community Development Department to this Commission to make changes to the Maps of the Code. The maps of the Code stay static. IL 5 4- 10 To think that without proper recordation against parcels of real estate that these Maps of the Code constitute public knowledge to an innocent land owner or purchaser is to strain credulity. This Habitat Assessment is important The resulting protection of lands and development restrictions are important But please, please base it all on fact and science before adopting new inaps for the Code. Thank you, Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 September 16, 2008 G flo ., i 46 tes Vaffei---1 t 11*prehensive Plan ..F 1Â· *t<feÂ·'..'i; LAIN~ , 1 , 407~Â».3 'twÂ¢ :-Â· 4,4,,t. 4-~tfi - 2/3I. / Â« 1 1 .'..t . 'U~ , . 1 1 1 ~t.'. 'till / h- < -~-6 i W... 1 Ali t.0- 4-r/SAÂ· 9 4 ;Â·Â·:~ 3 .*' .~'17,41~f,i .; . :# . Mountain 'j il 12,9.*m'~- *&r,Ir&~*Md,,ifv+z- ~ 4.11 Nationa' .-2. 1 Park . .4 Â·i - V I ./ < 9 . i.' I. . , .-1 <18--1, ~-1 9.3-' - S - . 4 -fL , It' 93 1 11-/ t.: 94.... ' ...44 - Rb-i'~7*'tt- 'rp,tr-tri, ' Am; if -4 -~ -:' --. v. .k# $ Â·Â· V' 1 1,1. .., Â· ~.ky- Â·t=214 Â·" fIL =1,0 211,1,1 , 1 ,Â· :51/.p ~ : , . 1.4 - 217" ... 4 1 i 9 211 -1 71 :+ : 'W*Â¥,4 .9.-i~ i,ni...itiÂ»,Â·41.>,rropf~4Â¥1?Mil,;. r~, 2 . n Â·,7 -7. L.57I7Â·.47461Â·'in~ Mt, 1 .-i 4-7,-2 . I 1, Â· 5 't yfr., , 2126--A,Â·. -~I, 1 - i~ ifÂ·) 41-~Â· :.> -;4, ..:c,- *-72-- -4 ---7 4 I . % legend 7, le,Ul Ul,121â€¢113/121 Stream and River Conidgn Topolocipt' 0. BIO Hom St=p . Interm,Imm St=ms 40 loot cordoun 0 Deer N Snerm and Rhers Wel:nds and 11*11111 Sytiâ€¢ m:Al,bltal P,tme Movoment Cof,tdon : AÂ·' 00 g . Wildlife Habitat E,B %â€¢04 c./.&/Ill ria. REVISED: Dec. 12.1996 ,-,4...D,â€žr........ I. 1,9,m,phiu,la~dietre-/041/Â¥Â·~cildlitbl -rds-trA,logic .711<frmve*, kE,te,VilÂ©, ~ 14 01*-sa dâ€¢pki,di *th-/ b /9/94 10*jtg,pedic v//1,0.50& 4 f-, M 4,1* ..r. /9Â£,/0/0 B SÂ«6 b-ma Oval:Wâ€¢. lO -7 OF lo Iley Stream & River Lorridors Kesource Map $*zet=~**/5Â«#D2,*mmlk;~.=*e,m:GR~ZE:.Me.N.irs*,$*Â·*Cs=Â¤0=gARâ€¢â„¢Â·PÂ·*-.*-Â·~~*~y-9rrÂ· Â·1Â·-Â·-Â·- -~~ =-~a~,mk.'.â€žm;,-4.eat,Kn0~V,grÂ·Â¢~mÂ¢:t,94*A~~0=T- r -=FJ - - . - , 1., 11. .il,1.- 1 -1 Miwi,4/ i Estes Valley Stream & River Corridors Resource Map 4/ Stream and River Corridor Resou rce Map GO kF -Jity .7441*-]*,El b .... EL <040+ 1 U Ad;431/ /~ i lay-rtoZ i -~ '4'&4 / 8.37' ...g r ' 1.-1 I I -1 15. '' Â·AÂ·70 IÂ· A *Â£/61. . 7-- 1 4 1 u (17 1 ... f 1 , Â· 4. i 1 01- 1 I f 0 V -2*Â·Ak-Â·-, fs-z~> . 11=10 . A . - ---1-, 1 Â· -Tr 9 aL :ji .. *Â§1 4 4-U.,LCI Streams.shp E-1 EP-limits.shp 14 Arterial.shp /AV/ponds_lakes.shp W E ~ Pri-rivers.shp Update.shp S 9 http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/StreamsmversMap.aspx Page 1 of 1 ....# /**WI....'All........;I.........02 IniNâ€¢,â€¢er:Â·iÂ¥;t,%,%24':Ir.Wk,19Â®~e.,2:.Ill/*;-MI'll'U*W~u~MtsÂ·I'll :290MM.-afty,t~k,%1â€¢30~,~3*/.aW:Ns'PÂ·ae,e?!Wrj'll'll-IES,;'0:a-'ll.IN1~~eyÂ»Marl=....-4-S. el.Gme'llr..02=mt-.Il g i 1 o -l - . HYDROGRAPHY Our standards web address is http://mapping.usgs.gov/standards/. If L you click on Digital Line Graphs, locate the Standards for 1:24,000- Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps, and click on Part 2: Hydrography, Contents, and Stream/River, you will find the current definitions for perennial and intermittent. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), which is still in draft form, is used for collecting and revising digital vector hydrographic data. You can work your way to the definitions in the NHD standard on the standards web site the same way you did for the Hydrography chapter. The definitions for perennial and intermittent in the NHD standard are worded the same way as they are in the Hydrography standard. So-metimes people want to know what the criteria was for compiling streams on a particular map, which calls for a little different answer. The following is a brief historical summary of the criteria we have used over the years: The location of streams on USGS maps is subject to the same National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS) requirements as all other features at 1:24,000-scale, which is 1/50-inch (40 feet). The source that is used is aerial imagery that has been scaled and rectified, to,insure that all streams'that are compiled in source position meet NMAS for horizontal accuracy. If a saddle or divide. is not involved, the streams are compiled - where thechannel becomes visible. If the headwaters of a stream are closer than 1,000 feet from a saddle or divide, the stream is compiled as beginning 1,000 feet from the saddle or divide. Over the years, the length requirement for streams has changed from 1,500 feet to 2,500 feet. Also, we used to show all perennial streams, regardless of length or location, but since 5/93 we have only shown perennial streams shorter than 2.500 feet if they are in arid areas or if they flow from,lakes/ponds or springs. The current (1996) standards say: If STREAM/RIVER flows from LAKE/POND or SPRING/SEEP, Or If STREAM/RIVER is 2 1.25" along the longest axis, Or If STREAM/RIVER is perennial and is in an arid region, Then capture. Up until the early 1980's, 7.5-minute map features were shown exclusively with what is referred to as "Part 6" symbology.' On Part 6 symbology maps, single line perennial streams are symbolized with a solid line and intermittent streams are shown with a dash/dot symbol, both with a lineweight of .005â€¢. Beginning in the early 1980's, new "Part 5" solid line stream symbology began being used on some maps, primarily because it was easier to digitize solid lines using the technology that was in use at the time, but also because it took less time to hand-scribe solid line symbols. On Part 5 symbology maps. single line perennial streams are shown with a .008" line and intermittent streams are shown are shown with a .004" line. In some States, provisional maps (P-maps) were also prepared in the 1980's with unconventional symbology reproduced, for the most part, from original map manuscripts. For economic purposes, maps are currently revised using the original symbology (normally Part 6). Page 1 of 3 9 /1- l 0 4- The National Mapping Program of the USGS (formerly the Topographic Division) has had a few slightly different definitions for perennial and intermittent over the years: Prior to the 1950's, the following definitions were in use {Topographic Instructions of the United States Geological Survey, Bulletin 788, 1928): Perennial Stream--A perennial stream is one that flows throughout the year. Intermittent Stream--An intermittent stream is one that is dry for a considerable time each year, say for three months or longer. Intermittent and Dry Lakes--Shallow lakes and ponds that are dry for many months each year. In the 1950's the following definitions were in use (Topographic Instructions. Chapter BAB. Maggina of Hydrographic Features, 1954): Perennial--Those hydrographic features that contain water for the major part of the year. Intermittent--Those hydrographic features that are dry for the major part of the year. In 1971, the standard was revised and renamed Topoaraohic Instructions. Chapter 3AS. Hydrographic Features. The definitions were changed to: Perennial--Containing water throughout the year (except for infrequent periods of severe drought). Intermittent--Containing water only part of the year. In 1978, the chapter number of the standard was changed to 4B7. There were no other revisions to the standard at this time. In 1980, the standard was renamed Topographic Instructions. Chapter 4AE. Hvdrographic Features on 1:24.000-Scale Mal)s, 1980; however, the definitions of perennial and intermittent were unchanged. In 1993, the definitions became as follows (Standards for 1:24.000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Ouadrangle Mans. Part 2: Hydroqraohv, 5/93): Perennial--Contains water throughout the year, except for infrequent periods of severe drought. Intermittent--Contains water for only part of the year , but more than just after rainstorms and at snowmelt. The change in the intermittent definition was necessary because washes were defined as being: Wash--The usually dry portion of a stream bed that contains water only during or after a local rainstorm or heavy snowmelt. Page 2 of 3 1 to 'f (0 In 1996, the Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Granhs and Ouadrangle Maps were updated, but the definitions for perennial and intermittent streams remained the same. That being said, we like to remind people that stream classification was done in the field during a limited time period and relied on observations and information obtained from local residents and, thus, was a subjective process. No scientific measurements were made to determine the classification. John Conroy USGS, National Mapping Program Standards Team i conroy@usqs.gov (573) 308-3804 Page 3 of 3 C From: David Tiemeyer 3245 Tunnel Road Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-0373 To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Date: September 14,2008 Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 Dear Commissioners: 1 havereviewed the document emitled Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008, prepared for the Town ofEstes Park by EDAW, Inc. and have some general comments that I would like to pass along to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Estes Valley/ Habitat Assessment (EVHA) was by EDAW's own admission a summary of a select few previously published documents. One problem, ofcourse, is reliance on outdated and generalized information. Another problem with this approach is that any errors and omissions in those documents are passed on to this report with little or no field verification. It is beyond the scope ofthis correspondence to identify each shortcoming in the text. However, there are several glaring omissions. â€¢ Basic to a habitat assessment is discussion ofthe current state ofhealth ofeach habitat type. â€¢ The rate ofchange ofresource depletion is crucial to determining appropriate action. â€¢ An appendix should be included that lists all wildlife species in the valley. Statements like: "The area is home to more than 300 bird species" should include further discussion. â€¢ The report should address important habitat found on large private parcels within the Estes Park Valley including the YMCA Conference Center, the Cheley Camp and the Honda properties. â€¢ The Spur 66 Management Plan (1996) warrants inclusion in the reference section. I would hope that the Town ofEstes Park would seek inclusion ofthese points before release ofthe Final Report. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Sincerely, ..3361712-t-1-;GÂ¢*127 *ed David H. Tiemeyer ~IL-OiEDÂ¥[E'i\ Estes Valley Resident ' ~ ~~ft SEP 1 5 2008 -t=~ L _-3 -5 l+H September 13, 2008 1 - - Dear Estes Valley Planning Commissioners, (cc: Mayor Pinkham, Town Trustees) Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 As a wildlik biologist, I had been eagerly awaiting the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment developed for the Town ofEstes Park. Having reviewed that document, however, I am very disappointed with the product, which is better titled "Assessment Light". Because others, including EVIA, have provided specific points which they feel, and I concur, need addressing in this report I will not go into similar details but rather give you my broad brush and blunt assessment. This report is a simple regurgitation of existing information and data pulled together for other areas, such as the *om park's elk management plan and especially the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CHNP), which are irrelevant to the process of identifying, evaluating, and strategizing for the protectionofimportant wildlife habitat in the Estes Valley. This is not an original assessment; it is not comprehensive, localized, ground- I - truthed, or visionary. It does not contain information about the condition or management ofhabitat, nor does it talk about or take into account trends. It spends less space talking about the full suite of wildlife species in the Estes Valley than it does about CNHP rare vegetation communities which do not impact the sustaining ofwildlife in the Valley. The report even concludes that most of the'thighest value habitat" resources are currently protected. This is absolutely a fitlse contention, as there are many areas, at varying scales, which contain important wildlife habitat throughout the Valley which could and should be protected through various actions. [For instance, there is no specific mention ofthe YMCA's Estes Park Center property, which contains important riparian habitat, wildlife corridors, and a surrounding"green" buftbr which should be in a conservation easement, a particularly ironic omission since EDAW also produced the Y's Master Plan.] However, that conclusive statement, buried as it is, is likely the outcome the Town wanted for its money because it means no further action is needed to protect Wildlife habitat in the Estes Valleys andtherefore development can proceed anywhere. Thus, the value ofthis assessment is extremely limited ifyou support protecting wildlife habitat in the Valley, but is very useful is you wish to develop it. No surprises here. OA-.0-6 *222-,-k4'u Carol Beidleman 3245 Tunnel Road Estes Park, CO 80517 . 9 1 Lf 'f Wildlife documented along Upp6r-Spur 66/Tunnel Road, Estes Park From YMCA entrance to Thunder Mountain, 1988-2008 By Carol Beidleman, Wildlife Biologist (OrnithologisO, 3245 Tunnel Road, Estes Park September 2008 MAMMALS Bat species Nuttall's Cottontail Snowshoe Hare Chipmunk species Yellow-bellied Marmot Wyoming Ground Squirrel Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel Abert's Squirrel Fox Squirrel Chickaree Northern Pocket Gopher Beaver Deer Mouse Vole species Yellow-bellied Marmot Porcupine Coyote Red Fox Black Bear (including with cubs) Raccoon Long-tailed Weasel Badger Mountain Lion Bobcat American Elk (including calving areas) Mule Deer (including fawning areas) BIRDS Great Blue Heron Canada Goose Mallard Common Goldeneye Turkey Vulture Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper's Hawk ..@Â®E OVE= Northern Goshawk Red-tailed Hawk ~ SEP 1 6 2008 Golden Eagle Al 3 4- H Bald Eagle Dusky Grouse Wild Turkey Common Snipe Band-tailed Pigeon Mourning Dove Eurasian Collared Dove (non-native) . Great Horned Owl Northern Pygmy-Owl Northern Saw-whet Owl Common Nighthawk Black Swift Broad-tailed Hummingbird Rufous Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Red-naped Sapsucker Williamson's Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker . -Northern Flicker- Olive-sided Flycatcher Western Wood-Pewee Cordilleran Flycatcher Western Kingbird Eastern Kingbird Northern Shrike Warbling Vireo Plumbeous Vireo Steller's Jay Blue Jay Western Scrub-Jay Gray Jay Pinyon Jay t Clark's Nutcracker American Magpie _ Common Raven American Crow Horned Lark Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Black-capped Chickadee Mountain Chickadee Red-breasted Nuthatch White-breasted Nuthatch Pygmy Nuthatch Brown Creeper 3 HAH House Wren Ruby-crowned Kinglet Townsend's Solitaire Mountain Bluebird Western Bluebird Eastern Bluebird American Robin Hermit Thrush Swainson's Thrush Brown Thrasher European Starling (non-native) Tennesse Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Black-throated Gray Warbler Townsend's Warbler Wilson's Warbler Western Tanager Black-headed Grosbeak Rose-breasted Grosbeak Lazuli Bunting Indigo Bunting Green-tailed Towhee American Tree Sparrow Chipping Sparrow Harris's Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco (Oregon, Pink-sided, White-winged, Slate-colored, Gray-headed) Brown-headed Cowbird Red-winged Blackbird Brewer's Blackbird Common Grackle Bullock's Oriole Evening Grosbeak Pine Grosbeak Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch (Gray-checked, Gray-crowned) Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Black Rosy-Finch Cassin's Finch House Finch Red Crossbill Common Redpoil Pine Siskin American Goldfinch