The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-10-206-40 Prepared: October 6,2009 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 20,2009 4:00 Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202, Town Hall 6:00 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 - September 15, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting 3. REVISIONS TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - 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 EVDC Chapter 13, and revisions to distinguish between B&Bs and vacation home uses and the districts in which these uses are permitted. 4. REVISIONS TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES - KITCHENS The proposed amendments include revisions to Section 5.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code, to allow accessory kitchens in single-family residential dwellings. Proposed code changes include a definition of an accessory kitchen, clarification that an accessory kitchen is not considered a second unit and the dwelling is bound by the definition of household living, provision that interior access shall be maintained, and warrants for when a land use affidavit would be required. 5. REPORTS YMCA Signage Master Plan - Approved by County Commissioners September 21, 2009 Wonderview Village Supplemental Condo Map #3 - Scheduled to be heard by Town Board on October 27,2009,7:00 p.m. EVDC Wildlife Habitat Code Revisions - Scheduled to be heard by the County Commissioners in Estes Park Town Hall Board room on November 9,2009,6:30 p.m. 6. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was , prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission September 15, 2009, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner John Tucker "-f 4 The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda anÂ¢(fot nedessarily the chronological sequence. >t Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m: 1 Â£ /7 14 -X, 4 '96 . I I ....92 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 21 1 A None. Â» /7 --it?%b +1,~ir 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. 4k Approval of minutes from August 188 2009 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Frautidorf) that the cobsent agenda be approved as corrected, and the motion passed'Onaniniously withxo*e absent. X1/7 .....1 / 3. AMENDED PLAT 7<Lots 9,10,11,12 & a portion oflot 8, Block 1, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes ParK, Owner/Applicant: Tlibmas Widawski i 1 iÂ» Planner Shirk reviefed the staff repgrt. If approved, this amended plat will consolidate five lots into tvyo lots and Will. All&) the ex!*ting stfuctures to fit on their own lots. He stated the owner plitns on?*storingÂ»th@*existing"buildihgs at 203 and 205 Park Lane, which straddle existi~ propertÂ¢ lineAThe briginal lots were platted in 1907. 4 1 \\ /9 Thisproposal complies with apblidable section of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDÂ¢),~#hd has been Au6mitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment No signifidaht issues or concerns were expressed. / 'f Ri. This is a PlakningÂ£ommission recommendation to the Town Board. Staff recommends approval with cohditi@is outlined in the Staff Report. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering represented the applicant, who has read and agrees with the conditions of approval. The proposed plan includes some change of use of the buildings, all of which are allowed in the Commercial Downtown zoning district. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Poggenpohl) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 9,10,11,12 and a portion of Lot 8, Block 1, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with memos from Estes Park Sanitation District, Town Attorney Greg White, and Public Works Department 4. REVISIONS TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - SHORT TERM RENTALS Revisions to vacation home regulations, including revisions to the definition of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 September 15, 2009 accommodation use, guest room, quest 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. Director Joseph reviewed the Problem Statement, which has evolved out of various discussions between Staff, Planning Commission, and Town Board during study sessions and email correspondence. The following consensus has been reached: The issue is to clarify the distinctions between a B&B and a vacation home; the purpose is to reconcile the current municipal code regulations with reference, in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). In particular, Staff has asked the Town Board to voice their opinions about whether or not the use of a vacation home should be allowed as a principal use in a - tesidential zoning/district. Of the respopses received 'thus far, Town Board supports principal use; the scope is to clarify the definlions of VEatidn hotnes and bed and breakfasts, realizing that outright prohibition of vacation homes and B&Bs is not open for consideration. Town Board has given this code revision a "medium" level of priority; and finally, the desired outcome is to enhance the clarity and predictability of the regplatory framework for owners of vacation home property And theirneighbors, and to produce a regulation that can be adopted into the EVDC. fat Planner Chilcott stated Section 4.3 would add vacation .homes as"ai,principal lise in all residential zoning districts, a change from the,ctirt*Rt.abcessory >tsÂ¢X~&Bs would be allowed as a principal use in R-2 and RM zonitig districts. Sectioh 4.4 removes B&Bs from the CO zoning district. The reasoning#dehind this bhange is B&82'arkÂ·iRtended to exist in single-family homes, which are not 'an'alloweabuse in the CO/district. The proposed revisions also line up the language in 'theAMuhicilial Code witti the EVDC by eliminating the term "nightly rental"*0pd replacing it *ith''Vacation home Director Joseph clarified the Town Board has exclusive.rights on revisi6ns to the Municipal Code, and the changes listed in this draft would nedd their'approval. \j.~f ' Planner Chilcott stated section 5.1 clarifies distinctions between B&Bs and vacation 4/ 6/+ 4."e I homes, using some *the~language frorghe Municipal,Code and inserting it into the EVDC. A business license would be requiredvfor B&Bsiand vacation homes located within the Town limits, anti i perMit Would be reqlltred if the B&B or vacation home is outside the Town limit but,*itllin~he EVDC area. LÂ®guage in the Municipal Code concerning property managers'being availhble 24 hoursjÂ£day would move into EVDC. A Colorado sales tax license numljer Will'be reÂ®ired._f Plannerthilcott reviewed the exception for B&Bs and vacation homes in the CD zoning districi, where the*dehign afid *operation should be in character with the residential n"eighborhood. She sthted.sectidn,818.1.d.2 and 5.1.B.1.d.3 may need modification at a later dat#depending ortth'e outc8me of code revisions concerning the number of kitchens allowed in,bdingle-family)home. Any accessory buildings on the property shall not be used for arhedities beyoAd a gazebo or similar outdoor room. No changes in the exterior appearance shaft '.bp all66ved, except for permitted signage. Traffic and noise levels shall not be out of ch~arattg<with residential use. Where parking is concerned, Planner Chilcott stated all B&Bs sball have at least two parking spaces, and no more than three vehicles shall be parked Aside at any one time. On-street parking is prohibited. Several items in this proposed code revision are included as cross-references with other areas in the EVDC. Namely; Employee Housing Units, Attainable Housing Units, and Accessory Dwelling Units. In the CD zoning district, B&Bs and vacation homes are not allowed on the ground floor of 'd building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. Also, only one vacation home or B&B shall be permitted per residential dwellihg unit. Section 5.1.B.2 addresses differences for maximum occupancy between B&Bs and vacation homes as well as the number of parties allowed to rent rooms at B&Bs. No more than eiglit guests shall occupy a B&B at any one tirne, in addition to the owners or l operators of the business. B&Bs may be rented, leased; or furnished to one or more parties at the same time. The maximum occupancy for vacation homes shall follow the EVDC regulations for the number of persons allowed under the household living definition. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 15, 2009 Vacation homes shall be rented to no m6re than one party, and the owners of the home shall not be permitted to occupy the home while a party is present. Planner Chilcott stated the existing legal, non-conforming B&Bs would be grandfathered as long as they remain in continuous operation as a B&B. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed code revisions allow B&Bs to provide meal service to registered guests, but not to the general public. Also, B&Bs may offer limited ancillary services to guests as a home occupation. Home occupations in vacation homes and/or accessory dwelling units are prohibited. Planner Chilcott noted a change in section 5.2.B.1 to remove nightly rentals as an accessory use, and the rules pertaining to vacation homes moved to the principal use section. She noted the various points of cross-reference in the code includes using the same language and terms between both the Municipal Code and the Development Code. In section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases, there,hdsÂ·been a slight revision to the definition of B&B, changing owner-occupied to operatdr-occupied. The definition for nightly rentals was removed and replaced with a definitioÂ¢1.16r *acation home, both in the 0 0 Municipal Code and the Development Code. Commissipner Lane suggested a change in the definition of Accommodations Use to read,for~cbmpens)#dhgather than for a consideration. Planner Chilcott noted this definitioh'covers all typekof accommodations, not just vacation homes and B&Bs. A clarificatidri was alfo made in thb.Hou~ehpId Living definition to differentiate between long-term*at;~short-term.rentals, 9. .\1 4.-4 Staff recommends keeping the current definition of a<Guest Unit or Gu~st Room. This could be revised at a later date depÂ®ding on the outbofhe of the kitchen code revisions. \\ Commissioner Norris suggested adding lahguage to ensure theresis a responsible party in charge of the property, as well as lahgdlige fb.e':pure the*coll6ction of the appropriate taxes. .4, % 2, / 13 //,/ , :Up / Public Comment: ,+I... h None. N,,1.9, %\ 44'. \ 1 It was moved and'sdbonded~(Hull/Fraundo'@G continue the revisions to the EVDC for ShortTerrn Rdn*'*-to.Jilie--next/fegular meeting. The motion passed unanimously with one absent. ---- .1 .0 1 h\.% 1 1.4,% \.-tf. 5. REPORTS . : 1 / 'f Director,Jopeph distribiltdd copMs of Draper City, Utah's code on second kitchens in single-familg.dwellings. }14 requested feedback on this code from the Commissioners. Commissionet>Klink stat6d that from the Study Session discussion, it is suggested wording should read Adbitiona/frather than Second kitchen. Reviewing the Draper City Code, Development Standaids-Permitted Use, it was agreed amongst the Commission to: strike item (1) The residbribe shall have only one front entrance; incorporate (2) The residence shall have only o~te address; incorporate part of (3) An interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the residence to assure that an accessory unit or apartment is not created; do not incorporate the second sentence of (3); defer (4) to the Light & Power department to determine incorporation; more discussion needs to occur between staff and Commissioners concerning (5) A second kitchen shall exist only as pan of the primary structure and shall not be installed in an accessory or "out" building. The comment was made that this is not applicable because accessory dwelling units are not allowed in the EVDC area; incorporate (6) which requires a deed restriction declaring the residence will not be converted into two or more units without specific approval; strike (7) concerning limiting use of the single family residence to a family only. Town Attorney White stated the deed restriction should be written strong enough to cover the use of the residence; strike (8) Construction of any such kitchen shall meet standards of the current building codes adopted by the City. It is felt this is redundant. It is understood current building codes will RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 15, 2009 apply. Commissioner Klink directed Staff to produce a draft and present it at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Norris stated Staff and the Planning Commissioners have compiled a list of possible code changes and will be submitting them to the Town Board for prioritization. The Community Development Department ha& had no pre-application meetings since the last Planning Commission meeting. The Town Board approved the Location & Extent/Special Review 09-01 for the Stanley Park Grandstand. Commissioner Klink asked Director Joseph to explain the enforcement process with the current. complaints at a residence on Grand Estates Drive. Director Joseph stated this ongoing enforcement action involves an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit in a detached garage. The property owner is willing to try to come into con]Plianc&and is in the process of connecting the garage to the principal dwelling. Permits'Were issued, the owner was advised the garage could not be used as a living unit, andkneighbor has complained that the condition was being violated. She also complain6d abdbt bonstruction on the site taking too much time. The Building Department insp'ect&~the prhp;hy and asked for and received a letter from .the owner stating his intentÂ»toEorrect thd Ar@nt code violations. The property gwner denies violation of occupar,69 of the garage. Directoâ‚¬Uoseph believes there has been an ongoing effortby the propAtÂ¢ownert&;reach compliance'with the code. The neighbor is well within their rights to expebt,#ode corr?pliance. Buildit@*permits have an expiration date, but as long as you show progrehs(the p?ocess can go on for a long time. The department continues to work with both pArties. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjournedthe,meeting at 7:15 p.m. \V:NON# >1 V \47 ~hair /321 1- Karen'Thompson, Recording Secretary 47 , ~ Amendments to the /'/-'V Estes Valley Development Code Vacation Homes & BPs 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: September 15, 2009 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 qrstuv w 2. New text delineated with underline (abc de fahi ik Imn op arstuv w xvz). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. it._New. revisions are. highlighted in yellowl Revision Date: September 10, 2009 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. Additional s- I -- ' - 1-6-': il |34'f '=tin 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 Breakfast S Low-Intensity Inn ------2 P Â§5.1.B Accommodations Vacation Home 2 2 fE E Â£ 2 2 Â§5.1.B 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 breakfast P P pp-- inns building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue 1n CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a Hotel, Small - P P - - building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue Low- Â§5.1.B Intensity Accommoda In CD, such use shall not be tions located on the ground ftoor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Nigh&19 Avenue Re/*als - P P - - - - â€¢Short term and long term nightly Vacation rentals allowed as a principal use Home in a residential dwelling unit -See also Table 5 2 which allows nightly rentals as an accessory use to a dwelling unit in the A 1 and GD-00RiagÂ·Â·diGÂ¢FieÂ¢G Revision Date: September 10, 2009 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 appea~anee: 2. If four (1) or more off street parking spaces are provided pursuant to Â§7.11, 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 tommunity Development Department Towrl tlerk' s Office J (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. (3) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operatind 7permit shall_be_p.r.qof of a current.sales_tax.licenseJ b. State Sales Tax License. All bed and breakfast innsind vacation hon=; shlili bbtain 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. Revision Date: September 10, 2009 3 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: (1) Except in the CD district, 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 breakfust 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 levels shall not be out of character with residential use. e. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking, Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district. the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing 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 may further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site. f. Emplovee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or 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). Revision Date: September 10,2009 Â· 4 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 tenancy). 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. i Density. Only one vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be 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 anv one time. This maximum allowable occupancy 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. p b. Home Occupations. Home occupations mav be operated on the site of a bed and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns mav 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. b._Housekeeping Services. Bed iRR breakfast inns shall be permitted to providd haily 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 Revision Date: September 10, 2009 5 limits for individual rooms within a vacation home. For example, three individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and one individual in another. (2) Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented. leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party. One (1) party shall consist of related and/or non-related individuals occupying 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.B.2.d). 6._ Housekeeping Services. Vacation homes shall be permitted to provide housind hervices only at the beginning and end of a partv's stay) h._Meal Service. Vacation homes 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 I)istricts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R.2 RM Requirements Nighgy-Rei#al& BEREEPER M.2.2.2.g Â¥aeaden-Hemi 45~4=B 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. Rentals. (1) Long term rentals (lease terms of thirty [30] days or more) of a principal or Â·accessory residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts. Revision Date: September 10, 2009 6 (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 residential zoning districts, provided that the following conditions are met. All permitted short term rentals of dwelling units shall be required to: (a) Comply with all the conditions and requirements as set forth in the Town 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: September 10, 2009 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 I)istricts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Requirements Nightl>*Reivals No Yes Yes No No No No Â§5.1.B Vacation Home In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue â€¢As accessory to a pFineipa~fesidenUak*ee â€¢*hehe*+468878#huy rental of a dwelling unit as an accessory use in the A 1 and CD districts shall 9*bea*eMe-the requirements of Â§5.2.B.2.g abeÂ¥er -See also Table 1 1 which pefmi46Â·-RighUy rentals as a principal use ef-*-dwell-ing-unitinÂ·the A 1 and CD zoning distfiets. Section 5.2.D General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. Except as otherwise 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) years to 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: September 10, 2009 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-Street Parking 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 n/a permanent residence Low-Intensity Hotel, Small 1 per guest room + 1 space per 3 rda Accommodations ennployees Resort lodgekabins, low- 2 per cabin or guest room + 1 space rV a 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-ep-Femed 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 see 2.b(3) below). Except in tfi3 UD district, s*ucll 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: September 10, 2009 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) Nightly-Remake Nightly Rentals: In the A 1 or CD zoning districts, a single family, duplex or multi family dwelling unit that is leased for compensation, 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 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 or mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than foilr (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 Home. A residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased. or occupied 'as a single accommodations uniÂ£ Mr accommodations purposed for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases 6. Accommodations Use shall mean a commercial, 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 accessory 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, anv 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. Revision Date: September 10, 2009 10 18. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident 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. K room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains sleeping and ERAitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities. With the excel)tioll Lf guest units or guest rooms in bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes, guesf linits or guest rooms may include limited kitchen facilities J Instead of the previously recommended revision above, _keep_the_existing-code_sd hlat "a" would_continue to. read,- k. A room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains_sleeping.and lanitary. facilities_and.that may-include limited kitchen facilitiesJ 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 (31/2) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. 159. Nightly Rentals, Long Tcrm 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 Â·accessory nightly rental uses in the residential zoning districts. 160. Nightly Rentals, Short Term 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: September 10, 2009 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 in_any hotel, motel, guest house, bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single family dwelling, duplex, multiple family dwelling, condominium unit, vacation home or any such similar placei_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 accommodation_for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) deys: Accommodation means the rental, leasing, or occupancy of an accommodation site and/or accommodations 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, "'hich are located on one (1) . individual parcel of real property and under management control for rental purposes of an agent, entity or agency. r Accommodation site means one (1) individual parcel of real property consisting of one (1) of 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. Accommodations 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 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. (10) Vacation homc 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: September 10, 2009 12 Vacation home means a residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied 52 single accommodations uniÂ£ For accommodations purposed 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 RM. This Section shall applY to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. (1) 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‚¬14#Fiets. Revision Date: September 10, 2009 13 e. 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. 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 responsibility to notify the Utility Billing Department when the residence is no longer being used as a vacation home after the license expires. h. The 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 shall 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 and 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 Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 of 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. Revision Date: September 10, 2009 14 (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: 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 shall 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: September 10, 2009 15 ~ Accessory Kitchens ~ Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 *I==0 Estes Park, CO 80517 ~ Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www. estesnet.com DATE: Planning Commission - October 20,2009 ' I I. 11Â¥mklitv J Town Board - TBD Rlky â€žc.- u _ I A'blr*in USE Board of County Commissioners - TBD NE,horal BA e REQUEST: To adopt regulations pertaining to multiple kitchens in a single-family dwelling. C USES Ek*/*hy 1 STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this amendment is to establish use and development regulations for a second kitchen within a single-family dwelling. These regulations are intended to support the following purposes: 1) To allow accessory kitchens associated with single-family dwellings, for use by the family residing within the dwelling unit, accessory to the first kitchen within the dwelling unit. 2) Approval of a kitchen accessory to a single-family dwelling shall not be considered approval of a second dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit. FORMATTING: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in red underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in blwe-6tFikettweugh. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] B. 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 kitchen Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Â§5.2.B.2.q' 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. a. Accessory Kitchen. (1) Approval of a kitchen accessory to a single-family dwellinq shall not constitute approval of a second dwellina unit or accessory dwelling unit. (2) The dwellinci shall not be occupied bv more than one family unit, as defined in Section 13.2.C.28 "Household Living." 1 (3) The dwellina shall have onlv one address. (4) Interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the dwellina to assure that an accessory dwellina unit or apartment is not created. (5) Land Use Affidavit. (a) Accessorv kitchens located in a portion of the dwellinq that also includes sanitarv facilities shall require a Land Use Affidavit prepared bv the Community Development Department. (b) The Community Development Department shall record this Land Use Affidavit, at the applicant's expense, at the time of issuance of a building permit. C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. [No Changes] D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. The following standards shall apply to all accessory uses and structures in all zoning districts, except for: (1) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to residential uses that are one (1) meter or less in diameter; and (2) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to nonresidential uses that are two (2) meters or less in diameter. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 5. Maximum Cumulative Gross Floor Area Allowed for all Accessory Uses in Accessory Buildings, Accessory Structures and/or Principal Buildings for Residential Uses. Maximum cumulative gross floor area for all accessory uses, excluding accoesory nightly rentals, in accessory buildings, accessory structures and/or principal buildings (excluding: accessory kitchens: and, accessory nightlv rentals in accessory or principal structures) shall not exceed the largest computation of the following: a. One thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross floor area; b. Fifty percent (50%) of the gross floor area of the principal building, excluding the attached garage floor area; c. For lots with a net land area greater than one-half (14) acre and less than or equal to one (1) acre: 500+[1,000(a)]*. d. For lots with a net land area greater than (1) acre: 1,400+[400(a)]*. *Where "a" = net land area in acres Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.2.C 28. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident 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. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, manufactured housing and other structures with self-contained dwelling units. Section 13.3 130. 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. 130.1 Kitchen, Accessory sha\\ mean a kitchen other than the principal kitchen associated with a single-family dwelling. ACCESSORY KITCHEN - ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROPERTY ADDRESS: BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: PARCEL NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1/WE, the undersigned as owner(s) of the above referenced real property, have read and understand Section 5.2.820, entitled Accessory K#chens, of the Estes Valley Development Code. 1 (we), as owner(s) of the property, understand and acknowledge the requirements and conditions under which this Accessory Kitchen is approved. This shall include the following requirements: (1) Approval of the accessory kitchen shall not constitute approval of a second dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit. (2) The dwelling shall not be occupied by more than one family unit, as defined in Section 13.2.C.28 "Household Living." (3) The dwelling shall have only one address. (4) Interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the dwelling to assure that an accessory dwelling unit or apartment is not created. (5) <insert conditions that may apply> This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Property as a burden thereon, for the benefit of, and enforceable by, the Town of Estes ParldLarimer County, Colorado and its respective successors and assigns. This Agreement shall bind each Owner, and each Owner shall be personally obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein, during the Owner's period of ownership of the Property. Each and every conveyance of the Property, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants contained in this Agreement, even without reference to this Agreement in any documents of conveyance. Each Owner agrees to comply with the provisions of this Deed Restriction as a requirement for title and is therefore personally obligated to perform and observe all the conditions of approval and restrictions on the use of the Property set forth above. The Town of Estes Park/Larimer County, Colorado shall have the right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, a suit for equitable relief to enforce compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Owner shall pay all court costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the Town of Estes Park/Larimer County, Colorado in the enforcement of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the undersigned, his/her personal representatives, heirs, transferees, successors and assigns, and future owners of this Property. ACKNOWLDEGED AND AGREED TO this day of 20 OWNER (print name) OWNER (signature) STATE OF COLORADO ) ' )SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by ' Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: , 4/ Renewable Energy Survey results will be distributed at the Planning Commission Study Session on October 20,2009. Results will also be posted on the Town website as soon as they are completed. Possible Factors to Consider Regarding Wind Turbine Regulations Ron Norris: 10/19/09 â€¢ Public opinion â€¢ Current State (and likely future developments) of wind turbine technology â€¢ Reliability of residential wind turbines â€¢ Energy conservation potential of residential turbines vs. other alternatives â€¢ Public safety â€¢ Noise â€¢ Property rights of owners â€¢ Impact on neighbors â€¢ Impact on property values â€¢ Impact on views, Estes Park's image, and tourism Work Process for EVDC Changes Problem Statement on Wind Turbines, Rev. 0: 10/14/09 To: Staff and Planning Commissioners From: Ron Norris Issue: (Describe the issue being addressed and why/reasons change is needed.) Current Estes Valley Development Code does not regulate installation of residential wind turbines by individual property owners. It is not immediately obvious whether regulation of these turbines is needed, and if so, what regulations would be appropriate. Community opinion is divided, with some residents supporting installation, and others concerned about the impact of these turbines on views, noise, and wildlife. Purpose: (State problem to be solved in 2-3 sentences.) Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Scope: (Explain: 1. What is and is not to be considered. 2. Any other constraints or boundaries within which the work is to be kept. 3. Desired timing. 4. Suggested priority for this change.) 1. Collect community input on potential benefits and problems associated with residential turbines. 2. Assess the current state of residential wind turbine technology and economics. 3. Summarize key findings. 4. Recommend any action needed to regulate these turbines, and reasons why. 5. Provide recommendations to the Town Board before expiration of the current wind turbine moratorium in November 2009. Desired Outcomes: (Describe the benefits to be gained by solving this problem.) â€¢ Clear understanding of the community's views on this issue. â€¢ Understanding of the current state of wind turbine technology and economics, in order to provide a sound basis for recommendations. â€¢ A recommendation on whether these turbines should be regulated, and why or why not. â€¢ A list of any specific recommendations for regulations, the reasons for these regulations, and benefits to the community for having them. â€¢ A list of any potential adverse consequences of these regulations, and how they can be avoided or mitigated. â€¢ Public awareness of any proposed regulations, reasoning, and benefits. Developed Bv: Ron Norris, for consideration by Planning Commissioners and Staff. 32Â©EDVE-=f Summarv of Information on Wind Turbines ~L~ OCT 1 2 2(]09 ,~ From October 7,2009 Visit to National Renewable Energy Laboratol,y in Golden Ron Norris, October 11, 2009 L~ I dt- 7--xj Introduction: On a tour arranged by Sustainable Mountain Living, we met with James P. Bosch, a biologist at NREL, who provided an overview of NREL's research facilities, took us through several state of the art laboratories, and provided information about NREL's programs that could be of interest to residents of the Estes Valley. This summary focuses on information provided by NREL on small residential wind turbines, and reveals some of the challenges associated with making these small turbines viable. Specific Comments bv Mr. Bosch: â€¢ NREL is doing extensive research on wind turbines, but is now focusing efforts entirely on the large, commercial turbine Efficiencies of small turbines are so low in most applications that they are no longer a research priority. The comments that follow reflect the knowledge that NREL has gained from the work they had previously done on small turbines. â€¢ Residential turbines tend to perform best when they are mounted high above any interferences (e.g.,other buildings, trees, etc.) and when winds are of moderate speed, not gusty, and come from a steady direction. They perform poorly at lower heights, in high wind velocities, and in gusty and variable wind conditions, â€¢ The large wind farms in northeastern Colorado are good applications for wind energy because the winds are very steady in both speed and direction. â€¢ Because of Estes Park's topography and wind conditions, he would not recommend that anyone install a residential turbine without first engaging a consultant to do a site-specific wind survey, to determine if a turbine will be effective on that site, and if so, what turbine, and what height, would work best. â€¢ Quality of small turbines has been variable. Many have experienced significant mechanical problems. Any regulation of residential turbines should include a requirement that they be kept in working order, or dismantled if not operable for some specified period of time. Excerpts from an Article on Residential Wind Turbines in the Fall '09 Edition of "Smart Energy Living" Magazine: â€¢ Wind turbines perform best when they can spin high up and without interference [i,e,, they are most effective when on tall towers]. â€¢ Properly owners with about an acre of unobstructed land and local zoning rules allowind towers that sometimes rise 125 feet can benefit the most. 1 P -u Summarv of Information on Wind Turbines (cont'd) â€¢ Consult a qualified consultant â€¢ Small wind has tough challenges across the board. â€¢ There is not yet an accepted standard that small turbines must meet to prove that they are safe and that they function as advertised. â€¢ The quality of the wind depends on the location. â€¢ While pretty much all of sunny Colorado is a great place to collect solar energy, wind is very site specific. â€¢ Commercial developers erect towers with testing equipment... to measure the wind in detail, usually for a year [before deciding to construct turbines in that area]. â€¢ "Small wind turbines have to be made more reliable, more productive, and safer. They need to comply with international standards, and testing and measurement results need to be made public." (Paul Gipe, author of Wind Energy Basics Revised) â€¢ Small wind experts agree that small turbines need a standard rating system based on how , much electricity they are likely to produce" in a month and in a year at a specific wind speed. They are currently sold based on the maximum power they can produce... which is not a very helpful measure. 9- a EME=Uff September 11, 2009 'fl] SEP 1 1 2009 ~# ~ Ken Dahlgren Carol Dahlgren 617 N gth Street St. Peter. MN 56082 507-380-6007 Mr. Dahlgren phoned the Community Development Department to voice is opposition to wind turbines within the Town limits. He and his wife have a second home in Estes Park, and both feel very strongly about not allowing wind turbines around town. He said that if someone has a large enough lot where a wind turbine could be at least 2000 feet from anyone's property line, it might be acceptable. He realizes there is a lot of pressure on the planning department on this issue, and will make a special trip to Colorado to share his concerns if necessary. He lives in St. Peter, Minnesota, which is similar to Estes Park in that it has a very scenic setting. Wind turbines are not allowed in St. Peter, and he knows of only four places in the entire county where they are allowed. Gustavus College is in St. Peter, and has been unsuccessful in getting a wind turbine approved on campus. kt . 2-(O Nk 966 >opt ~ k i ov1 Â·- 32,LE + 94*pk~ U 99 h 91 904 -1- 4-0 ..#<pe f 010Â« stime~_~. s Â©' pfut +1 (24,4 null c ./4, -(m-yn . A kl:114 Q/~Avoj-An3 +' 91-~06.4-â‚¬ dr-61 7 u er-1,9 0 lu- A-)492*4 - 0\05-EnÂ¥1211 _~~Â·L~~C_ 6 *:-fl SEP - 7. 2009 j LS -2 6-90,3- -1 L- - Karen Thompson From: Sherri Burrisk [ @airbits.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:51 PM lf) 5#OBOY.ml TO: Karen Thompson SEP -1 2009 1 1 Subject: wind turbines in Estes Park Karen, Thank you for responding to my message regarding the Wind Turbines in Estes Park. I am writing this message to voice my thoughts and concerns about the resurrection of wind turbines in Estes. I live on Country Club not too far from the one that now stands. I saw a variance on the fence but in fear of being nosy, I didn't not stop to see what is was pertaining to. I thought possibly a Noise variance as he does work in his garage on vehicles. Well, I have to say I was very upset when I first saw the wind turbine. I still am sick when passing buy it. I feel it is an eyesore. I am concerned that if the further construction of wind turbines continues, we can say good bye to property values. Here is the way I see it. One buys artwork that features lovely, pristine mountain views appealing to the eye. Put the wind turbine in the artwork, and ! bet they would not buy it. Now, put a house in the same piece of artwork with those lovely, pristine mountain views and ask the people, " Would you buy this artwork?" How about the bottom line, Would you buy this House with the view obstructed by the wind turbine?" Sorry, but I doubt it. Here is my thought to camouflage. You might fool the elk, deer and bear but you wont fool the investor or the people. That thought is really insulting. If it looks like a duck in camo, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, I say it is still a duck. This is not meant mean or insulting but rather a call to just be real. Well, I am not sure why most people buy here outside of the obvious which is a sound investment. I am concerned my investments are not being protected. The city is very particular and up to this point has made decisions based on " the views." My hopes are we continue down that path. Thank you Karen for forwarding this to the powers that be, and giving me the opportunity to sound my concerns. I will look forward to good news on this matter. Regards, Sherri Burrisk This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats. 1 rf=*VEf 1U Uj AUG 2 5 2009 #~ Lynn J. Weissenrieder 1373 Deer Path Court, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - Phone (9701577-87*8--*4 L-J 25 August 2009 To: Mr. Bob Joseph Mayor Pinkham Town of Estes Park Trustees 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Mr. Joseph, Mayor Pinkham & Town of Estes Park Trustees: I know that you face many tough challenges balancing the rights and desires of individuals and the welfare of the community as a whole. The current issue of private wind turbines is certainly one of those challenges. I am writing to urge you to err on the side of extreme caution when making decisions on this controversial issue. The Estes Valley is fortunate to have very spectacular viewscapes. Turbines such as the one recently erected on Route 7 are an eyesore and inconsistent with preserving the pristine character of Estes Park. That individuals with the Town's permission would choose to damage these views in the belief that some greater personal or humanitarian goal is being setived is a , mystery to me. I believe that over time, the value of privately generated wind power will be much the same as that of the solar power" phenomenon of the 70' & 80's. The only true economic benefactors of this prior technology were those who sold it, those who installed it and those who dre today removing it. Had it truly benefited the homeowner we would see it as a predominant feature on * today's homes. Fortunately the visual impact (although in many cases ugly) and auditory impact was much less than that of wind turbines. I have only been able to attend one Town meeting on this topic. I left that meeting with the impression that the Town was focused on minimizing the overall noise and visual impact of these devices and that low profile, vertical axis designs were preferred. I believe that the only turbines permitted by the Town should be these,low profile vertical axis designs and that the type currently damaging our views should be prohibited. I realize that there may be some "efficiency" arguments that favor the bigger horizontal axis devices and that lacking this efficiency the individual economic payback time may be longer. So be it! your job should not be to try to make a bad idea less bad. Production of electrical power is best left to professionals at the public utilities not misguided homeowners. Sincerely, 1 /01 (0-- - - i /03. Weissenrieder Wind Turbine Public Forum Thursday, April 30,2009 6:00 p.m. Town Board Room Staff in Attendance: Community Development Director Bob Joseph; Utilities Director Bob Goehring, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson. There were approximately 55 citizens in the audience, including several Planning Commissioners. Director Joseph opened the forum stating this is the first of several discussions about regulating small-scale residential wind turbines in the Estes Valley. Tonight's forum is to begin discussion on regulatory issues, particularly the following: Height of Towers, Ridgeline Protection and Visual Impacts, Setbacks and Zoning districts, Highway Corridors, Noise, Flicker, Energy Audits, and Inoperative Units and Disrepair. Director Joseph presented a slide show describing the various types and operation of small-scale residential wind turbines. He also explained the reasons behind the growing popularity of wind turbines. Some communities including Estes Park currently participate in a net-metering program which is connected to the local power grid. Any excess electricity produced by alternate energy sources for residential use can be sent back through the grid for a credit on utility bills. Director Joseph began by focusing on tower height and turbine performance versus visual impact. Studies show wind speed and wind current stability is directly related to the distance from ground level. Wind speeds three feet off the ground are only about 2/3 of what they are at 120 feet. The greater the topographic relief, the greater the turbulence. Director Joseph noted the general rule of thumb states turbines should be installed at least 20 to 30 feet above the tallest obstruction within 300 feet. The highest efficiency is reached when the turbines are 60 - 80 feet high. The height limit in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) area is 30 feet. Director Joseph also stated wind turbulence can cause higher levels of noise and require more maintenance than if they were higher and had free flowing wind. Director Joseph explained that large-scale wind farms will typically recover the imbedded investment in approximately one year and then become profitable due to the economy of scale, location, and engineering. In 1999, Estes Park Light and Power began participating in a program where residents can subscribe to and purchase wind energy through the Piatte River Power Authority. He stated this is a very economic and 6nvironmentally effective way to reduce carbon footprints and get a better dollar-for-dollar return on your investment In comparison, small-scale wind turbines, unless placed in optimum position and height, may never recoup the investment. Director Joseph stated there are a few proposed turbines within the Estes Valley. The current regulatoty structure reads as long as the entire structure is less than 30 feet in height, a building permit can be issued. A variance through the Board of Adjustment would be required for any proposed wind turbines over 30 feet tall. Larimer County's height limit is currently 40 feet, so turbines constructed outside the EVDC area would need to comply with this limit. Director Joseph stated noise is another concern. The current code relies on zoning districts to detdrmine allowed decibel levels. From his studies of wind turbines, it appears many approach and possibly exceed the decibel limits; however, technology is improving with the goal to make them quieter. The burden of noise compliance is on the property owner and product distributor. Some units can be programmed to shut down when certain speeds are reached, which could help with the noise. Chris Stough/Local Resident believes vertical (helix) turbines will probably work best in this area. They can be installed beloW the 30 foot height limit, and he says one is unable to hear it over the sound of the wind. He thinks wildlife issues will be lessened if noise levels are low. He also said some wind turbines can be painted to blend in with the environment. Various comments and questions were received by the public, including but not limited to: Is there a way to compare the efficiency of different types of turbines? Could they be clustered and town-owned? Could generators be installed on the towers on the causeway? Cost payback from the system will not be great, but the appreciation in home value could help make up for the cost. It was suggested wind turbines should be reviewed slowly due to advancing technology. Dave Schultz/Town Resident thinks wind turbines in Estes Park are out of character. Of greater concern to him is when larger developments are built and the developer requests approval for a larger turbine to serve many households. He believes the minimum lot size should be 5 acres, and turbines should be located in the middle of the property rather than the' perimeter to impact the property owners more than the neighbors. Mr. Schultz also suggests not allowing wind turbines in designated critical wildlife habitat corridors. Chris Stough/Local Resident believes the bird kill issue is related to the low frequency noise emitted by the turbines, which disorients birds. Technology is improving and noise is being reduced. He also stated the average cost including installation is between $16,000 and $28,000. Jim McCormicWCounty Resident is a supporter of wind energy purchased through the Platte River Power Authority. He stated while socially desirable, small-scale residential wind turbines will never yield a return on investment, will have a negative effect on neighbors and neighborhoods, and are completely incompatible with residential use. Jay Heinmann/County Resident opposes any small-scale turbine of the three blade type. He is also concerned about the dangers of structural failures. Jim Tawney/Town Resident supports wind turbines and hopes to see little regulation. Frank Theis/County Resident believes people should be allowed to take advantage of government energy programs for solar and wind power. He supports wind turbines under 30 feet in height. Julie Heckman/Town Resident believes small-scale turbines are good as long as they are done in a conscientious way, and should be a right of the property owner. She stated technology is making big strides in improving wind turbines. Dave Rusk/County Resident is a supporter of distributive small-scale wind energy. He believes a vertical axis system can be used without impacting the view. He wants to be able to take advantage of the net-metering system offered by the Town, and would like to see the Community Development Department move forward with allowing wind turbines in the Estes Valley. Tim McPhee/County Resident believes not all available wind turbine products should be allowed in Estes Park. He also suggests allowing only one per property. It is his opinion there are too many types available to be able to regulate each one, and general standards will need to be written. He hopes the Town hears public comment concerning visual and noise impacts. Bill Darden/Town Resident believes it is a right of property owners to be able to install alternate energy sources as long as they comply with the regulations. Andy Pizer/Local Resident supports helix type turbines. He believes we have to begin being self-sufficient with energy, and small changes can make an impact. Steve Little/Town Resident believes the only practical way to reduce your carbon footprint is to not consume the energy in the first place. He recommends having an energy audit completed on your home to find out what areas can be improved to lessen energy consumption. Director Joseph commented that any regulations could include an energy audit to ensure the home was energy efficient. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Wind Turbine Public Forum Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:00 p.m. Town Board Room Community Development Director Bob Joseph opened the forum be stating this is a meeting to hear from the public how they feel about regulating small-scale wind turbines. On August 11, 2009, the Town Board placed a 120-day moratorium within the town limits on issuing any building permits for small-scale residential wind turbines. Comments from tonight's discussion will be reviewed by Staff and eventually the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Director Joseph briefly discussed the various types of wind turbines, and also reviewed the net-metering program currently in place with Estes Park Light and Power. It was suggested by someone in the audience to put Director Joseph's PowerPoint presentation on the Town website. Dave Rusk/County Resident is a small wind turbine advocate. He mentioned the Estes Valley's unique wind and views, and believes tower height should not exceed the tops of trees. He has seen some very small turbines made for urban areas. He believes zoning may require certain restrictions. He stressed the importance of communicating with neighbors. Tom Gresslin/Town Resident suggests requiring an environmental impact study prior to approving a wind turbine. He cited various reports from different states that were opponents of wind turbines. He supports using the Platte River Power Authority's (PRPA) wind energy program. Sandy Lindquist/Town Resident questions the mechanical track records of turbines and believes regulations should be in place to enforce maintenance and repair or removal. Reuben Bergsten/Town Engineer explained the wind energy program with PRPA. The Town is planning a pilot program to determine the productivity in this area. Director Joseph clarified the land use code does not currently prohibit the installation of wind turbines as long as they are 30 feet or less in height. Until the moratorium, the practice was to treat them like any other structure, and the Town had a legal obligation to permit them. Town staff has a professional and ethical obligation to hear from the community, and more discussion will occur prior to any regulation implementation. Any development code changes must be approved by the Planning Commission, Town Board of Trustees, and the Board of County Commissioners. Betty Hull/Planning Commissioner stated wind turbines will be placed on an agenda for Planning Commission Study Session. She supports the moratorium to buy time to hear public comment and establish some regulations. Carol Gresslin/Town Resident opposes wind turbines from a visual standpoint. Director Joseph stated it is difficult to obtainsebond:-and third-party data, but easy to_ obtain manufacturer's data. Performance can be very different depending on the region of the country. Estes Park has a lot of turbulence, which can compromise performance. Prop driven units always have to search for the wind direction, while helix types operate in wind from any direction. Different technologies have different pros and cons for performance and visual impacts. Marcia Logan/Town Resident would like to be able to know more about the types of wind turbines that will be allowed. Clay Wright/Town Resident is a proponent of wind turbines in Estes Park, and believes they show that the Town is willing to stand up for the environment. He sees them as a very positive statement to the country. Jim McCormick/County Resident wants renewable energy sources to be used thoughtfully. Wind turbines are not just a personal decision, but affect the people around them, and there should be measures to mitigate the impact. He is a strong supporter of purchasing wind power from the Town's program with PRPA. He is in favor of the moratorium. Mr. McCormick supports disallowing them altogether since wind energy is available through the PRPA subscription program. Frank Theiss/County Resident asked about the recovery of embedded carbon emissions. Director Joseph stated if you do not put horizontal axis turbines high enough to operate at their optimum efficiency, they may never recover their costs. So, as performance is enhanced the visual impact is increased. Mayor Bill Pinkham said the Platte River Power Authority is in the process of contracting to double their capacity for wind energy. He also stated if you have wind generation on your own property, you still need to be connected to the grid due to the unreliability of ~ the wind in the area. He noted there is an online site showing wind patterns in Colorado. His perspective is that the PRPA wind energy program allows everyone to participate, while personal wind turbines will be limited to only a few individuals due to the cost. Director Joseph stated most cost recovery data is from manufacturers that are testing in optimum positions and areas. Reuben Bergsten/Town Engineer stated the preliminary anemometer results he has seen for this area are disappointing. Ron Norris/Planning Commissioner believes information should be gathered on the following areas: height of towers versus designs, what other communities have done with setbacks and zoning (particularly in mountain communities), noise data, wildlife impact, energy production in variable winds, and actual performance and reliability of these units. Jim Tawney/Town Resident believes we live in an overregulated community. He thinks wind turbines can be strategically placed in the community with careful consideration. He also wants to make sure property rights are protected. Frank Theiss/County Resident supports wind turbines at a height of 30 feet. Jay Heinemann/County Resident believes there are other ways to be "green" rather than installing wind turbines; specifically, adding insulation to your attic, purchasing wind energy from the Town, or purchasing an electric thermal storage heater (depending on your type of heat source). Jim McCormicWCounty Resident suggests having a conceptual discussion about whether or not wind turbines should be allowed in the Estes Valley. Director Joseph asked for a show of hands as to whether there is a place in the community for small turbines if regulated properly - 7. Those that were opposed to the idea no matter how they were regulated - 12. Undecided - about 9. Roger Galloway/Town Resident is very opposed to wind turbines in Estes Park, believing it is the opposite of what our location next to Rocky Mountain National Park represents. He thinks it will depress property values and irritate visitors. John Kamprath/Town Resident is concerned we are going to go the wrong direction, and wants to make sure there will be opportunities as the technology improves and advances. He wants to make sure property rights are protected. An Allenspark resident believes we have an obligation to care for and maintain the views for the tourists that visit the area. Mayor Bill Pinkham mentioned that Boulder County has discussed this topic and has created some definitions. He wonders if the PRPA could do a better job promoting its wind energy program. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Karen Thompson om: Alison Chilcott 3nt: Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:48 PM To: Karen Thompson Subject: FW: Fw: Wildlife Habitat Protection provision of the Estes Valley Development Code Karen, %~CEOCHEI1Â¥E iiI Please post on the website and file. LOCT_-5,-2009 U Thanks! Alison >>> Donna Hart Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:14 AM >>> >>> "Hugh and Urling Kingery" <ouzels8(@aol.com> 10/13/2009 8:06 PM >>> We understand that the Commissioners will review revisions to the above plan in November. We object to the revisions to the code that delete habitat and therefore protection for Raptor nest sites, Riparian areas and wetlands, Calving, lambing or fawning areas, Big Horn sheep & Big Horn sheep habitats, and Endangered or threatened species. C ~~?he Estes Valley has state-wide interest. These habitats protect birds and animals of state- wide concern, and the valley complements the habitats already protected within Rocky Mountain National Park. We urge that you return protections for these kinds of areas to the Code at your forthcoming consideration of the Code. Urling & Hugh Kingery 1 ~15Â©EDVE~=50 -----Original Message----- ~ OCT 1 5 2009 J From: Russell Legg [mailto:rlegg@larimer.org] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:35 AM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: Fwd: Estes Valley Development Code Alison: These are emails and letters the Board is receiving prior to hearing I am forwarding them to you so they can be put in the record of the case. Often citizens ask the Board during the hearing if they got the messages and they will reply yes and we made them part of the record. >>> Donna Hart Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:31 AM >>> >>> RALPH 0 NICHOLAS <ralphnicholas@q.com> 10/15/2009 11:04 AM >>> Larimer County Commissioners: Please do not rubber stamp proposed changes to section 7 at your meeting on Nov. 9 in Estes Park. Due to proximity to Rocky Mountain National Park, this code should by all common sense reasoning maintain stricter standards in regards to open space and wildlife habitat. Act for the good of the entire nation and long term good of Estes Park itself, not short term ease of developers and builders. Please place this in the Public Record. Ralph Nicholas This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats. September 17, 2009 ~~Illy Subject: Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8 Wildlife and Habitat Proted tioiTZ'-----â€¢---Â·J Draft 9 t To: Estes Park Board of Trustees Larimer County Commissioners (Please place this letter in the public record) It is understood that the purpose of this code revision is to serve as an interim solution, correcting existing flaws discovered during the Wapiti Crossing development application hearings. Although this revision is not intended to be a comprehensive update, it should be well formulated code that does not create new or perpetuate known problems. It must be able to stand and be judged on its own merit. It is alarming to hear comments from the first reading on August 25,2009. Comments that it is "close enough" because it is only a work in progress... just an interim fix. Comments that "it isn't perfect" but it is "good enough". This particular revision is NOT, in itself, a "work in progress". Once approved, it will be law and must be measured to that standard. The actual "work in progress" is the more comprehensive examination of the synergy between habitat and open space, with future code revisions as a possible result. The Town's website displays 161 pages of public comment on this topic. No one expects any code to be absolutely perfect, but an issue that generates this level of community interest certainly deserves code content and language that is better than "close enough." Progress has been made in correcting two of the three problems: 1. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has been removed from an undesired decision-making role. 2. Language has been added, which provides the reviewing and decision-making bodies with a provision for denial of a development application. However, ambiguous language and an unresolved problem remain. In addition a new issue has been created. The proposed new language in paragraph F.3 reads as follows (reproduced here in italics): F.3. Review Determination a. The Review and Decision-Making Bodies shall issue afinding as to whether the application, including the wildlife conservation plan, complies with the requirements Of this Section. b. Wildlife studies and mitigation plans found to be adequate by the Decision- Making Body shall become binding upon the Applicant. c. Applications that do not comply with Section 7.8 of this code shall be denied. Nowhere in this proposed revision is there a clear statement of the actual "requirements" referenced. Once again, it is left for argument and interpretation that the requirements might be the following review standards (reproduced here in italics): G. Review Standards. The following review standards shall apply to all development applications as specified, unless Staff determines that a specific standard may be waived pursuant to subsection F.5. above. It is the intent of this Section that these standards be applied in a flexible fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost-effective fashion. 1. Review Standards. a. Buffers. All development subject to a wildlife conservation plan shall provide a setback from any identified important wildlife habitat area, as specified by the Division of Wildlife, to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with any recommendations in the wildlife conservation plan. b. Non-Native Vegetation. There shall be no introduction of plant species that are not on the approved landscaping list rin Appendix C on any site containing any important wildlife habitat area. To the maximum extent feasible, existing herbaceousand woody cover on the site shall be maintained and removal of native vegetation shall be minimized. c. Fencing. (1) Nofencing on a site containing important wildlife habitat shall exceed forty (40) inches in height, except to the extent that suchfencing is approved by Staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protect permitted ornamental landscaping or gardens. (2) Fences higher than forty (40) inches may 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 fifty (50) feet apart along continuous fence lines exceeding this length. (3) No fencing using barbed wire shall be allowed. (4) The type offencing (materials, opacity, etc.) shall be determined by Staff or the Decision- Making Body as appropriate for the wildlife species on the site based on advice from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. d. Exterior Lighting. Use of exterior lighting shaN be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat, and lighting shall be designed so that it does not spill over or onto such critical habitat. See also Â§7.9 below. e. Refuse Disposal. Developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse 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 enforcement measures for the control of domestic animals and household pets. The plan must include provisions to prevent the harassment, disturbance and killing of wildlife and to prevent the destruction of important wildlife habitat. The above-listed items are, or should be, the standard minimum requirements for all developments in the Estes Valley. This list provides good, common sense building standards for all mountain communities, however it has little to do with mitigating "significant adverse impacts" resulting from a maior development on important wildlife habitat. If the "G. 1 Review Standards" are not the requirements for the mitigation of significant adverse impacts, it could be left for argument that the requirements, instead, might be in the following H.2 paragraph (reproduced here in italics) listing the content of a Wildlife Conservation Plan: H. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 2. Plan Content. Any wildlife conservation plan required to be prepared pursuant to this Section shall include the following information at a minimum. Specific requirements may be waived by Staff due to the location of the development, the previous use of the site, the size and potential impact of the development, the absence of particular species on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable use of the site and other relevant factors. a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success Of such measures. e. Aplanforimplementation, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation measures. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A demonstration offiscal, administrative and technical competence of the Applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. Although paragraph H.2.does require a list of proposed mitigation measures, it only asks for their probability of success. It does not require the mitigation measures to be effective. Without such a requirement the mere act of submitting a plan satisfies this paragraph of code and the substance of the plan is of no consequence. Whether the requirements can be interpreted as being the 6 items listed under "Review Standards," or as being just the submission of a Wildlife Conservation Plan, it is not clear how this section of code will achieve the expectation set bY its title (Wildlife and Habitat Protection) and/or fulfill its stated purpose (reproduced here in italics from Draft 9)" To maintain and enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley." The new problem presented in Draft 9 was made known by public comment to the Town Board during the first reading and in a previous letter to the Board. Today' s code clearly defines only five unique types of habitat worthy of special consideration and, for only those five habitats, requires a plan intended to mitigate the "significant adverse impacts" of a development. This newest proposed code revision removes 2 of those 5 habitats from consideration. The only purpose stated for these omissions was to ensure that "another Wapiti Crossing will 1 " never happen again. I must reiterate that intentionally weakening the code to prevent an uncomfortable moment" during a future EVPC or Town Board meeting is not an appropriate way to craft development code. The debate, the public interest, and the governmental awareness generated by Wapiti Crossing has been a healthy and beneficial exercising of a process that can lead to better community-government dialog and to a better Estes Valley. In summary, Draft 9 continues to fall short by failing to correct one of the three issues it was intended to rectify. That flaw is the lack of an explicit listing of requirements and no language requiring a Wildlife Conservation Plan to be effective in mitigating the "significant adverse impacts" created by the proposed development on an important wildlife habitat. Adding to the controversy and eroding the Town's credibility on this topic is the removal of 2 of the 5 types of habitat this section of the EVDC is intended to protect. Again I am asking you to take one of two positive actions: 1) Please reject this proposed code revision with the requirement that it be modified by: â€¢ Including an explicit list of requirements and adding the requirement that mitigation plans must be effective. â€¢ Adding back the 2 types of habitats (lambing, calving, and fawning sites; raptor nesting sites) which trigger the creation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan. 2) Or make these simple corrections now, during the approval process, to elevate this revision " beyond "close enough. Ambiguity and unclear requirements may be more convenient and ftexible for interpreting the code, but the citizens of the Estes Valley deserve better! Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court cc: Estes Valley Planning Commission