The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Town Board Study Session 2008-11-11 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 11, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Room 130 in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of November, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Levine and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Trustee Homeier Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. Planner Shirk stated the Planning Department receives requests for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) approximately four to six times a year. Most requests come from those building larger homes that would like a guest house. In June 2006, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (EVBOA) reviewed an appeal to a staff decision regarding an ADU, as identified by staff. The applicant stated the design was not an ADU, but only a “wet bar.” Staff disagreed because the design resulted in living space that could stand- alone as a separate household (cooking, bathing, sleeping facilities). The EVBOA agreed with staff’s assessment, and directed staff to correct the “grey area” in the code as to the definition of a second dwelling. To research this issue, staff has:  Attended a Colorado APA sponsored training session;  Sponsored a session at the Mountain Resort Town Planners Conference;  Sent a request to the Colorado APA email “list serve” (received 27 responses from around the state);  Discussed with the building department, utility providers, Larimer County Health Department, and State Division of Water Resources;  Internet research (AARP, various municipalities);  Held several “focus group” discussions with local builders, designers, realtors, and Homeowners Associations; and,  Scheduled meetings with the Estes Park Housing Authority, Sunrise Rotary and League of Women’s Voters. Planner Shirk stated the previous land use code allowed ADUs. During the adoption of the current Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) ADUs were allowed as long as the minimum lot size was exceeded by one third, i.e. 1.33 acres for a 1 acre zoning; integrated within the main dwelling; could not be rented; did not require architectural standards; and could be prohibited by neighborhood covenants. This was a compromise at the time for the County which did not allow ADUs. The County has changed its philosophy on this issue and does allow ADUs that are attached in any zoning district, any size and the units can not be rented separately from the principle dwelling. Staff research found the following common elements in ADU ordinances:  Owner occupancy required in one unit.  Long-term rentals usually allowed in one of the units, but not both. Town Board Study Session – November 11, 2008 – Page 2  Most allow ADU’s as attached or detached.  Normal setbacks apply.  Only one ADU per lot.  Parking requirement.  Maximum size limit.  Orientation of entrance.  Design standards. In addition, ADU’s can provide several benefits and serve many purposes:  Household sizes are getting smaller (average size in Estes Park is 2.2 persons, below the national average of 2.9). ADUs can help fill this niche in the housing market.  ADUs are a good way to provide seasonal employee housing dispersed throughout the community.  Provide housing near employment (reduce number of employees driving up from “the valley”).  Help reduce regulatory barriers that limit affordable housing opportunities.  Assist older homeowners in maintaining their independence by providing additional income to offset property taxes and the costs of home maintenance and repair.  Allow for “mother-in-law” suites (or, conversely, allow younger generation to move in with older generation).  Allow on-site property caretaker for second-home owners.  Provide guest quarters.  Implement policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan including growth management, housing issues and economic vitality. Staff has proposed ADUs be allowed in the single-family zoning districts; could be detached in zoning districts “E-1”, “RE” and “RE-1”; could be rented separately, but not for less than 90 days; maximum size would be 49% of main dwelling, up to 1,000 square feet; architectural and site design standards would apply; a deed restriction would be required; and neighborhood covenants could prohibit ADUs. Planner Shirk stated staff has meet with focus groups including architects, builders and HOAs. Opposition to the proposed regulation has been heard from homeowners that are concerned with the potential change of character to the single-family neighborhoods. Planning Commission held a public hearing at their September meeting and this issue was continued. Once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation the item would move forward to the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners for final approval. Discussion and questions followed: Are there density concerns; what problem is the Town trying to solve; if promoted correctly it could be beneficial for the community; the development code adopted in 2000 created urban sprawl and the proposed code change may ease the housing issues; staff should consider a special review process for ADUs; would the regulation address location on the property; and the character of the neighborhood should be a concern. Staff stated concerns are generally related to short-term rentals. Staff does not envision many property owners taking advantage of the ADU regulations. The regulations would address many issues, including continued growth within the fixed land area of the valley. Planning Commission continues to discuss whether or not the ADUs could be rented and has considered a special review process for all detached ADUs. Planner Shirk stated the proposed code language would require the ADU to be closer to the primary dwelling than the property line and require similar architecture. The current code restriction of eight unrelated individuals per household would remain for a property containing an ADU and the number of vehicles per lot would not increase. Staff has not received input from the County Commissioners to date. Attorney White commented that Town Board Study Session – November 11, 2008 – Page 3 a considerable number of lots within the valley would not be eligible for an ADU as the lots are nonconforming as to lot size. Staff has recommended higher standards for detached ADUs Trustee Miller stated the ADUs encourage affordable housing and any legal lot should have the opportunity to have an ADU. He stated the approval of an ADU should be related to design and lot layout rather than lot size. VACATION RENTALS. Director Joseph reviewed past Town Board discussions in 2007 related to vacation rentals. The Town Board recommended staff present modifications to the regulations to allow vacation homes in all single-family zoning districts as a use-by-right. The current draft clarifies the distinction between vacation homes and B&Bs. A vacation home allows the rental to one party at a time with no services provided to the guests. The proposed code amendments clarify the standards and the terminology. The previous Board rejected the recommendation to set a minimum night stay for vacation homes and was not included in the draft. Trustee Miller questioned the format of the proposed amendments. He suggested the codes related to vacation homes be separated from the B&B regulations. Mayor ProTem Levine agreed. Trustee Blackhurst questioned why vacation homes are not allowed in the commercial zoning district and restricted to the upper level. Director Joseph stated previous direction was to limit commercial land to commercial uses. The Board requested staff review the potential for additional housing units in the commercial zoning district. The permitting of all B&Bs and vacation homes within the valley would allow staff the ability to track the use and address grandfathering concerns in the future. Trustee Blackhurst raised concerns over the current licensing requirements for vacation homes and the ability of large groups of vacation homes to operate under one license. He also raised concerns with regulations in the draft that are not enforceable and stated these types of regulations should not be included. Discussion followed related to B&Bs: The current regulations relegate the use to commercial properties and multi-family zoning district; and therefore, the true definition of a B&B does not really exist in Estes Park; the limit of eight guests in a B&B is associated with the definition set by the state; the definition of accessory dwelling units for a B&B is needed if you do not allow them in residential zoning district; B&Bs and vacation rentals are allowed one wall mounted sign; a sign in a residential neighborhood changes the character of the single-family neighborhood. A new draft of the proposed amendments would be presented to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk