HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES TOWN BOARD EVPC Joint Study Session 10-03-2009 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 10, 2009
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD AND
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 &
203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of March, 2009.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson,
Levine, Homeier and Miller
Commission Commissioners Amos, Fraundorf, Hull, Klink, Lane, Norris
and Tucker
Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator
Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson,
Director Joseph and Planners Shirk and Chilcott
Absent: Trustee Eisenlauer & Commissioner Amos
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Director Joseph reviewed the list of nine meetings held with the Planning Commission
to review Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). Other meetings were also held with local
builders, architects/designers, Homeowner Associations, Board of Realtors, Estes Park
Housing Authority, Sunrise Rotary and the League of Women Voters. At the February
17, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission gave staff directive to address
the following specific issues: no detached, no minimum lot size, no rental, owner
occupancy, cannot exceed 49% of principal building and require Planning Commission
review for all applications.
No Detached/No Minimum Lot Size
Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) has requested staff remove detached
ADU’s from the proposed code, allowing only integrated and attached units. This would
prohibit a unit above a detached garage. The inclusion of the unit to the main dwelling
would help to maintain the character of the residential neighborhoods. The EVPC has
received public comments in support of attached units. Other issues discussed by the
EVPC included: annual permitting, noticing the neighbors, wells on larger lots limit the
addition of detached units, and allowing ADUs as a use by right would jeopardize the
character of single-family zoning districts.
Commissioner Norris noted the most frequent public comment was related to the lack of
control and the second most frequent was the need for caregiver quarters and a
separate space for visiting family.
Dir. Joseph stated the proposed code would require minimum lot sizes based on the
type of unit (attached, integrated or detached) and would be available to approximately
25% of the properties in the valley. The elimination of a minimum lot size would allow
additional properties the option of an ADU.
Trustee Miller commented an AUD request should be a special review process to
review site location and neighborhood concerns. He stated criteria should be
developed that would allow an ADU on a single-family lot.
No Separate Rental/Owner Occupancy
EVPC has reviewed the option to allow the rental of ADUs and concluded short term
rentals should not be allowed. However, the entire property could be rented and
enforced through the use of an annual affidavit completed by the property owner.
Town Board Study Session – March 10, 2009 – Page 2
Trustee Blackhurst stated concern with enforcement. The Commission recommends
the code require the owner to occupy the principal dwelling in order to allow long term
rental of the ADU. Trustee Blackhurst stated the definition of owner occupancy should
be clearly defined and address the seasonal nature of the town’s population.
Maximum Size of an ADU
The proposed code language would limit an ADU to 49% of the principal dwelling, with a
cap at 1,000 sq. ft.
The Board expressed general approval of the proposed code language for ADUs;
however, they requested the Commission avoid recommending code changes that are
not enforceable. The proposed codes should be as specific as possible.
WILDLIFE STUDY
Director Joseph stated the current code contemplates a wildlife study for any
development on property where elk calving or fawning may occur. The code also
requires CDOW to determine when a wildlife study would be required. Proposed
revision to the code would remove the CDOW from the process and clearly identify the
types of properties or triggers for a wildlife study. Director Joseph reviewed the wildlife
map developed by EDAW to establish the types and quality of habitat. The urbanized
areas have been altered significantly and are not high value habitat; however, the
riparian areas within the urbanized corridor still hold significant value. The study
completed by EDAW has identified the riparian areas in the valley that should be
protected, and therefore, would require a wildlife study for new development and
redevelopment. River setbacks protect the riparian areas and could be increased to
better protect the habitat. The current code requires 30 foot setbacks from the river.
Discussion followed on increasing the setback to 50 feet: Commissioner Hull suggested
all new development be setback 50 feet and existing development remain at 30 feet
with no new development approved beyond the current footprint; additional data is
needed to quantify the benefits of increasing the setback; increasing the setback would
be a taking of personal property; the EDAW study identified critical habitat in the valley
and perhaps the code should address these areas; an increase setback would create
non-conforming properties in the valley and require a study for existing structures; and
there needs to be a balance when addressing the wildlife concerns without adversely
impacting existing property rights.
OPEN SPACE STUDY
Dir. Joseph presented a map illustrating approximately 30% of the valley is protected
open space through conservation easements, federal land, Larimer County, Town of
Estes Park and private property. He stated communities have taken different
approaches to addressing open space; however, most communities protect lands
through a combination of regulation and acquisition.
The Town Board thanked the Planning Commission for its efforts and requested the
Board and Commission meet on a more regular basis, i.e. quarterly or twice a year.
The Planning Commissioners appreciated the discussion and input provided by the
Board and agreed regular meetings would be beneficial.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk