Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Definitions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission recommends code changes to define 'footprint' and clarify ADU size limit

San Miguel County Planning Commission · May 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff proposed adding a clear definition of 'footprint' and confirming accessory dwelling units are limited to a maximum floor area of 800 sq ft; commissioners recommended the housekeeping amendments to the BOCC after questions about eave allowances and implementation for unusual wall types such as adobe.

The Planning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a set of housekeeping amendments to the San Miguel County land‑use code that add a definition for the term "footprint" and clarify that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are limited to a maximum floor area of 800 square feet.

Staff explained that 'footprint' will mean the portion of a building that covers the ground measured from the outside of exterior walls or columns, and that it includes roofed open areas but excludes roof overhangs up to 2 feet and open decks. The ADU change replaces an earlier unclear reference to a maximum "size" of 800 square feet with an explicit limit on floor area, which can be spread across multiple stories.

The change is presented as consistency and housekeeping to match past interpretation and recent floor‑area definition edits; staff said the amendment was drafted to conform with other code sections and was noticed in the Telluride Times.

Public commenter Nick Farko urged caution with the 2‑foot eave exclusion: "the 2 foot eave definition that's in there might be restrictive for somebody that's looking to do passive solar," he said, recommending a larger allowance for certain energy‑efficient designs.

Commissioners discussed the policy context—keeping ADUs smaller in denser zones to preserve neighborhood character while recognizing separate caretaker/caretaker‑unit rules in other zone districts—and agreed the staff‑proposed language aligned with historic practice. A motion to recommend the amendments to the BOCC passed; staff will clarify definition wording as part of the recommendation packet.

The commission moved the package forward as a recommendation; final adoption and any drafting clarifications are reserved for the Board of County Commissioners.