Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-09-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, Schneider, and Hills Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Commissioner Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately eight people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, August 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adoptio'n of the‘2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estds Valley' Comprehensive Plan. Staff requests to continue this item to the October 18, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Planner Chilcott reviewed the data gathering process conducted by staff. Staff inquired with Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Estes Park Sanitation District, the Town Water Department, and the Larimer County Assessor regarding data they might be willing to share. The County Assessor had the most complete data, as other entities did not collect systematic data. Larimer County collects the following information for each building on a parcel: numbers of bedrooms, bathrooms, sinks, wet bars, and kitchens (not a complete list). Staff collected data on the numbers of second kitchen sinks and wet bar sinks in single-family dwellings. She showed a graph indicating the number of second kitchen sinks/wet bars by zone district, explaining these numbers account only for permitted kitchens/wet bars. The breakdown for second kitchen sinks/wet bars by zone district is as follows: R-1 = 1, R = 36, E = 95, E-1 = 120, RE = 45, RE-1 = 36. Out of approximately 7,000 parcels, staff determined about five percent (5%) of the housing stock in the Estes Valley has a single-family dwelling with a second kitchen sink and/or a wet bar. Planner Chilcott clarified this does not mean any or all of these homes have accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The definition of an ADU includes the requirement of a kitchen. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Chilcott stated ADUs tend to be fairly evenly spread across the Estes Valley. There are approximately 330 dwellings in the valley with second kitchen sinks/wet bars, but there is no way to determine if they are associated with an ADU. Discussion included, but was not limited to: Planner Chilcott recalled the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) definition of a kitchen is an oven, sink, and a refrigerator; the restrictions regarding rentals of ADUs was adopted when the EVDC was adopted in 2000; an ADU is defined as having living, sanitary, and cooking facilities; many times ADUs are discovered when the property owner wants to make improvements to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall them and applies for a building permit; many peopie do not reaiize the rental of ADUs is not allowed; every community has different regulations, with college towns typically having tighter restrictions regarding rentals than other communities Commissioner Moon was concerned about the relaxation of the size requirement, and he would prefer to leave size out of the discussion when we are trying to coilect data. He thought the only incentive for people to come forward with the knowledge of having an ADU would be the promise to be grandfathered in if there was a sunset clause. He liked the way it was stated now if a sunset ciause was going to be involved, and 800 square feet seemed acceptable. Commissioner White stated she was in favor of limiting the size of an ADU to 800 square feet, and keeping the minimum lot size to 1.33 times the minimum lot size for the zone district. She was concerned about blanket zoning of ADUs to all zones and lot sizes, stating it wouid create greater density in neighborhoods, more parking issues, etc. She was concerned about enforcement. She stated anything under one acre could be problematic, but would require additional study. She reminded the Commission the data collected was about sinks, not ADUs. Director Hunt stated this agenda item could be continued to next month if the Commissioners so desired. There are currentiy five zone districts that aliow ADUs, and staff could determine how many potentiai ADUs could be on parcels that are sized one acre or greater, using the statistics provided by Planner Chilcott. He stated the data provided today was most likely as much as we would be able to collect. County Liaison Michael Whitley stated Larimer County has ADU regulations in the County Land Use Code. The County Commissioners have concerns about intertwining the ADU issue with workforce housing and vacation rentals. He has heard there would not be support from at least two of the County Commissioners unless there were changes to regulations'on vacation homes, including a cap on the number of vacation homes aliowed in the Estes Valley. Timelines on vacation homes are moving forward, and this and the ADU timeiine will converge at some point. The County Commissioners consider vacation homes and ADUs as being connected. Director Hunt stated there would be some additional County information available at the October study session. Public Comment Pat Newsom/town resident stated single-famiiy residentiai zone districts should remain singie- family, and was concerned about the increased density ADUs could create. There are additions in town with strict HOA covenants, and other areas built before HOAs were formed, making it difficult for some neighborhoods to have restrictions. Jay Heineman/county resident agreed with Mrs. Newsom on the increased density in single-family zone districts. There is zoning for a reason, and ADUs should be located in multi-family zone districts. He stated it was unfair to the property owners that live here year-round, the unintended consequences are numerous and would have a negative impact on singie-famiiy residentiai neighborhoods. John Phipps/town resident agreed with Mr. Heineman. The word "workforce" continues to be used. The determination of whether or not a member of the "workforce" is living in an ADU is non-enforceable. He thought the word "workforce" should not be used. He was concerned about making a drastic zoning change by changing the uses ailowed. This is what happened with vacation rentais, and he foresees the same issues coming up with ADUs. He stated there is no distinction between an ADU and a duplex. He encourage the Commissioners to read EVDC 4.3 A, which lists the purposes of each zone district. It was his opinion any amendment regarding ADUs would violate these paragraphs. Mr. Phipps asked the Commission to consider the EVDC definition of a family, and what might happen if the occupancy limit between vacation rentals and ADUs was greater. He also wondered if it would be possible to have a home with an ADU used as both a vacation rental and a long-term rental. He thanked the Commission for their hard work and effort. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Paul Brown/town resident stated he purchased his lot (in the town limits) in 1994. At that time, ADUs were allowed on lots the size of his, which was one of the reasons he purchased it. In 2000 that right was removed, and he thinks that resulted in devaluation of his property. He would like to have that right back so he could build an ADD so his children would have a place to stay. When he purchased his lot, Larimer County did not allow ADUs. Two months following the purchase, the County changed their regulations to allow attached ADUs and came through with detached ADU allowances a few years later. He supports accessory dwelling units. He did extensive research on ADUs a couple of years ago, and remembered there were approximately 400 attached and detached ADUs in the Estes Valley. He submitted his research to the Community Development Department at the time. As a designer and builder, he often receives requests from property owners for ADUs. Rita Kurelja/Housing authority stated there is a need for additional housing. The Town participated with the Housing authority on a community-wide Housing Needs Assessment, which brought about eleven recommendations. One of those was to adopt ADU regulations for workforce rentals. There are many mountain communities that allow rental of ADUs, and she stated there are ways workforce housing can be regulated. The housing situation is not going to be improved with one large step, but rather needs to be done step-by-step. Allowing the rental of ADUs is a small piece of the puzzle. This has been discussed for many years. Mary Murphy/county resident stated as a realtor, she is very diligent about going on tour of the new properties on the market to have a good understanding of what the housing inventory is. In almost 14 years, she has seen very few home with second sinks that also have other kitchen parts to make them an ADU. One cannot assume that the higher priced homes have attached ADUs, and stated the majority of second sinks are in wet bars. Fred Mares/town resident thanked the Commission for the discussion at study session. He was opposed to this specific issue as a matter of principal; it would change the zone districts, with the end result being no single-family zone districts. He thought it was a nice idea, but there was not much behind the implementation or enforcement. He had many questions: How do you limit ADUs to long-term rentals to the local workforce? How do you enforce that? How many are there in the Estes Valley? If they are already rented, how will they help workforce housing? How will we collect data? How will we control or limit new ADUs being built, and do we need to keep a limit on them? He was supportive of workforce housing, but did not see how this will help. He stated he has been involved with the vacation rental issue and thinks ADUs are totally related to vacation rentals. He provided some statistics from the Town Clerk's office regarding vacation rentals, stating the majority are 2-4 bedroom homes, which are also where the majority of the workforce housing needs to live. He stated 12% of those 2-4 bedroom houses in the Estes Valley are being rented as vacation rentals. These number directly affect ADUs and workforce housing. If we really want to be a community, we really need neighborhoods and not just accommodations zones. Matthew Heiser/town resident lived in two ADUs when he first moved to the Estes Valley. He did not attack his neighborhood, and being able to live in an ADU was what made it possible for him to live here. As a current business owner with eight employees, there are people willing to live at a camp site in order to work at his business. There is a definite need for workforce housing. Joe Coop/county resident stated ADUs are already allowed, but only 20% of the properties qualify to have a legal ADU. There needs to be some way to loosen up the code to allow ADUs. Removing the minimum lot size is one step towards that change. On a regular basis. Van Horn Engineering receives requests to design ADUs (mainly detached) for customers. There is a current proposed project for small units with attached garages on % acre lots with ADUs above the garages. He stated he would like to add an ADU above his detached garage, but is unable to do so with the current regulations. Public comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: Attached ADUs are currently allowed, but cannot be rented; zoning is in place for a reason, and this could have an impact on zoning; people are shifting to smalier houses; zoning and density are concerns; unintended consequences could have negative impacts; the sunset clause would not be enforceable; lack of enforcement and increased density were concerns; concerns about de facto rezoning; concerns about how vacation rentais wiii be intertwined with ADUs. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Schneider) to continue this agenda item to the October Planning Commission meeting, after the Commissioners will have received more information about the vacation rentals issue and the motion passed 5-0 with one absent, and Commission Murphy being absent from the dais at the time of voting. Director Hunt stated the October Planning Commission Study Session will include discussion regarding vacation rentais, with an additional Study Session to occur prior to the November Planning Commission meeting. B. 5. REPORTS A. Director Hunt reported the County Commissioners voted to approve a code amendment to the EVDC regarding the sequencing of when a Variance appiication is reviewed. This will allow variances to be reviewed at the appropriate places during the review process. Formerly, variances were always reviewed foliowing final action by the appropriate decision-making body. Director Hunt reported the Downtown Plan has been on hold for several months, due to a transition in consultants. The new consultant's contract award is on the Town Board agenda for next Tuesday. The Steering Committee has reviewed the new scope of work with the new consultant. The new target date for completion of the plan is December, 2017. Thfe resuits will be fine-tuned in-house, so the presentation to the pubiic will be delayed by a few months. He stated the goal is to have the Downtown Plan adopted into the Estes Vailey Comprehensive Plan in the Spring of 2018. Town Attorney White stated the previous consuitant's contract was terminated for failure to comply with the terms of the contract. Director Hunt reported the Temple residence and Bruell residence variances were approved at the September Board of Adjustment meeting. A variance request for Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers loading area location was disapproved. Director Hunt reported Rex Poggenpohl was appointed by the County Commissioners as the newest member of the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Schneider stated as the Commission prepares for any sessions and discussions, he did not like surprises. He was not aware of the Brownfield Report (Habitat for Humanity Development Plan) and did not appreciate being made aware of it during the pubiic hearing. Director Hunt stated the essence of planning is predictability, and staff would do their best to aiert the Commissioners of all the information in the file. Commissioner White stated it would have been nice to have known about the erroneous statement made at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Brownfield Report, instead of finding out about it at the Town Board meeting. F. Commissioner White stated many times when Planning Commission is the recommending body to the Town Board, staff presents a lengthy staff report to the Planning Commission, but does not always present the same, elaborate information to the Town Board. She requested the Planner making the presentation elaborate more on the Planning Commission decision in the public hearing. Town Board Liaison Ron Norris stated when there is a difference of opinion, he generaily discusses the matter during the Town Board Study Session, but not at the regular meeting. He stated it may be more important to bring out those comments during the reguiar meeting, not just at study sessions. Director Hunt stated staff is looking to improve internal procedures and would like to consider adopting "findings of fact" with any motions, which are different than staff recommendations. G. Director Hunt stated he is aiways willing to hear additional feedback from the Commissioners. D. E. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall There being no further business. Chair Huii adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. UJ^J Betty Hull, SEfeir 4ren Thompson, Re€ordjpg Secretary