Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-10-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 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, White, Schneider, and Hills Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Commissioners Moon and Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately ten 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 Fred Mares/town resident stated he served on the vacation rental task force, and there seemed to be some misunderstandings about the goals of the task force. He stated the task force administrator established two ground rules: (1) no discussion regarding enforcement; and (2) no discussion regarding the allowance of nine or more occupants in vacation rentals. The task force was to assume the County Commissioners and the Town Board wanted to approve occupancies of nine, and they were tasked with determining any proposed code changes. Mr. Mares stated there were very explicit directions as to what they could and could not discuss at the task force meetings. Dick Spielman/town resident was also a task force member. He stated the Idea behind the task force was to handle all of the discussion regarding possible code changes so the Planning Commission would not continue to be bogged down with the issue. The task force recommendations were to provide a starting place for the Planning Commissioners. Because of the complexity of the issue, he suggested having members of the task force present and available to provide clarification at any future study sessions (Planning Commission & Town Board) regarding vacation rentals. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, September 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. B. Continuation to the November meeting of the proposed adoption of the 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING LONG-TERM RENTAL OF ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. Previous meetings included discussions and concerns about de facto rezoning, increasing density, and unintended consequences. The proposed amendment would allow long-term rental (30 days or more), under specified conditions, of attached ADUs in the five single-family zone districts as described in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Currently, attached ADUs are allowed on qualified parcels and occupied by members of the principal dwelling unit. Some of the current code would still apply; e.g. ADUs shall not exceed 33% of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling, no short-term rentals would be allowed, no home occupations or change in off-street parking requirements, and a few other modest changes. A new mandatory registration process (no fees) would be handled through the Town Clerk's office. A specific timeline for registrations would apply. Director Hunt stated the previous version of the proposed amendment had a sunset provision. This sunset provision would provide for a date by which the amendment would expire and revert RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii back to the code prior to the amendment. The latest version extends the sunset date from October 31, 2017 to December 31, 2017, which allows for process by the appropriate boards, along with allowance for a full-year lease for tenants. The sunset clause would allow for registered and maintained ADUs that otherwise comply with code (size, etc), to be grandfathered after the sunset date. The Town Clerk suggested a January through March annual registration period. Director Hunt stated enforcement of ADUs has been discussed many times. With the proposed amendment, the enforcement aspect would be strengthened if we provide for the process as described. With the sunset provision and grandfathering element, staff would have the ability to confine their tasks. If the majority of ADU owners follow through with registration, the remaining minority would present a narrower task list to address. Director Hunt stated if the proposed amendment is adopted with the sunset clause, we would hopefully legitimize a sizeable number of the existing ADUs in the Estes Valley. He did not anticipate many new residential ADUs permitted through the building permit process, either through a remodel or new construction. He stated lenders have more strict lending practices than in the past, and they regularly check for zoning compliance prior to approving a loan. It would be difficult to obtain a loan if a sunset clause is in effect. Director Hunt stated the Estes Park Housing Authority has identified a definite housing need, and the ability to rent an ADU will solve a piece of that puzzle, though he did not anticipate it having a large impact on the housing shortage. Director Hunt stated the Commissioners and the public have expressed concerns about changes in the character of single­ family neighborhoods if ADU rentals were allowed, and that is a valid concern. He stated he would be remiss if staff offered a code amendment that would radically alter that balance. He did not think the proposed amendment with the specific qualifiers would have that effect. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Schneider requested clarification on the sunset provision, stating the sunset provision would apply only to those that did not register their ADU, and all those that did register would be grandfathered after the sunset provision expired (proposed date of December 31, 2017). Director Hunt confirmed the accuracy of Commissioner Schneider's statement. Public Comment John Phipps/town resident stated ADUs would constitute a drastic change for the single-family zone districts, as it would change the character of family neighborhoods. A homeowner has a right to rely on zoning regulations, especially when there has been no material change in the character of a neighborhood, which he stated came from a Colorado Supreme Court case. He stated there are other alternatives (Multi-Family Residential, Accommodations, and Two-Family Residential zone districts), and questioned why single-family zone districts were being considered. He asked the Commissioners to envision what the zoning map would look like if all the single­ family zone districts were removed, and wondered if Estes Park would be a resort community or Just a resort. He disagreed with the sunset provision, and the possibility of renewal at the time of expiration. He asked if illegal ADUs became registered, would they be grandfathered at the end of the sunset period? Does this mean if enough people violate an ordinance for long enough, they would eventually be grandfathered if they registered? He had concerns about building codes, proper utilities, parking, etc. Mr. Phipps did not think the effort would create enough long-term' rentals to benefit the housing shortage. He was opposed to the long-term rentals of ADUs. Fred Mares/town resident has been following the history of ADUs since 2012. There seemed to be a rush on this proposed amendment because of the highway closure, and now it seems to be related more to workforce housing. He was concerned the Planning Commission was creating de facto rezoning if they approved the amendment making long-term rental of ADUs in residential zone districts a use by right. He wondered why we were going through this process if it would not have a large impact on workforce housing. He asked the following rhetorical questions, including but not limited to: How many ADUs are there in town now? How many ADUs are outside the Town limits? How large are the existing attached ADUs? Should ADU property owners be required to pay commercial utility rates? What happens if the tenant loses their job? How many times can and ADU be re-rented without being considered short term? Who will be keeping the records? If RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail we aren't doing this to facilitate workforce housing, why are we doing it at all? What does removing the lot size and structure size restrictions have to do with rentability of an ADD? He stated this was a risky code amendment, and wanted to know the ground rules. If this is approved, he liked the permit system, stating it would be important to ensure staff had the ability to implement the plan and track the results. He disagreed with property owners having the ability to get a "free pass" if they participated in the "experiment." Dick Spielman/town resident agreed with Mr. Phipps and Mr. Mares. Concerning the proposed sunset clause and the enforceability of the issue, he stated he saw no reason for property owners to come forward and register their property if they had been successfully renting it (legally or illegally) for many years. Staff and Commission Discussion None It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of Commissioners disapprove the proposed text amendment, including the proposed sunset clause to the Estes Valley Development Code, as presented in Exhibit A, finding that it would constitute a rezoning of five residential zone districts. Density Is at the heart of zoning. This would double the density In those zone districts. Neither the Estes Valley Development Code nor the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan support this. The method of drastically changing the zoning by changing the uses allowed rather than going through the rezonIng process does not constitute sound community planning. The motion to disapprove was approved 5-0 with two absent. 4. Town Attorney White was excused from the meeting. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING REMOVING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RM-MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. The concept was to remove the minimum lot size in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district for development or redevelopment of multi-family housing on multi-family zoned lots. He explained the limitations of the existing code's minimum lot size would allow only seven or more housing units per lot, as well as single-family or duplex units. By removing the limit, three to six units could be constructed on any given RM-zoned property. Director Hunt stated the Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment encouraged multi-unit housing, and this amendment would provide for an option that could fill a niche for development and redevelopment. In Table 4-2, the 40,000 square foot lot size requirement would be removed, while all other standards would still apply. Director Hunt stated he did not think this was an intended barrier to development. He stated he thought the intention of the minimum lot size may have been to encourage developers to combine lots for multi-family housing projects; however, instead it discouraged development and redevelopment. The proposed amendment would remove a barrier, and potentially encourage development/redevelopment. Public comment None Staff and Commission Discussion None it was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hills) to recommend approvai of the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners and the motion passed 5-0 with two absent. 5. REPORTS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall A. Director Hunt reported there will be a special study session for the Planning Commission regarding vacation rentals on Tuesday, November 1, 2016, beginning at noon in the Town Board Room. Vacation rentals will also be discussed at the study session prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2016. Direction received from the Town Trustees and County Commissioners at the August 30, 2016 joint meeting was to draft code language regarding vacation homes with occupancies of nine and above, with regulations as recommended by the task force. Director Hunt stated there were some items discussed at today's study session where the task force had not reached consensus. Any remaining issues can be worked through at the November 1st study session. Additionally, any revisions that need to be done with the occupancies of eight and under could be addressed in order to make the amendment as synchronized as possible. B. Director Hunt reported on a revision to the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers development plan that was approved by the Town Board earlier this year. The Board of Adjustment did not approve a variance request for the placement of the proposed loading area. He stated it was determined the approved Development Plan could not be completed as proposed, but could be amended to provide an appropriate location for the loading area. This will be an action item for recommendation to the Town Board at the November Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Schneider requested answers to the Planning Commissioners' questions regarding the Temporary Use Permit from a previous Pianning Commission meeting. C. Director Hunt reported Pianner Audem Gonzaies was promoted to from Planner I to Planner II, and staff is in the process of hiring a Planner I. Once that position is filled, we will be up to full strength. Director Hunt stated one of his goals as director is to revise the EVDC to be easier to administer, regulate, and enforce, and there is a balance to be reached in all of that. Any changes proposed in the code will come before the Planning Commission. D. Chair Hull asked the Commissioners for comments regarding the vote to recommend disapproval of rental of ADUs. Comments included but were not limited to: Commissioners Hiils and White objected, stating it would result in zoning changes in five zoning districts. Chair Hull commented ADUs make sense if they are for famiiy. Commissioner Schneider was concerned about how you wouid collect data without a registration process, and was supportive of a definite sunset provision, but did not agree with the grandfathering aspect. When asked if there were other ways to move forward with ADUs, Director Hunt stated the ability to have ADUs in specific zone districts is an option, though he has not seen it done across all districts. There is a possibility to adopt a density standard. He has not worked in a community where rental regulation has been a common practice. Commissioner Hiils stated she was not against ADUs, but wanted to see them contained to the proper zone districts. Commissioner White agreed, stating Accommodations or multi-family zone districts would be better suited for ADUs. There must be other communities that have made this work. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:37 p.m. Karen Thompson, Rec^^djjjg'Secretary