Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-11-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 15, 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 Huli, Commissioners Murphree, White, Schneider, and Moon Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Commissioners Hills and Klink Chair Huli cailed the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximateiy 60 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 A. Approval of minutes, October 18, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. B. Approval of Watson Minor Subdivision, Metes & Bounds parcel located at 625 W. Elkhorn Avenue; William & Vivianne Watson, Owners; Request to create two lots of record from one existing lot It was moved and seconded (Murphree/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL AND LOT 10, MOUNT VIEW PARK, TBD BIG HORN DRIVE; PRENDERGAST RESUBDIVISION Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report, stating the request was to preliminary plat four single-family residential lots zoned E-l-Estate which are located both inside and outside the town limits. The total area is approximately three acres in size. There are currently five legally non- conforming parcels eligible for the resubdivision plat. There is one structure buiit across three of these parcels and the town/county jurisdictional boundary line. The purpose of the request is to create four legal lots, which would correlate with how the area has been developed. Planner Gonzales stated a petition to annex has been submitted and will be reviewed on a date in the near future. He stated the Planning Commission is the recommending body, and both the Town Board and County Commission will be the decision-making bodies because the application is being processed prior to annexation. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners, and a legal notice was published in the locai newspaper. Planner Gonzales stated three of the four proposed lots are smaller than the minimum lot size required for the E-l-Estate zone district. Therefore, the applicant applied for a variance to the minimum lot size standard, and the Board of Adjustment granted the variance request on November 1,2016. Planner Gonzales stated three of the four lots will each contain a single-family home, and the remaining undeveloped lot will be eligible for future development. Staff has waived the requirement for establishing a limit of disturbance for each lot since the majority of this area is already developed. If any significant trees are removed, replacement is required. There is a proposed 30-foot utility easement along the eastern edge of proposed Lot 1, to be recorded on the Final Plat. The Light and Power Department wili require easements for electric lines, both above and below ground. A plat note stating the overhead utility easement across proposed Lots 1 and 3 shall be vacated if/when the overhead power lines at this location are moved or piaced underground to a new location. Planner Gonzales stated the Estes Park Sanitation District wiil require a 30-foot easement for the existing sewer main. Regarding access, Pianner Gonzaies RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall stated the existing private drive will provide access to proposed Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. The property to the north (not part of this application) shall also be granted access via this easement. Concerning the annexation, Planner Gonzales stated the date for the resolution for the Intent to Annex will go to the Town Board on November 22nd (tentative date), with the public hearing to take place in early 2017. Portions of original parcels 2, 3, and 4 are located within the unincorporated Estes Valley. These portions are owned by The Harmony Foundation. The Harmony Foundation building was built over Lot 10, Mount View Subdivision and the eastern portions of parcels 2 and 3. The annexation would bring these portions into the town limits, allowing the building to be contained on one lot. The end result of the annexation will be two legal lots within the town limits and two legal lots outside the town limits. He stated staff is recommending approval of the resubdivision, with the following findings and conditions; 2. 3. Staff Findings 1. With the conditions of approval listed, this proposal will comply with all applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed resubdivision plat area. The proposed lot configurations meet minimum lot size requirements (Variance approved on November 1, 2016 to reduce lot size requirements). This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. All appropriate easements are conditioned to be placed on the preliminary and final plats. Legal descriptions of these easements shall be placed on the final plat map. 5. Conditions of Approval 1. 30-foot utility/access easement for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and the property north of the subject area shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat. 2. 20-foot overhead utility easement across Lots 1 and 3 shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat with the note that this easement shall be vacated if/once the overhead power is moved or undergrounded to a new location. 10-foot utility easement along northern and eastern property boundary of Lot 4 and along southern property boundary of Lot 3 shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat. Remove language on Preliminary Plat that utility/access easement will be dedicated with this plat. (Graphic easements are not dedicated with plats, but are recorded on plats along with legal descriptions.) 3. 4. Public Comment Celine LeBeau/applicant representative was present and available for questions. Public comment closed. 4. Staff and Commission Discussion There was a question about whether a condition regarding the annexation was necessary for this application. Town Attorney White stated the annexation petition was submitted in accordance with the requirements so no condition was necessary. It was moved and seconded (Moon/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Prendergast Preliminary Resubdivision Plat as described in the staff report with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion pass 5-0 with two absent. AMENDMENT TO APPROVED SPECiAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-01; LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS; 1665 Spur 66 Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report, including the timeline of all meeting dates. Commission recommendations, and decisions by the Town Board. After the Planning Commission RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall recommended disapproval of the Development Plan, the Town Trustees conditionally approved the plan. One of the conditions was the approval of a Variance for the loading area location. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment disapproved this variance request on September 13, 2016. Because the variance was not approved, the proposed plan could not be approved as presented and conditionally approved in July. Planner Gonzales stated the applicant amended the original proposal to now include the loading area location in the Phase 3 parking lot instead of alongside the building. The parking lot was conditionally approved to be developed in Phase 3 of the project. The proposed loading area would be approximately 115 feet from the center line of Mills Drive; thus not requiring a variance and rendering the condition of approval inapplicable. Planner Gonzales stated screening will still be required, and the applicant provided a new landscape plan, increasing the amount and type of vegetation around the loading area to create a heavier screen. The new proposed loading area would be screened by two sets of landscaping buffers instead of the one that is required. In regards to the code provision stating a loading area cannot take up required parking spaces, staff determined the development plan did not have a finite number of parking spaces required. A parking study was conducted and a target number was determined. The proposed parking area goes far beyond that target number without the spaces designated as both parking and loading area. Staff found the proposed loading area would not be taking up required parking spaces. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the Special Review Development Plan amendment. If approval is recommended, staff provided the following modifications to the amended plan be part of the recommendation of approval: 1. Show the proposed loading area on all Phasing Plans 2. Show dimensions of loading area on plan set 3. Include note that loading area striping shall be done in Phase 3. 4. Add note on all Phasing Plans that the loading area shall not be used during hours of public patronage. Planner Gonzales stated all modifications would need to be completed prior to the Town Board hearing on December 13, 2016. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Gonzales clarified the loading area would not be paved throughout Phases 1 and 2. Director Hunt stated staff would conduct spot checks to ensure the loading area was not being used for loading/unloading purposes during their regular business hours. Planner Gonzales stated the unloading/loading process would occur very similar to the unloading/loading process that occurs on a regular year-round basis along Elkhorn Avenue. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the new loading area meets the requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code and a variance was not needed. He reviewed the portions of the code that he determined applied to this amendment. He stated the applicant would be willing to construct a fence if the Commissioners requested such, for additional screening, although the preferred screening was addressed on the revised landscape plan. The purpose of the screening was to screen the loading area from Mills Drive and the neighbors across the street. Mr. Sheldon stated the delivery trucks would not be backing across a street property line, and the occupied loading area would not prevent access to a required off-street parking space. The parking lot will be entirely on private property, and people using the lot will have permission to do so. He stated the only way a delivery truck would be in the loading area during their hours of operation would be if it was broken down, which was very unlikely. If the Commissioners so desired, the parking area could be paved with Phase 1. He clarified the parking lot will be large enough for a large truck to get in and out without issues. It was designed to handle fire trucks, and most delivery trucks are smaller than fire trucks. Celine LeBeau/Lazy B project manager stated an updated Landscaping Plan was submitted, and it complies with the EVDC. She showed photos of the types of shrubs proposed, and stated while only 6% coverage is required, the applicant would be installing on 7% of the lot. Over 100 shrubs are planned when only 64 are required. In the winter, the foliage will not be as robust because RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the leaves will drop. If the commission wants more screening during the winter months, the applicant would be willing to replace some of the deciduous plants with some evergreen shrubs. Prior to beginning the Public Comment section of the hearing, Chair Hull reminded those in attendance the Commission is only able to deal with the new proposed loading area, and no other part of the Lazy B Development Plan can be discussed. She requested the public comment be limited to the loading area, and be no more than three minutes each. Public Comment Dave Shirk/Ascent Planning Solutions representing several nearby property owners presented a letter to the Commissioners that was posted to the Town website as public comment. He reviewed several potential adverse impacts if the project were allowed to continue. He did not think the Planning Commission had the authority to approve or disapprove an amendment to the approved Development Plan, and thought the amendment should be heard by the Board of Adjustment. He stated there have been very few mitigation efforts to minimize the impact of the loading area and overall use of the property. Mr. Shirk requested the Planning Commissioners present findings and suggested conditions of approval to the Town Board. Jay Vetter/county resident stated it was important to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible the impacts to the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to develop 15% of the total acreage available. He stated there are other places where the loading dock could be placed. He suggested the applicant use the existing entrance on Spur 66 and place the loading area on the other side of the building, away from Mills Drive. He stated the applicants have made virtually no attempt to meet with the neighbors, which has been very frustrating. Mr. Vetter encouraged the Commissioners to recommend denial of the amendment. Brian Gillam/nearby business owner stated the Lazy B hours or operation have not been provided. If they decide to expand the business and have events during the day, he was concerned about delivery schedules. He questioned how they would handle the matter if a car was left overnight in the loading area. He thought the delivery drivers would go as close as possible to the building, and may not use the specific loading area. Lonnie Sheldon reminded the Commissioners the vote today is only for the change to the proposed loading area, and the application as presented complies with the EVDC. He offered three options: (1) pave the loading area in Phase 1; (2) put a fence on three sides; or (3) add additional vegetation to the screened areas. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments from the Commissioners included, but were not limited to: concern about oil leakage from delivery trucks contaminating the water; concern about whether the number of parking spaces was adequate; concern there are no specified hours of operation; there are other options for the loading area; a loading area is a requirement, and trucks park in the middle of Elkhorn Avenue all the time without complaint; the issue at hand is very limited and the proposal meets the aspects of the EVDC. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Moon) to recommend approval of the Amendment to the Special Review Development Plan to the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners and the motion failed 3-2 with Commissioners Hull, White, and Schneider voting against and Commissioners Moon and Murphree voting in favor of the motion, and two absent. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planner Gonzales stated the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County partnered in the mis-1990s to develop the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which articulates a unified vision for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. The Comprehensive Plan includes the vision for a Valley-wide trail system, which would be updated with the adoption of the 2016 Master Trails Plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii The Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District (EVRPD) received a grant in 2013 to prepare a comprehensive trails plan for the Estes Valley. Other supporters of the plan include the Town of Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Valley Land Trust, Colorado Parks & Wildlife, US Forest Service, Larimer County, Bureau of Reclamation, and the YMCA of the Rockies. The EVRPD plans to update the plan on an annual basis, making this a living document. Staff recommended the adoption of the Master Trails Plan into the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The EVDC requires dedication and/or construction of trails in accordance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan or any subsequently adopted hike/bike or open areas plan. Adoption of this Master Trails Plan would provide authority to require dedication of trail easements or trail construction. One possible disadvantage of adopting this plan could be that some developers or property owners would prefer not to accommodate trails in the corridors shown on the plan. Planner Gonzales stated the Planning Commission was the recommending body to both the Town Board and the County Commission. Public Comment None It was moved and seconded (Moon/White) to recommend adoption of the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOMENT CODE RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS. Chair Hull stated public comment would be accepted at today's meeting. The Planning Commission will listen to comments and have discussion today. Action will not be taken on this item at today's meeting. A special meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board room, when a recommendation will be made to present to the Town Board and County Commission. The Town Trustees and County Commissioners have scheduled a joint meeting for Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6 p.m. in the Town Board room to discuss this issue. Commissioner Moon stated discussion occurred at today's study session regarding a document the Commissioners have been working on for several weeks, trying to find common ground that would work politically for the Town Trustees and County Commissioners. He stated it was critical for the Commission to retain the connectivity between the Trustees and Commissioners in order to adopt a Valley-wide code that is operable. He stated this document is still in the draft stage, and will likely change. It is posted online at www.estes.org/vacationrentals under the "Timeline" drop-down box. The Planning Commission determined it was critical to have some common ground and summarize what had been discussed for the last several months. Town Attorney White suggested Commissioner Moon provide a brief overview of what was discussed at study session for the benefit of the public in attendance that may not have been at the study session. Commissioner Moon stated the vacation rental (VR) situation was studied by zone districts. The Planning Commissioner's jobs are to consider the planning and zoning aspects of VRs. Guest accommodations are expected to be seen in the Accommodations and Commercial zone districts (A, A-1, CD, and CO). VRs are not necessarily expected, but are also located in the Residential zone districts (R, E, E-1, RE, RE-1, and RM). Looking at the Accommodations/Commercial zones, they did not anticipate creating a cap on the number of VRs in these districts, but would recommend an occupancy limit of two per bedroom plus two. He stated there is a real potential in this area for implications of the International Building Codes to be applied to VRs. That is a decision to be made by the Town Board, after hearing recommendations from the Estes Park Board of Appeals and the Town's Chief Building Official, and is not in the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Moon stated residential zone districts have unwittingly become guest accommodation areas and in order to minimize neighborhood and affordable/workforce housing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall impacts, were considering recommending a cap on the number of VRs allowed, based on the current licensed/permitted residential VRs (390) times 15% to allow for growth. The cap being considered is 450. Again, occupancy limits of two per bedroom plus two would be recommended. The Commission did recognize, however, the presence of VRs with the ability to house nine or more guests in residential zone districts, and acknowledged one of the recommendations of the County-led task force was to set licensing/permitting by July, 2016, with those VRs that were licensed/permitted being able to continue operating. (Note: Licensing occurs for VRs within the town limits; permitting occurs for VRs outside the town limits, but within the unincorporated Estes Valley) As recommended by the task force, those VRs licensed/permitted for nine plus would be able to continue to operate as long as they met EVDC standards for lot size, setbacks, and code standards for safety from the International Property Maintenance Code, including but not limited to smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms, egress windows, fire extinguishers, etc. it is possible the Board of Appeals and Chief Building Official will recommend applying the International Building Code to those vacation rentals with occupancies greater than eight. The Planning Commission would recommend no new 9+ VRs be permitted in residential zone districts. In other words, those homes existing today and meeting code requirements would be allowed to continue to operate. Commissioner Moon stated a larger issue is still in flux: special review versus standards. Maximum extent possible is difficult to define in the special review process. The more practical process would be to go with standards; however, this is still being discussed. Regarding licenses/permits, this would be the biggest transition for everyone involved. Effective January 2, 2017, a software program called Host Compliance (a subsidiary of iCompass) will be implemented for the entire Estes Valley. Host Compliance will collect and track data, identify VRs via multiple vacation-rental websites, accept "complaints" through a toll-free number, and provide monthly reports and other data to the Town. All information collected will be available to the public. Based on data collected, licenses/permits could be revoked for cause. Licenses/permits would be forfeited if not renewed. New licenses/permits are available up to the cap limit. If you forfeit your license/permit, you would automatically move to the bottom of the list. Commissioner Moon stated the Commission was recommending three levels of enforcement. One of the biggest issues with property owners is some property managers do not do a satisfactory job of management, one of the biggest complaints in residential neighborhoods. Property managers are expected to monitor, manage and enforce regulations associated with their properties. Law enforcement (Town of Estes Park Police within town limits and Larimer County Sheriff in the unincorporated Estes Valley) will take action on illegai activities. Code Compliance Officers interact with property managers and law enforcement to bring offenders into compliance. Violators within town limits may be taken to Municipal Court or District Court. Violators in the unincorporated Estes Valley may be taken to the Board of County Commissioners or District Court. Regarding unlicensed VRs, the town and county have given property owners almost two and one-half years to comply. It is estimated there could be 200-250 VRs that are currently operating without licenses/permits. Unlicensed/unpermitted VR property owners could obtain licenses/permits up to the cap limit. The Host Compliance program would identify unlicensed/unpermitted VRs, which would allow enforcement action. The idea behind the position statement from the Planning Commissioners is to acknowledge the importance of VRs to the Estes Valley with the understanding that Estes Park residents live here as part of a community, not strictly a resort. The many guests to the area consider Estes Park a special place and want to feel like they are a part of the community while they are here. Commissioner Moon reiterated that this document is still a draft, they have put a lot of time and effort into creating it, and they hope it meets most of the community's expectations. Public Comment Rex Poggenpohl/county resident thanked Commissioners Moon and White for creating the position statement, stating it was the best thing produced thus far, and he appreciated the Commissioners taking the initiative to create this document. The issues he had with his neighborhood VR was late night noise, mostly from on-site weddings/receptions. Once the property owner disallowed wedding parties, the noise level decreased significantly. While competent property managers are an important piece, the real problem is the inability of the Town and County to control and enforce VRs. Once the Host Compliance program is up and running, he suggested not making any changes until it has been used for one year. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail Dave Shirk/town resident stated he had VRs and accessory dwelling units in his neighborhood and none had problematic issues. Estes Park has always been a tourist destination and it will be difficult to try to outlaw them, as they would just go "underground". He suggested VRs for nine and over be required to obtain a staff-levei conditional use permit. Appeals regarding the conditional use permit wouid go to the Pianning Commission. George Leonard/county resident stated having a cap without an application process for new prospective home buyers would directly impact local real estate values. It will be difficult for buyers wanting purchase a home and use it as a VR to know if they will or will not be able to get a license/permit if there is a cap limit. He stated certain restrictions on VRs will have a direct and substantial impact on real estate values because people will not purchase a home if they do not know if they could secure a license/permit. He stated the cap should be higher than 450 if the goal is to get aii VRs licensed. New buyers would perceive the low cap limit as a risk to being able to obtain a license/permit. Jay Heineman/county resident stated VRs do not fit in residential neighborhoods. He had doubts about enforcement, and stated the disruption to the character of the neighborhoods was obvious and also had a negative impact on workforce housing. He was opposed to VRs with occupancies nine and over in residential neighborhoods. He supported a Valley-wide cap on VRs in residential neighborhoods in order to have the ability to stop the growth. He stated the cap should be the number of licensed/permitted VRs as of July 1, 2016. Mick Scarpella/town VR owner stated his VR has five bedrooms and he has been operating it as such. He was on the task force, and stated the decision about removing the one acre lot size was predicated on the fact that the task force voted to grandfather all those VRs that were operating with nine and over prior to July 1, 2016, with proper licenses/permits and paying the appropriate taxes. The reasoning behind that decision was to go to one acre or setbacks or other defining standard would be to unfairly knock some out and leave some in and possibly open the Town up to lawsuits. Mr. Scarpella stated those grandfathered VRs would have to meet all the other codes (building, fire, etc.) if lot size was a requirement, he stated most VRs operating with nine and above within the town limits would be eliminated. He did not see anything in the proposed draft about the ability to request a special review so the history of the property could be examined. He asked the Commission to revisit the recommendations of the task force. He stated enforcement was still an issue, but we needed to operate on the assumption that enforcement would happen. Dean Norton/town VR owner stated he intends to retire in Estes Park, and purchased the home for that reason. He currently uses the home on a part-time basis, and also uses it as a VR. His VR could house more than nine people. If the minimum lot size of one acre becomes part of the regulations, his VR would be affected as his property is iess than one acre. He stated the minimum lot size regulation should apply only to new VRs. He stated he had no desire to rent his home long-term as he would not be able to use it if it was rented year-round. If the lot size prevented him from renting short-term, he would not rent it iong-term. He suggested continuing the discussion, and stressed that there are many people who are planning to live here fuil-time and are renting their homes short-term on a temporary basis. Bob Leavitt/county resident created a Google map with all licensed VRs. He iives in Carriage Hills, and stated property owners know if their neighbors are using their home as a VR. He stated the City of Durango uses this type of map to track their VRs, and suggested the Town of Estes Park do the same. This could be used in addition to the Host Compiiance program. He stated there are plenty of people that want to move to the Estes Valley, but do not want to live next to VRs. Chair Hull called a recess at 3:21. The meeting reconvened at 3:32. Ken Arnold/town resident read a letter from Jane Livingston, a member of the task force and the Estes Area Lodging Association. The task force was formed with the purpose of developing recommendations for VRs housing nine or more occupants. Over 400 hours were spent by task force members studying the issues. Eliminating well-managed larger VRs hurts the economic heaith and viability of Estes Park. Estes Park's economy has been built on vacationing guests and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 8 receives 60% of its income from tourism. Ms. Livingston encouraged the Planning Commission to follow the task force recommendations. The Planning Commission's Draft Position Paper notes the Town Board approved VRs as a "use by right" in 2010, but she had a copy of a 2004 ordinance that allowed VRs in all residential zone districts. She stated in her letter the increase in licensing of VRs was not an indicator of the increase in VRs, so using the licensing/permitting of VRs as a measurement for actual numbers of VRs would not be accurate. She pointed out there are 25% fewer real estate listings in 2016 than there were in 2010, and the shortage of homes in Estes Park is not attributable to long-term rental homes being converted to VRs, but rather to the health of the economy and the fact that there was very little new construction in Estes Park during the recession. Kaylyn Kruger/Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) board member stated the EALA Board had several concerns, including but not limited to: applying VR rules to commercial- and accommodations-zoned properties wouid alter the calculations for occupancy; they did not support a ban on VRs for nine and over; they did not support a cap of 450; they were concerned about requiring inspections of VRs but not all properties; assuming the increase in licenses/permits was due to an increase in VRs was incorrect; opposed the use of the building codes as a method to shut down existing VRs. Monica Myers/EALA representative read a letter from the EALA Board that will be posted on the vacation rentals web page. EALA suggested earmarking a percentage of fees collected from VR licensing to hire enforcement staff. According to Visit Estes Park, the number of accounts in the last five years remitting taxes to Visit Estes Park has increased by 45%. The majority of that increase can be attributed to VRs paying taxes, because there have not been many new hotels/motels added to the existing inventory. EALA disagreed with Fred Mares comment, instead stating the increase in VR was due to the town beginning to send out notices of violation to unlicensed VRs. EALA stated the possible restrictions applied to VRs would not have a large impact on the workforce housing shortage, it was EALA's opinion that it would be better to have reasonable regulations and enforcement that supported the industry rather than take actions that would encourage VR owners to go underground with their rental. EALA supports the requirement of automatic fire sprinkler systems in new construction of full-time VRs accommodating nine and above. They were unable to locate any municipality that requires the retrofitting of sprinklers or alterations to meet ADA requirements. EALA supported all the task force recommendations. Julie Pharis/town resident and property manager stated workforce housing and vacation rentals are two completely separate issues. She agreed with George Leonard's comments. Steve Ferrante/town resident agreed with Mick Scarpella, and last three letters that were read. He was disappointed that the task force recommendations were not more heavily weighted. He stated the proposed cap of 450 was far too low, given the number of guests that visit the Estes Valley. Mark Gunther/town resident stated a cap could protect the valley, but an idea to protect neighborhoods would be to have a radius, with a limit on the number of VRs within that radius so you do not have a large concentration of VRs in certain neighborhoods. Ed Peterson/town resident stated VRs accommodating nine and above are not taking away from workforce housing. He asked what happened to licensed VRs that sold to new property owners. Town Attorney White stated the land use is tied to the land, and the use of the property transfers with the title. He clarified the position document was a draft and revisions may need to be made. Mr. Peterson stated VRs bring in a substantial amount of money to the Estes Valley. Bettye Peterson/town resident stated the draft document was an excellent starting point. She suggested the Commission consider the grandfathering of those VRs for nine and above that are on lots smaller than one acre and have been operating very successfully without complaints. No one wants to live next to a party house, and most of these are VRs with improper management. She stated some long-term rentals are not property managed, either. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali Millicent Cozzie/town resident stated the draft document saddened her, as it completely obliterated the task force recommendations. She asked to be on the task force because she likes to see multi-generational family reunions, which are typically more than eight people. She stated the workforce housing issue needs to be kept separate from VRs. She stated VRs with multi- generational family reunions will police themselves, with the elders of the group keeping the youngsters in check. She was in favor of a cap for VRs with occupancies of eight and under. She did not support a cap on occupancies of nine and above, stating the free market would cap that. If a cap was established, it could be revisited after one year. She predicted the County Commissioners would support the document. Her question to the Town Trustees would be "who is going to run our town?" She was not comfortable with the County Commissioners telling the Town of Estes Park what to do. She hoped the Commissioners could find a way to accommodate VRs with occupancies of nine and above, both new and existing. The current document would basically shut down the nine and above VRs. Bernie Holien/county resident was supportive of the Host Compliance program to track the numbers of VRs. Although there have been many comments about limiting VRs for nine and above in residential areas, he stated the Commission has been more than generous, given the fact that these large VRs have been operating illegally for many years. He stated the lot size requirements make sense. If you are currently operating for nine and above on a lot that is less than one acre, you could still continue to operate your VR for occupancies of eight and under. He stated the Estes Valley has facilities for large groups, and those places should be used for such, instead of having large groups in residential neighborhoods. He stated in tourist communities, the market is trending to VRs rather than hotel/motel accommodations. Bill Salms/town resident stated VRs were good competition for the hotel/motel industry, making the hotels and motels give good customer service and charge fair prices. He owns a five bedroom home that he rents as a VR on a part-time basis. They remodeled the house in order to have large groups. He stated the property management company never advised him about the licensing requirement. He stated a taking, without proper consideration under the law, is unconstitutional. He questioned whether all the constitutional issues surrounding VRs would pass muster. He stated there is a general Colorado law stating no local body corporate could restrict rental of a private home. He encouraged the Commissioners to make sure all the constitutional rights are met. Deb Pierce/county VR owner that lives out of town stated when she travels she uses VRs a lot. Today's traveler is changing, and prefers this type of accommodation. She recommended using a percentage rather than a cap. She stated VRs should not be singled out for building code violations unless all other commercial properties were also being inspected. She liked Bob Leavitt's map and the reasoning behind it. Seth Smith/property manager stated people seem to forget that VRs are a use by right in single­ family residential zone districts. He did not support a cap, stating the Town Board has already rejected this idea, but the County Commission supports it. The potential downfall of a cap would be fewer visitors, less tax collected, which would directly relate to fewer jobs. He stated a workforce housing problem meant the economy was booming and people are hiring. He stated there are a lot of jobs available in town and we are getting closer to a year-round economy. He stated the economic impact from allowing people to rent their homes as VRs is greater than the fallout the community would have if there were less visitors. He did not agree with a community­ wide map that is available to the public, as it opens up to criminal activity those VRs that are not rented. Tony Schetzsie/town resident stated there has been de facto rezoning to locate for-profit businesses in neighborhoods. He stated the sense of community has a great potential for being perforated by this glut of short-term vacation rentals. He understands the Commission is trying to balance the needs of the accommodations industry with the needs of the residents to maintain a sense of community and neighborhoods. He recommended short-term rentals in residential zones must be the owner's principal residence, and the name of the VR licensee should match that on the deed to the property. He stated VRs should be regulated by the International Building Code RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail 10 with 24 months to comply. Fees for VRs should be dramatically increased. He stated it is time for the County Tax Assessor to collect commercial property tax for VRs in the Estes Valley. He stated residential zones need to stay residential zones. Wes Hoffman/town resident agreed with Mr. Schetzsie. He did not agree with Mr. Smith's statement that Estes Park would see a downturn in its economy if limitations were placed on VRs. Estes Park has always been a tourist town, and he did not think the number of vacation rentals now will make the different between a good town and a bad town. He supported the cap if it was enforceable. He was concerned about Estes Park going too far to cater exclusively to outside people. There are many things we could do to attract more visitors. Mary Ann Salms/town resident stated her home accommodates more than nine people, and she likes to think she makes her neighborhood better. Guest comments show their VR is a good experience for those visiting Estes Park. She stated responsible VR owners make Estes Park better. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Moon reiterated the document reviewed today is a draft. Comments received today will be considered and reviewed and the draft will be modified as needed. Commissioner Schneider stated all public comment today was appreciated. Director Hunt stated the another public hearing would take place at a Special Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 29, at 1:30 in the Town Board Room. There will not be a study session prior to the meeting. Draft code language will be presented. On a related matter, the Estes Park Board of Appeals will meet on Thursday, December 1, at 4 p.m. in the Town Board Room. They will be reviewing buildings codes as they relate to vacation rentals with occupancies greater than eight. This Board can make recommendations to the Town Board. The Town's Division of Building Safety and the County's Building Department communicate regularly and attempt to align the codes whenever possible. Director Hunt stated a joint meeting between the Town Board and the County Commission will be held Thursday, December 15, at 6 p.m. in the Town Board Room. The Boards will hear any staff reports and public comments together, and will hold separate official meetings if they choose to take action. He stated today's public comment was useful and provided some insights he had not considered. Hopefully the next meeting will bring closure to this issue. To date, staff has not provided a full-fledged recommendation; however, staff will be prepared to provide a recommendation at the November 29x meeting. Staff will aim to seek a unitary recommendation as to how to move forward, and will provide this recommendation to the Town Board and County Commission. Commissioner Murphree stated there were many good and diverse opinions spoken today, from a very intelligent group of people. He thanked the public for commenting on the issue. 7. REPORTS Director Hunt had no comments regarding the reports listed on the agenda There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m. Betty Hull9fChair mg SecreKaren Thompson