HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-11-29 Special MeetingRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, White, Schneider, Hills and Moon
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White,
Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording
Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 75 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
Art Messell spoke about the Habitat for Humanity project near Dry Gulch Road, stating that
Commissioner Murphy had a conflict of interest and should not have participated in the
discussion of this application. He asked Commissioner Murphree to step down as a Planning
Commissioner.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, November 15, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REAGARDING ATTAINABLE HOUSING
QUALIFICATIONS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO WORKFORCE HOUSING
Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. The objective of this proposed code amendment is to
revise the EVDC to appropriately revise regulations in the Estes Valley that address attainable and
workforce housing, by providing increased incentives and options for developments to fill this
niche in the local housing stock. The current threshold for attainable housing in the Estes Valley is
60% of Larimer County’s Average Median Income (AMI) for rented units and 80% AMI for owner‐
occupied units. The proposed amendment would increase the AMI to 150% for the Estes Valley.
The proposed amendment also adds a provision for workforce‐housing units to qualify for the
increased AMI when confirmed by the Housing Authority. Proof of employment in the Estes Valley
would be required. Director Hunt clarified the proposed amendment would increase the density
bonus from 1.5 times base zoning to two times base zoning. Additionally, the area covered by the
Estes Park Housing Authority is the same as the Estes Park School District R‐3 boundaries.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
Public Comment
Rita Kurelja/Estes Park Housing Authority stated this amendment would help in addressing the
lack of housing for middle‐income households. Young families are leaving the Estes Valley at a
high rate, and a large number of workers commute to Estes Park from the valley. Increasing the
AMI would expand housing options for the workforce community. She provided examples of how
the code amendment would impact the community. (Note: Her presentation is posted on the
Town website at www.estes.org/EVDCAmendments, Attainable Housing Density Bonus, Public
Comment for November 29, 2016). She stated the amendment for the density bonus could be an
incentive to private developers. The median price of homes sold in the Estes Valley in 2016 is
$394,000. This is unreachable for many of the workforce in the Estes Valley. The proposed
amendment would provide financial support for projects that benefit households with incomes
higher than 80% AMI. Ms. Kurelja stated the Housing Authority is working on a model to
implement the workforce housing component. Other communities with workforce housing
programs require the employee to work at minimum of 30 hours per week. There are provisions
in place in these communities to address the issue that occurs when the employee stops working
in the program area.
Director Hunt stated an example of increased density levels could allow up to 16 units per acre
where only eight are currently allowed. The current allowance is low compared to other
communities. Other solutions to assist with workforce housing include, but are not limited to
increasing the height limit, allowing mixed‐used development, and providing the ability to
implement cluster development.
Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Corporation was supportive of the proposed amendment,
stating the density bonus is a key component for private developers. Workforce housing is the
largest reason that people are leaving the Estes Valley.
Greg Rosener/town resident supported the proposed amendment.
Tom Gootz/town resident stated the town does not have the infrastructure to accommodate a lot
of new development. He thinks developers may want to build high density development in areas
where they have historically not existed. He asked that fairness prevail and to consider the full‐
time tax‐paying residents that would not benefit from promoting these types of developments.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of
Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approved the text amendment to
the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, including findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and as recommended by staff, and the motion passed 6‐0 with one absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO VACATION
RENTALS.
Chair Hull stated public comment would be accepted at today’s meeting. 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 thanked those who spoke and provided written comments at the meeting
on November 15, 2016. He reviewed the talking points of the EVPC Position Statement. This
document is posted on the Town website at www.estes.org/vacationrentals, Timeline, November
29, 2016. He stated there have been many communities that have adopted code amendments to
address Vacation Rentals (VRs). The whole idea behind the position statement was to find a way
to effectively manage and enforce the VR industry. The goal is to achieve 95% compliance by the
end of 2017. Proposed recommendations have been modified to make the goal realistic. The
proposal is based on zone districts, with two guests per bedroom plus two. There may be building
code amendments that would change some of the proposed regulations. The Planning
Commission proposed extending the grace period for licensing/permitting to March 31, 2017,
which gives property owners plenty of time to become compliant. After March 31st, a cap would
be set for the number of VRs in residential zone districts, based on the number of
licensed/permitted units as of March 31, 2017, plus 10% growth. Commissioner Moon stated the
EVDC requires a finite number be stated in the code, and the current proposal recommends a cap
of 588 VRs in residential zone districts. VRs in commercial and accommodations zone districts
would not be limited to a cap. The cap number would be revisited after one year, and the
decision‐making bodies would have the option to maintain the same number or
increase/decrease it. Commissioner Moon stated a standards process was considered for the VRs
for nine and above; however, the majority of these larger VRs would not meet the proposed one‐
acre minimum. It was challenging to find a solution to accommodate both smaller (eight and
under) and larger (nine and above) VRs. The Planning Commission proposed no new VRs for nine
and above in residential zone districts, effective April 1, 2017. A type of review is being proposed,
with the goal to have a checklist that will be clear and fair for all involved. All licenses/permits
would be tracked by Host Compliance data. The Host Compliance program is being funded 50/50
between the Town and Larimer County. This program will provide hard data related to code
violations. Licenses/permits would be available up to the cap limit, may be revoked for cause, and
would be forfeited if not renewed. A wait list would be created for any applications filed after the
cap has been reached. It is proposed to have VRs inspected every three years to ensure
continued compliance. Property managers would be expected to monitor, manage, and enforce
regulations, while the appropriate law enforcement agencies would handle illegal/criminal acts.
The ladder of enforcement of code violations at VRs within town limits would be initiated with the
Code Compliance officer, moving to Municipal Court if not resolved. VRs with code violations and
located in the unincorporated Estes Valley would first go to the Code Compliance Officer, then to
the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, and on to District Court if not resolved at any
of the lower levels. If unlicensed VRs have not obtained a license and become compliant by March
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
31, 2017, the Town/County may begin legal action, as they would be operating illegally. The full
position statement is available for viewing at www.estes.org/vacationrentals, Timeline, November
29, 2016.
Director Hunt gave a brief overview of the staff report, stating it was drafted from the Position
Statement presented at the November 15th Planning Commission study session. (Note: The
Position Statement presented today was provided to staff the morning of the meeting.) He stated
whatever the Commission recommends, and whatever the decision‐making bodies choose to
adopt, staff will find a way to make it work successfully. He stated there are three possible
outcomes: (1) adoption of the task force recommendations; (2) adopt the regulations spelled out
in the position statement from November 15, 2016, or (3) adopt recommendations presented
during public testimony. He stated the recommendation of having all nine and over VRs go
through a review process in a limited amount of time is doable, but would require diligence on
the part of the Planning Commission, staff, and the two governing bodies to make it work
expeditiously. He envisioned special meetings, overtime work for staff, etc. Director Hunt stated
this has been a divisive community issue and was pleased with the community participation. It
has been a long road and hopefully we’re nearing the end. He emphasized the need for a decision
and closure to this issue. He stated staff would not support a split decision between the Town
Board and County Commission. The Estes Valley Development Code has been administered
successfully for 16 years, and it is important that be continued.
Town Attorney White stated he had concerns regarding the licensing process, stating the license
follows the property, not the property owner. If ownership of the VR changes, the license would
be transferred to the new owner, subject to the regulations. If the new owner chooses not to
renew the license, they would forfeit it. He was concerned over the review process, stating clear
standards need to be established so approval/denial was not based solely on statements made by
adjacent property owners. He suggested creating a streamlined process for the individual reviews,
and recommended the Planning Commission be the decision‐making body, with the Town Board
and County Commission being the appeals board. Commissioner Moon stated the position
statement was revised, making Planning Commission the decision‐making body, and the
requirement for neighbor endorsement was removed.
Public Comment
Sandy Lindquist/county resident supported a cap and enforcement, stating VRs are not
compatible neighbors in residential areas. Rules should not change after people have purchased
their homes in a specific zone district. The more transient the neighborhood, the greater the risk
of violations and crime. Full‐time residents should not have to police their neighborhoods.
Cliff Shank/out‐of‐state VR owner was concerned the proposed regulations were not family‐
friendly. He was concerned the proposed regulations would prevent large families from gathering
for vacations in Estes Park. He did not want children to be included in the eight‐person limit.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
Dennis Fromholzer/out‐of‐town VR owner stated he has plans to retire here, but is currently using
his home as a VR. His concern is that the economy of Estes Park is totally dependent on visitors.
His analytical studies show the community is maxed out on visitor accommodations, and people
are being turned away. Peak times have flattened out because the accommodations units are full.
Capping the number of VRs would have a severe distortion in the market place.
Tom Gootz/town resident agreed that Estes Park has reached a peak. Homeowners do not want
an unlimited number of VRs in their neighborhoods. If the cap could be revisited every year and
possibly changed, it would not really be a cap. Regarding enforcement, he requested specifics
about showing cause to revoke a license/permit. Although the Host Compliance program may
track violators, the local police force is the only body that could take action.
Tyler Sherman/out‐of‐town VR owner (nine and above) stated he was concerned about his
neighbors being prejudiced against him during the permitting process. He did not want to be
guilty before proven innocent. Commissioner Moon clarified the neighbor endorsement
recommendation was removed, although the neighbor notification would apply.
John Grady/county resident stated his wife’s VR (nine and above) was purchased under the
current regulations, and he requested a transition from the current regulations to the new
regulations, so as to be fair to the people who purchased under the current regulations. Property
owners should have an opportunity to move successfully through the system with fairness, and
encouraged the Commissioners to consider fairness when establishing the criteria for the review
of VRs for nine and above.
Bob Rising/county resident supported a cap, and recommended fines for code violators. It was
important to him to enforce the dark sky ordinance. He suggested the Estes Park Police Auxiliary
be called upon to monitor certain neighborhoods for VR violations.
Scott Reichle/out‐of‐state VR owner stated his VR accommodates more than nine, and he was
hopeful a reasonable compromise could be reached. The review criteria needs to be objective and
fair to everyone. He has worked hard to have good renters and be a good neighbor. He
encouraged enforcement to be reasonable, e.g. if there is an unruly guest that can be handled
quickly with a telephone call, that should not go against the property owner. His plan is to retire
here and live in the home full‐time.
Art Messal/town resident stated Estes Park is not a resort, it is a community, and VRs have
negative impacts on communities. Property owners do not have the right to operate a hotel in a
residential area. He supported a ban of all vacation rentals in the Estes Valley, which would
improve the workforce housing situation.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6
Kaylyn Kruger/Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) representative read a letter that was the
EALA Board’s position, and submitted as public comment. It can be read in full at
www.estes.org/vacationrentals, Timeline, November 29, 2016, Public Comment. She stated most
complaints are from accommodations and commercial zone districts, and using vacation home
and lodging revenue to fund an enforcement position is an ideal solution. Enforcement is one of
the main key issues. Over‐regulating will only force vacation rentals to operate “underground”.
Taxes to Visit Estes Park has increased by 45%, which is due to VRs becoming licensed/permitted.
VR owners would not change a short‐term rental to a long‐term rental. EALA is not aware of any
cities/towns requiring retrofitting of sprinklers for vacation rentals.
Tony Schetzsle/county resident did not support the extention of the grace period, as the
unlicensed vacation rental owners have had plenty of time to become compliant. He was in favor
of a cap if VRs are allowed in residential zone districts. He stated 588 is too high. Enforcement is
only good if the neighbors act as the enforcers.
Jane Livingston/out‐of‐state VR owner provided a document containing statistics relating to the
financial impact of vacation rentals to the Town budget. Her document is available for review on
the Town website at www.estes.org/vacationrentals, Timeline, November 29, 2016, Public
Comment. She estimates 25% of the town budget comes from VRs.
Elizabeth Fogarty/CEO, Visit Estes Park provided a formal statement from VEP on private vacation
homes. The document can be reviewed at www.estes.org/vacationrentals, Timeline, November
29, 2016, Public Comment. The VEP Board voted unanimously to support the vacation rental
industry in the Estes Valley. They are supportive of VRs and fair regulations. They suggested a
reliable way to identify VR is to make tax collection and remittance obligations clear to the VR
owner; and treat VR tenants the same as long‐term tenants.
Bernie Holien/county resident was concerned about the annual review of the cap, stating the
issue would never be put to rest as long as there was an option to change the cap limit. He
recommended using a formula that would increase the cap by a percentage of the number of
total homes in specific areas every five years. This process would allow vacation rental growth at
the same rate as the specific areas.
Rainer Schelp/town resident, task force member, and local property manager supported vacation
rentals for nine and above, and also supported enforcement. Estes Park is a visitor‐driven
economy, and we do not want to limit the potential in Estes Park. Without VRs, the town would
get a negative image and the entire town would feel the effects of the loss.
Michelle Highland/town resident was in favor of a cap. She stated owners and property managers
should be responsible for any code violations. The regulations should be clear and effective, with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
7
fines assessed when necessary. Tourism at all cost needs to end, and local residents need to be
respected.
Ginny Hutchison/county resident stated she was against unsupervised VRs in residential
neighborhoods. VRs have changed the long‐term rental environment in the Estes Valley.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Moon reviewed the proposed Position Statement, with comments including but
not limited to:
12 of the 15 Task Force recommendations were incorporated into proposed detailed
recommendations
VR occupancy limited to two occupants per bedroom plus two
All occupants, regardless of age, are counted
Traffic limitations and speed limits would align with existing regulations
Inspections were modified to be completed every three years
Parking regulations would align with current EVDC provisions in specific zone districts
Renter Notification was modified slightly from task force recommendation by adding
additional information, which will be supplied to all licensed vacation rental
owners/managers. This will be a standard document.
Noise requirements align with Town and County noise ordinances
Proof of insurance will not be required
No requirement for liability signoff by renters. VR owner/manager will be responsible for
posting documents provided by Community Development staff, and addressing
trespassing by tenants on adjacent properties
Local contact will be required, and must be available 24/7 to address any violations.
Contact information will be provided to Host Compliance, who will accept the complaint,
log it in, and contact the local contact by phone
A review process is being worked on by staff to manage the potential quantity of VR
reviews for occupancies of nine and above.
No cap will be placed on VRs located in the following zone districts: A–Accommodations,
A‐1–Accommodations, CD–Commercial Downtown, and CO–Commercial Outlying. VRs
with occupancies of more than eight may be required to comply with the International
Building Code rather than the International Residential Code. If so, the Planning
Commission recommends a compliance period of 24‐months to complete any needed
upgrades.
All VRs shall comply with the dark sky ordinance. Commissioner Moon stated the dark sky
ordinance is violated frequently, and easy to remedy.
VRs in residential zone districts should be limited to a maximum occupancy of eight
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
8
VRs allowing nine and above who have applied for a license/permit by March 31, 2017
shall apply for the yet‐to‐be‐determined review process. This statement would be
modified to state the Estes Valley Planning Commission would be the decision‐making
body
No new VRs accommodating nine or more occupants should be permitted in any
residential zone effective April 1, 2017. This date was chosen to provide a date with
minimal potential for litigation, and is the end of the business license renewal cycle. This
date also allows Host Compliance to collect a full three months of data
It was noted that family members in owner‐occupied homes are not considered vacation
rental tenants.
An annual cap of 588 VRs in residential zone districts should be set for code purposes on
December 15, 2016, and reevaluated and set post April 1, 2017 based on the total of
licenses/permits applied for as of March 31, 2017, plus 10%. Planning Commission would
review the available data on an annual basis and provide recommendations to the Town
Board and County Commission. Director Hunt stated 588 was derived from the calculation
of the current Host Compliance estimate of 750 VRs, multiplied by the number of
licensed/permitted VRs, and determined the number of VRs that were located in
residential zone districts (78% of total). This number was 588.
Town Attorney White stated (5)a. should be revised to say VR licenses/permits are issued
for the period of one year.
A violation policy, similar to the driver’s license point system, is being developed by Code
Compliance staff
The Town and County statutory processes are very different, and license/permit
enforcement will be handled by each individual jurisdiction.
Licenses/permits in residential zones revoked for more than twelve (12) months become
invalid. Owner my reapply after all previous violations have been corrected. If the cap limit
has been reached, the owner goes to the bottom of the waiting list.
Licenses/permits not renewed become invalid after 12 months and are forfeited. Owners
can reapply, but the cap limit may apply, as in the previous statement.
Property inspection shall be conducted by Code Compliance Inspectors to ensure public
safety, on a staggered three‐year schedule, following the initial inspection. Inspections
shall occur for VRs in all zone districts.
License/permit number must be clearly listed on all marketing literature and website
listings
A checklist will be developed for review criteria for VRs of nine and above. This will ensure
property owners clearly know what is expected to comply with the review decision matrix.
VR owner or property manager will be responsible for notifying adjacent property owners
within 100 feet of subject property. Note: Please refer to the Position Statement for
additional details regarding neighbor notification.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
9
A checklist will be provided to assist with inspections. Chair Hull clarified that bedrooms in
VRs must be legal bedrooms per the floor plans submitted for building permits. Note:
Please refer to the Position Statement for additional details regarding inspections.
VRs for nine and above must meet zone district setback requirements. The task force
recommended a one‐acre minimum lot size. If lots containing VRs are less than the one‐
acre minimum, documentation would be submitted to determine location of structure to
property lines, location of accessory items, parking, lighting, etc., and a determination
would be made by Planning Commission (Note: This statement was clarified by Director
Hunt following the meeting)
The VR tenants will be asked to comply with the dark sky ordinance per the EVDC.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Comments included but were not limited to: the Planning Commission has been discussing VRs off
and on for at least eight years; the Planning Commission can be the decision‐making body for VR
reviews; the review would follow the special review criteria that staff and the Commission have
been working on during the last several study sessions; this will require a lot of work by staff and
the Commission over the next year, and hopefully the processed will be streamlined so it will not
take an extraordinary amount of time; fairness and an expedited process is built in; there is no
right or easy answer; there are positive and negative datum on both sides of the issue; the public
was notified of the 2014 Colorado Area Ski Towns (CAST) report regarding the effect of short‐term
rentals on local housing markets, which is available on the internet; in 2016 a Housing Needs
Assessment was conducted by the Estes Park Housing Authority; every effort has been made to
be as fair as possible to everyone in the community; the public is welcome to attend and
comment at the December 15, 2016 joint meeting of the Town Board and County Commission, to
be held at 6 p.m. in the Town Board room.
It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees
and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, as recommended by staff, including
conclusions of law and findings of fact, as modified by the findings and the detailed
recommendations in the Position Paper, and the motion passed 6‐0 with one absent.
Director Hunt mentioned the meeting on Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6 p.m. in the Town
Board room. It will be a joint public hearing with the Town Trustees and County Commissioners to
make a determination and take action on the proposed code amendment as written or modified
by either of those Boards. A separate but related public hearing of the Estes Park Board of
Appeals will be held Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4 p.m. in the Town Board room. Discussion
will occur related to the International Building Codes and which codes should be applied to VRs.
The Board of Appeals decisions will have a separate timeline as to potential changes to the
building codes within the town limits of Estes Park.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
10
5. REPORTS
Director Hunt had no comments regarding the reports listed on the agenda.
Commissioner Hills recognized staff for all the hard work done on behalf of the Commission,
stating it was very much appreciated.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:33 p.m.
_________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary