Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-02-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Aiso Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, and Klink Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Commissioners Hills and Schneider Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 40 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, December 9, 2015 Special Planning Commission meeting. B. Approval of minutes, December 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) AND ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE (EPMC) RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS (VHR) Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commissioners, Town Trustees, and County Commissioners have had long conversations about vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Development Code Area. He gave a brief overview of the various Board/Commission meetings and public forums. The County Commissioners held their own public forums to gain additional public comment. A recent joint work session with all three boards gave some direction to move forward; however, a proposed new use of vacation homes to parties greater than 8 will be worked through via a task force facilitated by the county. The Chief Building Official, Will Birchfield, spoke at two Town Board Study Sessions regarding the relationship between local building codes and vacation homes. The Town Board recently adopted a local amendment to the building code which will require a life safety inspection of vacation home rentals within the town limits. The county will be updating their building codes within the next few months, and will probably be addressing this topic at the county level. Another Joint work session is planned for March 30, 2016. The proposed code amendment was discussed during the study session, and Planner Kleisler would be reviewing the highlights of that discussion. The Planning Commission could choose to vote on the proposed amendment or continue it to the March 15, 2016 meeting. The components of the proposed amendment include the following key issues: Annual Operating Permit Limit. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Board and County Commission requested the Planning Commission discuss this concept and provide a recommendation as to whether or not to pursue a limit on operating permits issued. There has been an increase in the number of vacation home rentals within the past five years. 2010 had 206 vacation home licenses, with the current number being 339. Code compliance for vacation home rentals started to become a priority in 2014, with the hiring of a full-time code compliance officer. One option to consider is to place a valley-wide cap on the number of vacation home rental operating permits issued. Planner Kleisler stated 4.7% (339) of total housing units (7,087) in the Estes Valley are permitted vacation home rentals. If a cap was to be considered, other percentages could be 5% (364 VHRs), 7% (510 VHRs), 10% (729 VHRs) or 25% (1822 VHRs). The statistics presented do not account for any unlicensed units. Planner Kleisler showed a graph of other mountain towns and the percentages of VHRs to total housing. Of approximately ten communities reviewed, only Durango, Colorado has a limit placed on the number of VHRs in their community. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii Commissioners want to hear public comment prior to making a decision on placing a limit on the number of VHRs in the Estes Valley. Neighborhood Communication. Planner Kleisler stated section D of the proposed code amendment would require property owners to post a notice of current regulations on the site of each VHR. Included in this posting would be items such as contact information, maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed, safety information, quiet hours, information about the town's local leash law, refuse disposal and wildlife protection standards. Staff sees this as a way to positively communicate between property owners and renters. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed amendment would require property owners/managers to post the operating permit number on the VHRs advertising web page and on printed advertising. Staff would provide a basic form for owners/managers to complete and post on site. This form could look different, depending on whether the property was within the town limits or in unincorporated Larimer County. Planner Kleisler stated neighbor notification is being proposed, which would require a written notice to neighbors within 100 feet, providing owner and local contact name, contact information, and other information pertinent to the VHR. Proof of mailing would be required. Any updates to the previously mentioned information would constitute a new mailing. Parking. Planner Kleisler stated the current allowance under the VHR ordinance is no more than three vehicles. Public comment has expressed a desire to revert the current restrictions back to what is allowed for a non-VHR in a single-family residential zone, which would allow more vehicles on larger lots. If the Planning Commissioners choose to allow this portion of the proposed amendment, some VHRs would be allowed additional vehicles if the driveway and other off-street designated parking areas are large enough. Staff recommends to retain the current prohibition of on-street parking for VHRs. There is also a limitation in this chapter concerning the placement and storage of recreation vehicles on the site, as well as the occupants of the principal structure needing to belong to the occupants. In other words, people not staying at the VHR could not park their car there for an extended period of time. Planner Kleisler stated Larimer County staff held two public forums in Estes Park, and from those forums came various recommendations from County staff relating to the annual renewal processes. They recommended an annual mass mailing during the renewal period; a comment period for adjacent neighbors, and if comments brought forth related to legitimate land use issues, some sort of review process would be triggered (conditional use permit or something similar). Planner Kleisler stated the Town Clerk's office would most likely be responsible for those mailings. Currently, the Town does not have the staff to operate this process, and staff has contacted County staff to further discuss the issue. Perhaps properties that receive a confirmed violation could trigger a reevaluation of the property during the renewal process. Meetings with the property owner/manager/local contact could occur with Town staff, with the Community Development Director then providing direction moving forward (conditions of approval, revocation, etc.). The property owner would have the right to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. Staff sees this process as a cleaner approach to the issue rather than an annual mass mailing. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: • If properties that receive citations are confirmed, why wait until the annual renewal period to evaluate the property. Addressing the issues immediately would make more sense, and waiting until the year is up is not the normal way to address violations. • It is very important in residential zoning that VHRs match what the full-time residents can do. • The number of renters and number of vehicles should be the same as the full-time property owners/long-term renters. • Parking issue seems unworkable, unless enforcement took place. The biggest issue would be to retain the prohibition of on-street parking for VHRs. Public Comment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Chair Hull stated that because the Planning Commission is limiting the proposed code amendment to VHRs for eight or fewer occupants, no public comment will be taken regarding VHRs for nine or more occupants. Bettye Harrison/town resident is a member of the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association. She requested the Commission not move forward with the requirement for neighbor notices, as this could be used as a method for unfounded complaints. The initial intent was a best-practice and common courtesy for neighboring property owners to know who to contact about problems before contact the local authorities. If required, the notification should only be used for notification, not an outlet for comments. The Association was concerned that the annual licensing process would become part of the complaint process, placing undue burden on staff, police, and the court system. She stated onerous rules and regulations would damage the tourist industry in the Estes Valley if a license was revoked mid-year after reservations were already confirmed. Guests to the area make reservations (VHR, flights, car rentals, etc.) far in advance and Estes Park would feel negative consequences to its tourism industry. The Association believes if neighbors are allowed to comment prior to the issuance of an operating permit, the property owner is essentially guilty before proven innocent. The Association encouraged focusing on an enforceable noise ordinance. They do not support a limit on the number of units allowed. NOTE: Planner Kleisler stated the proposed neighbor notification is intended to be a courtesy notification, with no comment period allowed as part of this process. Complaints would not be accepted as part of this process. Heidi Welsch/out of state vacation home owner stated the proposed amendment is a balanced solution. She wanted to go on record stating such in case the County Staff/Commissioners did not agree. If the neighbor notification could generate objections to the VHR, a major backlash could occur. She related requiring this type of neighbor notification to being stricter than having a registered sex offender in the neighborhood. Registered sex offenders are not required to notify the neighbors that they are living in the neighborhood. She saw this as potentially being very damaging for neighborhood relationships. She was opposed to limiting the number of VHRs. When she purchased her home, she had the legal right to use it as a VHR, and her property rights would be violated if the rules changed. She was concerned about deed restrictions being placed on homes regarding the right to use them as VHRs. She stated she was confused about the complaint process, and whether or not one violation could result in the revocation of a license. NOTE: Commissioner Klink reminded the audience the Planning Commission is the recommending body, and public comments should also be addressed at the upcoming Town Board and County Commission meetings. Eric Blackhurst/local realtor agreed with Ms. Welsch regarding the notification process allowing comment. He questioned whether or not staff or the Commission has given question to covenant controlled areas. There are a number of developments in the Estes Valley that were buHt specifically to be VHRs. He stated the vacation rental business began in the 1870s. In 1998 a 1% growth cap was proposed and defeated. Second-home owners make up about 42% of the Estes Valley population. He was concerned about code enforcement not being effective unless the officers were working nights, weekends, and holidays. Mr. Blackhurst questioned the critena for complaints and hearings; would an operating permit run with the property via a deed restriction, and if so, who would be monitoring the deeds; if inspections are required, who will be conducting the inspections and will they take place in a timely manner so the property owners can be issued their operating permit. Using your property as a VHR is currently a use by right and not subject to review. He suggested that before the Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Board and County Commission, they consider the unintended consequences. There are people in the Estes Valley that make their living selling and/or managing property and are very familiar with how it all works. It is not an easy process that can be controlled by a part-time code compliance officer. VHRs are important to the economic fabric of our community and for those that have invested in property in the Estes Valley. Kaylyn Kruger/Estes Area Lodging Association representative stated this group supports the comments made by the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Durango Steele/local property owner agreed with Mr. Blackhurst's comments. She is a realtor and understands the importance of property rights. She stated the majority of VHR owners have never had a complaint on their property. She was concerned that special regulations were being considered for VHRs that were a use by right, considering it discrimination. Estes Park has historically been a vacation destination. She cautioned the Commission about placing a cap on the number of VHRs allowed, since it could become a legal issue. Mick Scapella/out-of-town vacation home owner stated as a VHR owner, he has been made to feel like a criminal. The property rights of neighbors seem to supersede his rights since he has a vacation rental. If a property is being managed properly and consistently, there shouldn t be any problems. He stated it would be a burden on him to have to notify neighbors, as he already knows them and doesn't have any problems with them, nor they with him. He cares about this community but would be willing to sell and find a community that wants him. Seth Smith/local business owner, property manager, and reaitor stated putting cap on the number of VHRs allowed would drastically change the supply and demand, and the unintended consequences would be huge. He stated what should be considered is a response to violations, e.g. enforcement. VHRs are a part of Estes Park neighborhoods and property management piays a big part. He was supportive of the proposed information sheet. Mike Richardson/president of the Estes Park Board of Realtors (EPBOR) stated most of the 54 members of this board have lived in the area for quite some time. They work hard to protect home ownership and property investment. He stated the problem is not the lack of code regulations, but lack of enforcement. Placing more restrictions on VHRs is not the answer. The common denominator with those both for and against VHRs has been code enforcement, or lack thereof No one wants to live next to an out-of-control VHR, but knowing what the actual number of complaints received is to help assess the effectiveness of code enforcement. Estes Park has always been a tourist town. If we cannot accommodate our guests, they will not come. Mr^ Richardson stated there are two different types of overnight guests; some prefer hotels and others prefer VHRs. The EPBOR is opposed to limiting the number of VHRs. The Board would be willing to share their knowledge regarding VHRs. He reiterated the need for more code enforcement, not more code regulations. Warren Clinton/local accommodations facility owner stated there is a need for VHRs. His motel has 31 units and can accommodate 138 people. He consistently received inquiries from potential guests wanting accommodations for large groups. He stated he feels comfortable hosting groups up to 20 people, but any larger than that is not beneficial to his facility as a whole. Last summer he requested his front desk staff to track how many calls they received requesting group accommodations. From the beginning of May to the middle of June, over 70 inquiries were from people inquiring about group accommodations (25-60 guests). Many visitors to the Estes Park area want a home-like atmosphere that VHRs provide. Neil Standard/local resident stated he moved to Estes Park from the Blackhawk/Central City area. He lived in that area when gaming was approved, and many property owners began building VHRs to rent on weekends. He stated his subdivision increased their dues to hire ari att0^[’ey'Plac®d a cap on the number of VHRs in the subdivision, signed an agreement with the local Sheriff s o ice regarding complaints, etc. The ordinances being proposed are to protect VHR owners, and nee s to be presented as such. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments from Commissioners were as follows; . Commissioner Klink was opposed to placing a cap on the number of VHRs He was about the unintended consequences to placing a limit on the number of VHRs in the Estes Valley. Although having a VHR is a use by right, there are still restrictions for properties in designated zone districts. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali • Commissioner White stated use by right does not mean rights are open ended. She stated it would be very difficult to put a cap on the number of VHRs because we really don't know how many are out there. We know how many licensed VHRs there are, but do not know how many unlicensed homes are in the Estes Valley. A cap would be something to reconsider after we have more information as to how many VHRs are in the Estes Valley. She would consider placing a cap if we reach a tipping point. Information regarding enforcement is limited because the process of submitting a complaint and the follow-up/resolution process is unclear and lacking. • Commissioner Moon would support a valley-wide cap. He does not see it as violating property rights, and the idea of limiting a certain level of use is not different than zoning. He was opposed to seeing a high number of VHRs in the community. If a cap were placed on VHRs, it could be revisited on an annual basis, but would allow some control over how large the VHR business becomes. • Commissioner Murphree was concerned about how you could tell some property owners something was allowed, but telling others it wasn't allowed. America is the land of the free, and placing a cap on VHRs is not a viable decision. • Chair Hull was opposed to placing a cap on VHRs. All property owners pay property tax and have property rights. Of all other communities researched, only one has a cap. She stated VHRs have become an international issue, and are not specific to Estes Park. Good enforcement is the key. NOTE: Planner Kleisler stated the number of complaints to police for noise or nuisance from vacation rentals is low. Planner Kleisler stated the next steps would be to finish drafting the code revisions, including changes to the notification process, and route the revised code amendment to the affected agencies/departments. If the Commission chooses to continue this item to the March the staff report and ordinance would be available approximately one week prior to the March 15 meeting. With the joint work session scheduled for March 30th, there would be time for the Town Board and County Commission to review the draft prior to their next meetings. He stated this joint meeting is separate from the task force the county is facilitating. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Klink) to continue the proposed code amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code and Estes Park Municipal Code relating to vacation home rentals to the next regular meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) RELATING TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING REGULATIONS. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster addressed the Planning Commission, stating this is a project that has been in the works for quite a while. Although it is a minor code revision, it is important to help alleviate seasonal housing needs. The current code allows an employer to house their employees on their property, but they have to be their employees, employed at that location Staff is requesting to remove that restriction. There are currently three businesses wanting to add employee housing, but may not need all of the housing units and would be willing to lease them to other businesses for their seasonal employees. Some businesses need seasonal housing for their employees but do not have the facilities capable of providing it. Mr. Lancaster stated this proposed code revision is a way to look at the bigger picture of the critical need for employee housing, and provides a good opportunity for business owners that have the space for employee housing and also helps those that don't, by allowing other businesses employees to rent from them. Staff and Commission Discussion . All comments from the Commissioners were in favor of the proposed code amendment, was general consensus among the Commission that making small moves to address immediate housing needs is beneficial. Public Comment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Rita Kurelja/Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority stated she supports the amendment. There is a very large number of housing units that are needed each summer, in addition to the ever-present need for full-time affordable housing. It is having a major impact on our community, and creates businesses that are short-staffed. Businesses would have a better rate of returning staff each year if they could be assured of finding housing. She stated it is important to maintain development code provisions to build and provide housing for the local workforce. Eric Blackhurst/Chair of the Estes Park Housing Authority was supportive of the proposed code amendment. It is not a big change, but it is a start. He suggested offering density bonuses in other code amendments. The recent housing study reflected there were approximately 700 unfilled Jobs in the Estes Valley in November, which is one of the slower months. Most of these positions were due to lack of housing. The proposed code amendment is an opportunity to begin making a different in the housing issue. Steve Lane/local architect was supportive of the proposed amendment. One of his clients is a business owner wanting to use his property for employee housing. He asked for and received clarification that the density calculation in the CO-Commercial Outlying zone district would be removed and replaced to be strictly determined by Floor Area Ratio calculations. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion There was staff discussion regarding the required deed restriction that will be a part of this code amendment. Town Attorney White stated there is a legal rule that states you cannot tie up property for more than 20 years. The purpose of the deed restriction with this proposed code amendment is to not allow property owners to turn the employee housing units into short-term rentals and/or rentals to the general public. Commissioner Klink suggested making the deed restriction thirty years instead of twenty. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend approval of the code amendment to EVDC Section 5.2.C.2.a and Section 13.3 (definition of Employee Housing) the Town Board and County Commissioners, increasing the deed restriction requirement in Section 5.2.C.2.a.(4) to thirty years instead of the current twenty year restriction and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 5. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler reported the Board of Adjustment will hold a special meeting on Monday, February 22, 2016. An 8 a.m. study session will precede the meeting at 9 a.m. B. Planner Kleisler reported there was no Planning Commission meeting in January. C. Planner Kleisler reported the Town Board acted on the following applications/projects: 1. Amended Plat of lots in the Little Prospect Mountain Addition - Approved 2. Estes Park Medical Center Wellness Training Center Special Review - Approved 3. Stonebridge Supplemental Condominium Map #9 - Approved 4. Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Special Review and Amended Plat - Approved 5. Riverview Pines Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Approved 6. New fee structure for building permit fees and development review fees - Approved D. Planner Kleisler reported the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners acted on the following; 1. Mountain Meadow Preliminary Subdivision Pat - Approved 2. Centennial Hills Amended Plat-Approved 3. Voeks Legal Lot Appeal - Continued to March, 2016 (Note: This appeal will likely be continued to a later date due to the non-receipt of the necessary paperwork) E. Planner Kleisler reported Aaron Tulley began work last February 8, 2016 as a Flood Recovery Planning Technician. This is a one year grant-funded position. F. Planner Kleisler reported there will be a Trails Master Plan meeting in the Town Board Room on Thursday, February 18, 2016. This plan may be recommended to be incorporated into the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by reference. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission mt February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall G. Planner Kleisler reported the first meeting of the Downtown Plan Steering Committee will be held Friday February 29, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in Town Hall, Rooms 202 and 203. This is a public meeting, but no public comment will be taken. H. Commissioner Murphree conveyed his thanks to Mr. Blackhurst and Mrs. Kureija for the great work being done with the Housing Authority. He is thankful they are providing a need in the community. There being no further business. Chair Huli adjourned the meeting at 3:22 p.m. Betty Hull, ^hair 1 Karen ThompsorCRewrding Secretary