Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-03-15I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 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 Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, Schneider, and Hills Director Allison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz, Town Attorney Greg White and Recording Secretary Victoria Webb Commissioner Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 23 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 Johanna Darden/town resident: She wanted to comment on the makeup of the task force for vacation rentals. Chair Hull stated that task force is not under this Commission's purview. Mr. Terry Gilbert is in charge of the Larimer County Task force on vacation rentals. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, February 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. BLACK CANYON INN TOWNHOMES, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-03B, MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION PLAT Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The request is to amend development plan 09-03B to convert 19 condominium units not yet built to 17 townhome units, keeping most of the site unchanged with minor changes. The project will also require a variance, which will be heard by the Board of Adjustment. Planner Kleisler summarized the project. Site is accessed roughly 2,000 feet north of Wonderview Ave off Macgregor Avenue. It is roughly halfway developed to this point. It has been initially approved to be mix of office, condos, restaurants, etc. It is located in the tK-Accommodation zone district. The density and impact of the site is relatively low given the request to decrease density from 19 to 17 units. The existing access drive will be brought to Town standards with pedestrian access. The drives will largely follow the path approved in the original development plan for the site. The major changes are the type of unit layout and access to such units. For example what was an attached triplex unit accessed via pedestrian walkways to a common parking lot will be switched to an attached duplex unit with a garage and drive to one unit and the common parking lot. A second example was to two former triplexes being converted to duplexes. The major changes that would be made to the site are to provide more of a residential feel with driveways to the units allowing for a car in the drive as well as in the attached garage. These will be primarily accommodation units, although zoning allows for long-term residential use. Planner Kleisler stated the approved plan is for condominiums, and the applicant desires to change the plan to be a townhome subdivision. A condominium owner owns the air within the walls of the unit, while a townhome owner owns the structure and the land underneath. Per the EVDC, one lot cannot have a mix of condominiums and townhomes, so the minor subdivision is required to put the condos and townhomes on separate lots. Staff reviewed for compliances with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code. Portions will be Planning Commission recommendations to the Town Board and portions will require a motion by the Town Board. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler stated the key issues. The vehicle and pedestrian use will remain the same as the initial approved development plan for the site. Additional efforts are being made to avoid rock outcroppings and tree clusters by the developer. Staff relied on the existing drainage studies, and wildlife habitat studies for review. Some recommendations in the wildlife report include timing restrictions of certain development activities to reduce impact to elk and deer calving, fence removal and modifications to facilitate wildlife movement, and the installation of bear proof enclosures and/or dumpsters. The town's new wildlife ordinance will apply. Planner Kleisler stated that the other key issue is in the south portion of the site dealing with a parking modification. The number of parking spaces has not changed, but the unit mix associated with the lot is a little more compact. Staff recommends approval of a minor modification to parking. There are four separate applications and recommended motions in the staff report. 1. 2. 3. 4. Amended Development Plan (DP09-03B). The Estes Valley Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the development plan. The amended development plan keeps the same circulating patterns, but decreases the available units. There are several improvements: a public sidewalk along MacGregor Avenue and a connection from that sidewalk to the public sidewalk in the Black Canyon Inn; and an emergency access road with a locked gate going in and out of the Overlook. Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat. The EVPC is the recommending body for this application and the Town Board is the decision-making body. It changes the ownership patterns from condominium rights to a townhome subdivision. The final townhome subdivision plat would go to the Town Board. Minor Subdivision. This allows the townhome lot to be created. Related to the EVPC review, but outside of their purview is a variance request going before Board of Adjustment in May. An undeveloped area in the river setback area is being proposed to be used as an overflow parking lot for employees. This will be reviewed after the Town Board hearings. Planner Kleisler stated that there are adequate services and facilities to serve the development with a few minor revisions. The Town engineer did review two engineering wavers, appendix D, and found they relieve practical difficulties in developing the site. The requested minor modifications to parking standards would result in less visual impact. The applicant states they do not need the extra space in parking and staff recommends approval to avoid additional disturbance of the site. The application with recommended conditions would comply with the applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. A revised application satisfying all conditions of approval must be submitted prior to April 15 to be added to the agenda of the Town Board meeting on April 26. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval listed below as well as continued compliance to the original reports. Staff and Commission Discussion Regarding the emergency access road proposed. Planner Kleisler stated the Town would possibly be responsible for the maintenance of the emergency access road if it were open to the public; the Overlook is part of the Stanley Historic District, which would have its own separate issues if a public road was created. Attorney White stated it is on private property, and issues would need to be worked out if it was to be made a through road. Public Comment Jess Reetz/applicant representative: He took an existing already approved development plan and made revisions. Previously approved proposed units near Black Canyon Creek were eliminated. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Parking is very limited by restaurant, and the proposed parking by the creek would be for staff. The lock on the emergency access gate would be approved by the Fire District. Johanna Darden/town resident. She is concerned about amended development for Black Canyon Inn townhomes subdivision plat. In 2009, the EVPC and the Town Board approved of the development plan of the property with conditions. What she recalls, there was not to be a supplementary paved drive off MacGregor Ave, and no construction by Black Canyon Creek. Trees were to be replanted when removed by construction, two to one for every tree removed. She asked if employee housing was part of the plan. She was concerned about additional traffic in the area, as well as wildlife protection. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion None. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District email dated January 28, 2016 b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 15, 2016 c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 19, 2016 d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memos dated February 19, 2016 (three memos); and e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016. 2. Continued compliance with original reports, including but not limited to: a. Wildlife Impact Assessment dated March 24, 2008 (updated April 20, 2009)' b. Drainage Report dated March 25, 2009; and c. Traffic Impact Study dated March 25, 2009. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Schneider) to recommend approval of the Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan 09-03B and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO DENSITY REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND ACOMMODATION UNITS. Director Chilcott stated that this is an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code that controls how density is calculated. Currently density is always rounded down. If your density calculation on your property says you can get 4.99 units on that property, you are only allowed to have 4 units. She recently has had conversations with property owners and developers regarding this rounding, and it has effected the number of units allowed. In turn, this has discouraged developers because of the reduced number of units allowed. Staff drafted the proposed amendment to allow rounding to occur in a more mathematical way; any fraction of .49 or less is rounded down, any fraction of .5 or more is rounded up. This would amend the EVDC section I.9.C.3. "When applying a density standard to a parcel's net land area, any fraction of less than one-half (1/2) shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number and any fraction of one- half (1/2) or more shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number." Any proposed code amendment is reviewed to be compliance with the standards in the EVDC section 3.3.D. Staff found this is a necessary code amendment. While the amendment applies to both new and redevelopment, it is particularly necessary for redevelopment, which is where most of our development will occur in the future. Director Chilcott stated the proposed code amendment is in line with the policies and intent of Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and would encourage redevelopment in the Estes Valley. Director Chilcott stated staff did not see any disadvantages with this code amendment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public Comment None. Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code relating to density regulations for residential and accommodation units to the Town Board and County Commissioners and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE & ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS Chair Hull stated the Board would only be dealing with rentals of eight persons or less, and rentals for nine or more would be addressed after Larimer County task force has made recommendations. Planner Kleisler stated that the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Larimer County have had a long conversation about this topic over the last year, including four public forums. This is the third Planning Commission hearing on this issue. The Town Board and County Commission requested the Planning Commission look at the ordinance suggested at the February meeting recommend approval or denial of such an ordinance. This is a continuation of the February hearing. It would apply to the entire Estes Valley. Section 5.1.B of EVDC regulates bed & breakfast inns and vacation home rentals within the Estes Valley. It begins with general applicable standards which apply to both bed & breakfast inns and vacation home rentals. Some of the proposed changes clean up wordage to give each ordinance a title. The Planning Commission did not opt to not expand the area of where a local contact can reside; they need to be within the Estes Valley within 30 minutes of the rental property. Violations is a new section which points to existing remedies provided within the code. One clear feedback received is the need for more enforcement, particularly of current regulations. There has been discussion of some type of review or hold on a license on an annual basis during renewal, if violations are attached to that property. The Planning Commission also expressed a desire to not have to wait to the end of the year to resolve some of the issues in regards to licenses. At any particular time, with the assistance of the Town attorney, the code compliance officer can site a property into court for violations allowing for revocation of the license. At any time, the decision-making body may revoke the Annual Operating Permit for twelve months in accordance with section 12.4.A.2 of the EVDC. In this case, the decision-making body would be staff. If these changes are approved, a appeals process (to the Planning Commission) needs to be added. As is currently written, appeals go to the Board of Adjustment. Staff is not limited to the two revisions so far described in dealing with violations. They can use any of the remedies in chapter 12 of the EVDC. There was some discussion by staff and the Commission about term of revocation of the license. Section 5.1.B.1.C discusses some operational restrictions in regards to residential character. The proposed amendment adds implementing quiet hours for outdoor hot tub use. Director Chilcott commented on residential character. She is concerned about enforceability. A general rule is that if it is something extremely objective it is enforceable. It is important to recognize there are some sections of proposed code regulations that are more subjective and they will be more difficult to enforce. For example, the statement on residential character is subjective and could be difficult to determine if a violation has occurred. Attorney White clarified that you are allowing the vacation home rental use in residential zone areas. The vacation home rental use is allowed in one section, and this section states it must fall in line with residential use. It makes it difficult to enforce. This language is from the first attempt at regulating vacation home rentals and they are now doing a better job of categorizing the objectionable aspects that hadn't been done at the start. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler described the proposed section S.l.B.l.d requiring a notice posted on site listing specific requirements/restrictions for renters including but not limited to; property line boundaries so they don't trespass on adjacent properties; address for emergency responders; name and number of the local contact; the max number of occupants and vehicles allowed at the site; safety information such as gas/water shutoff; etc. Staff is working to craft a template that can be adjusted to a specific rental in plain language. Director Chilcott had a question for Attorney White. If additional items are identified that should be added to the notice, would it be better to have this list as part of staff policy or to require additional code amendments? Attorney White stated that they can be added either way. Commissioner Moon stated he doesn't understand why a requirement on exterior lighting is present. It is a code compliance issue for property owners and not the renters. Discussion occurred about guests not understanding the dark sky standards in the Estes Valley and the need to inform them. Planner Kleisler would provide user friendly language to remind guests to shut off exterior lights. In close quarters, some exterior lighting illuminates adjacent properties. Even if it is an older cabin whose lights do not comply with current code, they still need to turn off the lights. This would not force property owners to change their lighting to comply with current standards, only to encourage compliance with the dark sky ordinance. Commissioner Schneider asked about including the location of other safety equipment with the location of fire extinguishers, defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Director Chilcott explained it may be easier to make the code simpler and easier to understand by writing policy that spells out the requirements of the list. The Commission could consider that option. The code could Just state that information shall be provided that contains property owner information, development code requirements, etc. It would be more general. Discussion included but was not limited to: • Concern over how that would relate to the violation process. • Concern over whether Town and Larimer County would be held to the same standard if part of the requirements are Town policy, not Estes Valley Development Code. • If these requirements are listed in the EVDC as it is currently proposed, if the notice misses an item it would be considered a code violation. • The Commission wants the items listed in the code and as specific as can be made to lessen confusion by the guests. • Fire extinguishers are not required in residential dwellings. A posting stating "Fire Extinguishers: None" would be in compliance. • Discussion of where fire extinguishers are required. • The Larimer County task force may provide more direction on this. • Including fire extinguishers on the list may remind property owners it would be a good idea to have one. • Where fire extinguishers appear on the list, perhaps with the gas/water shutoff. Planner Kleisler stated local contact information will include license and permit number to ease the code compliance process. Neighbor notification would be required for all existing and new vacation home rentals. Either at the time of the initial permit or sometime this year for existing vacation rentals there needs to be a courtesy mailing to neighbors within 100 feet stating the name of the local contact person. This is not opening up the opportunity to question the property owners. It is meant to make it easier for neighbors to know who to call if there are issues with the vacation rental property. The contact information for a property is public information; however, providing a courtesy mailing will make it easier to access the information. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission € March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler stated they've been attempting to address number of bedrooms listed versus number of bedrooms advertised during the annual licensing process. Staff checks the Larimer County records to determine if the number of bedrooms stated in the license match the number of bedrooms in the County Assessor's records. No on-site bedroom inspections are taking place at this time. The Town Board could decide to adopt the dwelling life safety survey allowing for building code inspection of vacation rentals. It is his understanding the Board of Appeals is recommending that the Town Board postpone the adoption of that local amendment to the International Property Maintenance Code. Planning Kleisler stated that the changes to licensing fees is allowing them to hire additional staff to allow for additional customer service. If this ordinance passes, staff will provide a welcome packet to new vacation rental properties. The packet will include the list of notices and other information specific for that rental, e.g. courtesy mailing materials, etc. Commissioner Moon wanted clarity about the Town heading in the direction of no inspections for vacation rental homes. There are lot of safety requirements that would be expected in an accommodations property (smoke detectors), and currently there is no way in the code to ensure that these things are present in a vacation rental. He feels that a compliance inspection would not force the property to upgrade to code on most issues, and there is no way to enforce that. The exceptions being the items required by state law (CO detectors, smoke detectors, etc.). Planner Kleisler stated there was discussion from last month's meeting regarding parking standards. Public comment indicated they wanted to create a new, more viable standard. Currently vacation rentals are allowed no more than three vehicles at the site. Current vacation home owners requested that the same parking standards that apply to all residential zone districts apply to vacation homes in those zone districts. One exception would be the prohibition of on-street parking. Staff recommends that the on-street parking prohibition remain in place. Planner Kleisler stated he spoke with the Town Attorney and other parties regarding resort cabins. There is confusion over this issue. For example the Black Canyon Inn properties being constructed may have full-time owners or short-term renters. Code does not allow that in the A zone district. There is confusion over why this is allowed in A-1 and not the A zone districts. The initial intent was to encourage vacation home rentals in the A-1 zone district and promote only high intensity use in the A zone district. Market demand is increasing toward the low intensity vacation home. Staff recommends allowing short-term rentals in the A- Accommodation zone district to remove the confusion. Planner Kleisler stated that some of the proposed amendments are to clean up the language. Staff is deleting reference to a vacation rental being allowed as an accessory use in residential zones. They are currently allowed as a principal use. If it is allowed as a principal use, it is allowed as an accessory use. This does not impact any of the standards. Planner Kleisler stated that section 12.7 deals with enforcement procedures. Town Attorney White recommended that language be added to allow the local contact to receive the written notice of violation. Currently the code requires code compliance officers to give property owners 15 days to correct the violation unless it is an emergency matter. That makes it difficult to address an issue when the renters are in and out in less than that time. Staff recommends changing the existing 15-day notice from a requirement to an option, by changing the wording from shall to may. Planner Kleisler stated at today's study session, the Planning Commission discussed at length about placing a potential cap on the annual permits in the Estes Valley. They recommend adopting a cap of 10% of housing units, which is 749 housing units in the Estes Valley. If the cap is reached, there are two options: (1) Staff could begin a waitlist or, (2) Town Board could increase that cap, probably at the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There are an estimated 500 or so vacation rentals in the Estes Valley, both licensed and unlicensed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali Staff and Commission Discussion Discussion included but was not limited to: • The Board believed that the 10% cap was to be reviewed annually, not just when we've reached the limit. • As a percentage, the number of the cap will change continually as the number of homes in Estes Valley changes as development occurs. • Attorney White felt that the Board needs to set a number representing the cap in the number of vacation rental licenses. It can be difficult to define a "housing unit" and a percentage changes the actual number of allowed licenses all the time. There needs to be an actual number that staff can act upon. He suggested picking a number based on the data provided and add language about reviewing that every year to see if that 10% remains appropriate. • Looking at the data they could Just say 750 vacation rentals for now and reexamine it next year. • Census data gets updated every few years and occurs on a regular basis. • Commissioner Moon suggested using the electric meter count as a means of tracking the number of homes in Estes Valley. The utilities department would know which meters are being charged commercial vs residential rates. He hoped that when they come back to this they can have a better, crisper definition of the numbers involved. Public Comment Chair Hull opened the floor to public comment. She reminded the public that they currently only accepting comments on vacation rentals of parties of eight persons or less. She stated that over the last month, people approached her to state that they feel criminalized by the establishment of all of these rules. Chair Hull clarified that rules criminalize you only when you break them and that they exist for a reason. Johanna Darden/local resident: She urges a cap be placed on the number of vacation rentals, and it be a specific number (i.e. her hope would be 600 total), not a percentage. Her concern is a change in neighborhoods and their character and quality of life for permanent residents and long-term renters. Short-term renters do not come with a sense of community. People who have applied for licenses under the law should be included under the cap. Those who have disobeyed the law and are currently operating illegally should not be brought under the cap. If there are licenses remaining under the cap other vacation rental property owners should be considered under a first come, first served basis. Enforcement shouid be taken seriously. Eric Blackhurst/local resident: He does not have or manage any vacation rental properties, but it is an economic fact of our community. He believes the Board has been placed in a difficult situation. It is a diverse, unique industry. It is an industry unique to the destination and it is almost impossible to regulate. There are two different sets of standards, long-term rentals versus short-term rentals. There are issues of legal protection. Property owners have a different standard versus vacation renters. It is an impossible task to regulate, particularly when authorized by covenants or when property is purchased specifically in areas allowed for vacation rental properties. Where do long-term renters and second homeowners fit into this? Are they going to be regulated to the same standards as vacation rentals? When does it make sense to reguiate this industry that varies so much even from subdivision to subdivision? How do you know if a violation has been responded to within 30 minutes? It could be dealt with over the phone in which case the local contact doesn't really need to be within that 30-minute drive time. How do we know what the violation is? Is it a violation or a compiaint? Can the authority in charge revoke a license on a compliant versus an actual violation? Twelve months on a violation is a long time. The penalty for selling liquor to a minor is a 15-day suspension of the liquor license. Registered sex offenders are not required to notify neighbors. These proposed regulations make vacation rentals more onerous than a pedophile. He urged the Commission to be cautious in what you recommend to the governing bodies because you are RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii placed in a very untenable position on an industry that is extremely difficult to regulate and has had very few complaints. Holly Moore/local resident: She shared some of Eric's concerns and those in the community. She was concerned about the balance between vacation homes and residential properties. Her primary concerns are with enforcement. This is a difficult situation and very complicated. The Board needs to look at different ways of regulation than what has been suggested so far. What are the consequences on a property owner that has a vacation rental without a license and how to we identify that person? The proposed amendment says that staff can withhold a license until the violation is corrected, but some things can be corrected almost immediately. In regards to withholding the license for 12 months, what constitutes a violation? She is concerned that it would be enforced on one complaint versus a pattern of complaints. A pattern implies the owner needs correction. Her biggest concern is how do we know who is doing this and who is not doing this and how do we control that? Chair Hull stated that during the study session they brought up the issues raised by the last speaker. They'd talked about the possibility of a point system attached to the severity of the violation. They discussed the potential of a website where violations could be recorded. The Commission is trying to determine a process to track violations. Ed Peterson/representing Estes Park Vacation Rental Owner's Association: They want to be solution oriented. They understand there can be issues and want to solve those issues in an amicable way. He does not believe there are as many issues as have been addressed but understands the need for planning for problems that may occur. Posting a violation is an option, but if you are not at your rental for a couple of weeks you might not be aware. He stated the issues are being made out to be bigger than they really are. His group shared vacation home rental information from Salt Lake City and Lake Tahoe, who have mastered this over the years. These cities are larger but have similar demographics. Staff has not referred to these recommendations. Staff has spent thousands of dollars researching and hiring people to come in to run meetings. It is unconscionable. It is time to slow down and figure out a plan that makes sense for everybody. Rebecca Urquhart/town resident: Everyone has said that we need more enforcement. She does not believe that full-time and short-term residents should be treated the same way. A resident can be talked to and is unlikely to engage in undesirable behavior night after night. If they do there are methods to address that under the law. That happens with short-term renters. She is concerned that the code offers only one remedy if there is a confirmed and proven violation. She has lived in two different neighborhoods. She or her neighbors have filed 20-25 complaints, but not one violation has been found. The Town has never found a violation since this code was adopted, outside of not having a license. A violation will never be proven and end up resulting in enforcement. She has collected recordings and data about vacation rental violations. She believes the police do not even put it into the record that they have been called. She was told that what she has collected is not evidence. The owners are almost never informed that there were issues. She filed 17 complaints about the property adjacent to her and the owners were informed only twice. We need something with teeth to it. Someone who calls multiple times should not be ignored. A point system might work. She's called the property manager without success. How do you prove that you've taken the necessary steps if the other side claims innocence? We need something more than a verified complaint that has a remedy. We need a way to actually take action; otherwise, it is business as usual for the people with vacation rentals. She would suggest having a standard, such as excessive undisputed complaints instead of proven violation. She is concerned over the discretionary language that is in the code. Ed Peterson: He agreed with Ms. Urquhart about fines and revocation of licenses. He was supportive of issuing enforcement tickets on the spot to the violators causing the problems, similar to getting a ticket for a traffic violation. If the violations continue, the owner should be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 9 fined as well. Something needs to be done to address the issue beyond revoking the license. He thinks we need something that addresses the issue directly. Bill Urquhart/town resident: He thought the study session was amazing today. He thought Commissioner Moon's idea of using the internet to handle communication was great. We can generate data out of it. When he was first involved with this issue he was head of an HOA with covenants against rentals of less than two weeks. Procedurally, it became really difficult to enforce and he reached out to the Town for help. One particular owner was telling neighbors that everybody was friends and family. He wonders if the staff will have a right to audit. As a neighbor, you have no idea who is in the property. What rules should apply to them? If you advertise that you are renting short-term should the presumption be that guests are short­ term renters? He is trying to look at it from a resident's standpoint not as a theoretical exercise. He couldn't agree more with Mr. Peterson. Rolling in and revoking the license is a heavy move. If you can do fines or something smaller, then you avoid going to the top level of penalty out the gate. Revoking a license is a severe penalty and may create reluctance to use that penalty. At the study session it was mentioned licensed vacation rentals make up 4.7% of housing units in Estes Valley. Less then 10% of noise violations were out of vacation rentals. The conclusion was that noise was a low problem for vacation rentals. On a relative basis it could be twice as high. The data does not support the conclusion, in his opinion. It may make sense to specify when the 15-day period should be applied for code violations (weeds, etc.). Most renters will only be there for 2-3 nights. A website is a step in the right direction. The neighbor has only one right currently, to make a complaint and submit evidence. They have no right to follow-up on their complaint. They aren't even a party in a continuing dispute. There is no right to appeal or to a hearing (the neighbor doesn't have the right to attend or be notified even if the rental owner must attend a hearing due to the complaint). "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there often is." The enforcement issue is very difficult. What is evidence? What is enforcement on a practical matter? What is a foundation we can expect? What happens here will be followed by the task force on larger homes. It is disheartening that no inspection for health and safety is being recommended. For the town to issue commercial licenses without taking any effort to physically inspect even for just carbon monoxide detectors is pretty risky. He provided the case where he filed a series of complaints (two years ago) with the Town. Unknown to them a hearing had taken place in late 2013. It was determined there was no violation and no evidence was officially made by the Town (March 2014). He was told by the Town attorney they had no right of standing, right of appeal (April 2014), and the Colorado administrative procedure act does not apply. Bob Leavitt/Carriage Hills: He looked through the database of permits and licenses and noticed that a lot of licenses do not have a local contact. How do we ensure that we do have a local contact? Many regulations depend on having a local contact. It is time to put this information online. Neighbors would be able to reach out to the owner even if the owner lives out of state. Many of the owners are oblivious that there is a problem. Most neighbors don't know who to call. When we have fire restrictions, it would be good to get that info out to everybody especially vacation renters, so they know open fires and fireworks are illegal. Not having any way to inspect homes for code compliance really will be a problem. He encouraged the Commissioners to send something to Town Board saying that we really need it. Johanna Darden:. There are other violations that the sound ordinance does not take into consideration, e.g. bass vibrations. She hoped that something will be added to the suggestions to deal with those kinds of issues as well. Greg Perrotto/town resident: He is the owner of four vacation rentals. He has hosted family reunions for the past eight years. He is very involved with his rentals and is concerned about the thirty-minute response time. He is 45 minutes away, but when he gets a cail he responds immediateiy. He has a great rapport with his neighbors. He thinks something else needs to be considered for the contact person. He prefers to be completely involved in his rentals. He is concerned that some vacation rental owners will be regulated out of business. Some of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali regulations are completely overboard. He thinks spot fines are hitting the nail on the head. It deals directly with the problem. Follow-through should include notification of the violation to the property owner. Signage is good. He is strict on his policies. He has not rented to people if he was concerned there could be issues. He believes these notifications should be short and sweet and clearly show that they are requirements for the Town of Estes Park. The regulations will be ignored if they take too long to read. Seth Smith/Ponderosa Realty and Management: He is both a real estate and vacation rental manager. He talked about the GuestStream software used to manage multiple properties online that was brought up in the study session. One of the things that is lost is how adversely the cap would affect Town. We don't know how many rental properties we have now. The goal is to have compliance. He does not think the cap gets to that goal. It is arbitrary to limit something we don't have a full handle on. He doesn't believe the Planning Commission has enough information to set a cap. His business has an online database of every rental property and online marketing that shows when it is vacant. We open these properties up to crime by showing where these properties are and indicating when these properties are vacant. He is in the middle of every transaction that happens in his business (owner, guest, him). They send a four-page letter to the guests. Most don't read it. He stated the notices in the rentals should be brief, listing the most important items, making it clear that these are regulations put in place by the Town. Jane Livingston/local property owner: This is an incredible task before the Commission. Compliance is the main issue, and it needs to be addressed with the guests that are misbehaving. If they know they are going to get a ticket or pay a fine, it matters. This is different than threatening to withhold a deposit. Her vacation rental owner group has proposed a process for enforcement and the license that is similar to the liquor license in Town. The liquor license has layers for violations and increasing fines. It is something that warrants further discussion on all sides. It is important we get this right. We had been on a path of what we could agree on. Now we are back to going back and forth on this issue. She would like to see balance and harmony come to this process. Last September, she did a calculation on the financial impact of vacation rentals in Estes Park. She used an economic study from 2011 and did some extrapolation. She figured that guests conservatively spend $27 million in local small businesses. That is not counting lodging, taxes or the people who are employed to service the guests. Over-regulating and decreasing their number will hurt those small businesses. It is painful to watch them lose their small business. Think about this on a broad spectrum and think about the broad impact of how it will affect the Town now and in the future. Holly Moore/town resident: She believes the 10% cap is not relevant to the regulation and the problems that occur in the community. It is more about creating a balance between residential and vacation accommodations. Right now that balance is beyond unhealthy. We rely heavily on the tourist dollar and are dangerously close to damaging it. Economy runs on people power. We can't attract the people who will support a year-round economy if we are expecting them to live out of a car. She is on the verge of losing her long-term rental because the owner is considering making it a vacation rental. She supported having a cap on the number of vacation home rentals. With careful and considered application of enforcement and regulation we can achieve that balance and prosper with both a year-round economy and be a prime and desirable vacation destination. We can't provide the services that people expect when they visit here if we don't have people who live here full-time. Mary Murphy/county resident: She is a local realtor in town. This is an issue of enforcement. If we had a compliance officer that worked weekends and evenings that would solve a lot of the problems that have been discussed. This Commission is dealing with enforcement and how we are dealing with vacation rentals going to the future. She stated her main concerns are that there is too much on the plate. She does not know if there is any other action where a business or person can be disqualified in their business based on someone else's actions. Selling to a minor is something the liquor store has control over, but a vacation rental owner RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 11 to punish the homeowner later on down the line. Punishing the property owner for the renter's actions are two separate things. Fred Mares/town resident: He thanked the Commissioners for their hard work on this topic. Enforcement is a big deal. If current enforcement was effective we wouldn't be talking this. A lot of issues being discussed are outside this Board's purview. At the study session, Commissioner Moon presented a website data collection and distribution system that would provide a database for everyone concerned (neighbors, owners, managers). People have been sharing what they feel is happening or their fears about what may happen. The Town doesn't have firm numbers. We are governing based on what it feels like, not to the data. Along with recommendations on code changes, he requests the Commissioners send a list of the ancillary issues to the County Commissioners and the Town Board, so everybody can understand how the pieces fit together. It can be difficult to get everybody to sit down and talk about their piece of the issue. There have been pros and cons on the cap on the number of licenses. There needs to be a defensible rational for having a limit. He's heard reasons to have and not have a limit. He believes the reason we need some kind of cap is because we don't know what is going on. Vacation rentals is an industry that is growing nationwide in double digits. Because the Town and County have chosen to not enforce anything on the books, we have no idea of what has been going on in the past. We need some kind of limit until we know what we are really dealing with. Mr. Mares recommended a time period of more than a year to reevaluate the cap, if one is put into place. All of what is being proposed is not in place yet. We do not know in a year where that number should be moved to. We need to collect data and start assessing where we are and where we want to be. He suggested moving it to two or three years between assessments. He agreed with Attorney White's comments. He is concerned with attaching a percentage to the number of dwellings in town, and would recommend using a hard number. He thought using 500 for the cap is a good place to start, but may be too low. If there is a limit, it creates an incentive to be license and stayed licensed. This industry will start to have a reason to be self-policing when they haven't been. He questioned how effective the new enforcement process would be, and what impacts there would be to workforce housing. What do you say to a family looking for a nice neighborhood for raising kids that doesn't compete with tourism? We have no control over what goes on in our neighborhoods. We are having to build more housing for workforce. We shouldn't be taking residences away on one hand and paying to replace them on the other. Kenneth Arnold/town resident: He is on the Estes Area Lodging Association board. They are very inclusive with all businesses including vacation rentals. As we grow this is an important issue. He believes communication with his guests coming in is so important. He is his own code enforcement officer. It is important that we educate these people about the rules and enforce those rules. If you don't enforce the rules, it creates upset guests who don't understand why someone is being allowed to break those rules. We need code enforcement & fines with teeth. His main concern is noise. If one of the neighboring properties is noisy he has numbers to call and they would respond because they also don't want a noisy party disturbing the rest of their guests. He wants to have important rules and have them enforced. Loosen up on the rules that aren't so important. Jenny Hutchinson/county resident: She was forced into long-term rental after losing her home in 2008. She used to live in a historic neighborhood near Spruce and Lawn Lane with 10 properties that have all become vacation rentals now. It is a form of abuse when you have vacation rentals next door to you that aren't in compliance. You don't know how it feels until it happens to you. She read a list of posts on the Estes Park Housing Facebook page. The posts were from a span of less than a week. The posts are all listings of people that are looking for homes/rentals in Estes Park and their difficulty in finding such. Public comment closed. Chair Hull called for a five-minute recess. Staff and Commission Discussion None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali 12 It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to recommend approval of the code amendments as presented to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings that the amendments comply with the EVDC standard for review for text amendments, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. There was discussion by the Commissioners on whether we have the necessary data to impose a fixed number as a cap. The argument was that we needed to set the precedent today that there will be a cap. The current suggestion is far enough ahead that it does not impose on business opportunities while we gather data for a more accurate number. It was moved and seconded (Moon/Hills) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to establish a maximum limit of 700 on the annual operating license/permits issued for vacation rentals in the Estes Valiey, and to recommend that the Planning Commission revisit the issue in a year to recommend changes to the cap, and the motion passed 5-1 with one absent. Commissioner Murphree voted against the motion. There was discussion by the Commission on the issue of compliance inspections. They could recommend the Town Board seriously consider compliance inspections (for safety, fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, bedrooms). Attorney White stated the current proposal for inspections is a local amendment to the International Property Maintenance Code, created at the direction of the Town Board. It was stated that the Board of Appeals is recommending not to include the vacation rental provisions. It would be appropriate that this Commission convey their desire through their chair that it be included in the adoption of the International Building Codes before the March 22nd meeting, as adoption of the building codes is on the agenda at that time. It was moved and seconded (Moon/White) to authorize the chairperson of the Planning Commission to convey to the Town Board the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the inspection language in the International Property Maintenance Code be included as a local amendment to ensure the inspection of vacation rentals for basic life safety requirements, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Commissioner Schneider stated that public comment indicated that we needed something to punish the renter. We can't just punish the owners for what occurs on a nightly basis. Attorney White stated that was already present in the code through noise and trespassing ordinances. The thing to remember is that enforcement is not easy. When you have enforcement you have to be willing to go to court. Everybody has the right to contest the enforcement action. You have the right to go all the way through the system before you are required to pay the fine. The trespass ordinance is the easy one. The noise ordinance has some problems and is being redrafted right now. He reminded the Commission that with the Town there is limited jurisdiction with the Town Municipal Court. If they live out of state, they don't have to do anything with the ticket. If it is a local person we have some ability, but what can actually be done is limited. Larimer County is even more limited, as it doesn't have any powers with a court. Enforcement is a complex issue. He hopes staff for both the County and the Town can focus on enforcement and have a positive impact. Discussion included but was not limited to: • Commissioner White stated that some property owners are already addressing the issue of enforcement on the renters by including their own punishments for violations within the rental agreements providing their own self-policing. • Commissioner Murphree recommended that a list be created of individuals who have violated rental agreements in the past that all vacation rental owners can refer to and prevent those problem renters from renting again in Estes Park. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 13 • Comment from the audience was that vacation rental owners need help from the police. If they receive a ticket from the police, most renters will pay the fine and alter their behavior. They don't have to be told that they don't have to pay the fine if they live out of state. Planner Kleisler stated that there was one request that had not be discussed by the Commission today. It is more of an administrative item. Some individuals have requested that there be an online map with contact information for rentals and license number. It has been requested numerous times. There have also been concerns for safety in having that information be available, even though there are websites out there that do that now. The Commissioners could recommend the Town Board direct the staff to create such an item. It is not something that staff would do without such direction given the concerns expressed. Discussion included but was not limited to: We don't yet know the issues with releasing information online. There are a lot of privacy concerns. This goes back to the comments that this is more criminal than what we expect from a sex offender. Our intent is not to punish vacation home owners. There is no way the Commissioners can address every issue related to vacation rentals. We need to first focus on the basics. If we do this correctly, Estes Park could be the flagship of how to handle vacation rentals for Colorado. The Commissioners feel their hands are somewhat tied until recommendations come back from the Larimer County task force. The Board hopes that the public expresses their concerns and participates with the Larimer County task force. April 4th is the application deadline to apply to be on the task force. 6. REPORTS A. Director Chilcott reported that the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved the height, river setback, and exterior lighting variance requests for the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center on February 22nd, 2016. B. Director Chilcott reported that CBO Birchfield gave an update to the Town Board of Trustees regarding the 2015 International Building Codes with local amendments. C. Director Chilcott reported that the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners are in the process of creating a vacation home rental task force. They will be conducting a joint teleconference call in mid-April to appoint that task force. D. Director Chilcott reported on the following flood recovery and mitigation updates: a. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported that a public meeting was held on March 4th, which was well attended and is available for viewing online at www.estes.org/floodrecoverv. More outreach meetings and materials are planned. b. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported that the Hydroplant Bank Stabilization project has completed phase I with a focus on fish habitat, healthy stream and bank stabilization. c. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported the Town is starting a hydrology study of the Big Thompson River, Fall River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch and hoping for results in June. d. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported the United States Army Corps of Engineers/Silver Jackets program will be conducting a study relating to flood proofing in the downtown area. This is at no cost to the Town. e. Director Chilcott reported this is Planner Kleisler's last Planning Commission meeting. He is leaving his position here to work as a Planner for the City of Loveland. His last day is March 31st. We will miss him very much, and wish him well. There being no further business. Chair Huii adjourned the meeting at 4:37 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali 14 Betty Hull,0iair Victoria Webb, Recording Secretary