Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-09-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 September 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon, Steve Murphree, Sharry White Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Hills, Schneider, and Moon Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioners Murphree & White Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 35 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 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, August 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Klink) to table the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. VACATION HOME RENTALS – REVIEW & DISCUSSION OF LAND USE OPTIONS Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. Staff would like to provide an update on the scope and timeline of the draft recommendations for vacation rentals. Staff and the Commission will engage in discussion on occupancy limits and the residential character of neighborhoods. Planner Kleisler stated there is a long history involving vacation rentals in the Estes Valley. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) has provisions to allow short-term (30 days or less) rentals in all single-family residential zone districts. The objective of this project is to make sure there is a balance of property rights and neighborhood character. Planner Kleisler stated there have been several public meetings concerning this topic, beginning in April, 2015. The most recent was a public forum last Friday. The most detailed process is drafting, adopting and implementing the amendments to the EVDC. This portion (Phase I) of the process will include three or four public hearings on the topic, not including today’s meeting. The goal is to adopt the code amendment before the end of 2015. Planner Kleisler stated the numbers of licensed vacation homes increased from 206 in 2010 to 285 in 2014, with the trend continuing upward. The Town and County made a conscious decision to permit short-term rentals, which is classified as a low intensity accommodation use in residential zone districts, along with some other non-residential uses (group homes). In 2013 the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 September 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Community Development Department hosted several community meetings to elicit feedback concerning code compliance in general. One of the hot topics was vacation homes. One of the outcomes of those meetings was the addition of a full-time code compliance officer. Planner Kleisler stated at the last public forum, the group was given the task to prioritize vacation home issues. The top three were Code Enforcement, Occupancy, and License Management. Occupancy is currently defined in the EVDC as a cap of eight individuals in a short-term rental at any one time. One possible change is to further limit vacation rentals to two individuals per bedroom plus two additional individuals. Some homes are too small to meet this standard, while other larger homes can easily accommodate more than eight guests. Comments were tallied by the facilitators and will be organized as soon as possible. One concern that will need to be addressed is whether there are areas in the Estes Valley that should be off limits to parties greater than eight. Specific items to consider include but are not limited to: narrow streets, homes on small lots, number of legal bedrooms, limited parking, traffic noise, garbage disposal, etc. Currently vacation homes are allowed in areas where these conditions exist. Planner Kleisler explained the potential for neighborhood impacts is minimal where large homes are built on large lots, so the idea behind the proposed code change is that larger homes on larger lots could accommodate higher occupancy limits. Some flexibility could occur in the review process; for example, a vacation home that is ten feet from a neighboring home could have issues different to a vacation home that is 50 feet away from the nearest neighbor. Another item the Commission needs to address is if and when the neighboring property owners should have a voice in the permitting process. The current process involves licensing through the Town Clerk’s office, with a review by planning staff. There is currently no neighbor involvement in the licensing process. If homes with higher occupancies would be permitted, the process needs to be determined, including whether or not the neighbors should be notified. One option is to notify neighbors at the time of the renewal of a license, to elicit feedback as to how the vacation home has been operated. Suggestions were made that if there were issues during the year, the license could be held until issues are resolved. Other comments from the public meeting included, but were not limited to: no routing should be necessary if the home is in compliance with all zoning standards; neighbors should be notified depending on the distance from adjacent homes. Overall, the goal was to consider allowing greater flexibility for larger homes to host more guests. The recommended action was to allow rentals to host parties greater than eight guests through the Conditional Use Permit process. This would allow review of impacts to neighboring properties, and impacts to public services. Additionally, the Conditional Use Permit could include additional items requiring review. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Board was not interested in using a cap on lot size for number of occupants. Planner Kleisler explained residential character, or how a property is able to blend in with the surrounding environment. At the public forum, comments were requested about whether or not there should there be a limit on the number of licenses in a given area. Comments included but were not limited to: yes, by zoning district; no, as long as existing regulations were enforced; no, if there are violations on the property; it could be used as a mechanism to determine where they are appropriate. Planner Kleisler stated licensing fees are currently being reviewed. An increase in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall licensing fees could fund a part-time staff person to focus directly on short-term rental regulation enforcement. He noted that for the number of total short-term rentals in town, the vast majority operate without any issues. Planner Kleisler stated the goal as presented to the Town Board was to preserve residential neighborhood character, and the recommended action from both the Town Board and the County Commissioners was to limit the number of vacation home rentals per street segment or within a given radius of existing rentals. There was not a clear consensus about this particular item, so feedback from the Planning Commission would be greatly appreciated. This is one of the more complex issues of short-term rentals. Staff and Commission Discussion Chair Hull inquired about determining the average household size in specific zone districts. Director Chilcott stated staff could use census block information to make that determination. Commissioner Hills inquired about regulations for bed and breakfasts (B & Bs). Planner Kleisler stated B & Bs were not part of this process, and no public comment was requested nor received. If the Commission wished to discuss B & Bs, that would need to be addressed separately from short-term vacation home rentals. The only item addressed related to B & Bs is whether or not the property owner can stay on the property while renting out a single bedroom to short-term guests. It was discussed at a Town Board study session, but changes in the regulations were not proposed. If the Planning Commission chose to bring B & Bs into the mix, additional time would be required for staff to address it, and also allow the public to provide comments. Planner Kleisler stated if the Town Board and the County Commissioners decided to add the short-term rental of individual bedrooms in homes to the discussion, staff could add that to the package. Planner Kleisler stated there would likely be other similar issues which staff would review to avoid unintended consequences with any new regulations. Other parts of the EVDC may need to be amended to make the new regulations flow smoothly, e.g. group homes, number of unrelated individuals in a household, etc. Public Comment Ed Peterson/town resident owns a large home on the golf course that can sleep 20 people. He and others established a local vacation home owner association to work through the issues of being able to house multi-generational guests. Vacation homes account for approximately 40% of the lodging in Estes Park. He stated they are endorsed by Visit Estes Park and the Estes Area Lodging Association, and generate approximately $30 million to the local economy. Mike Thomas/town resident stated Estes Park was built on tourism, and is what the local economy is based on. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the maximum number of individuals that can stay in a larger home, which can easily house multi-generational family reunions. Rainer Schelp/owner of Estes Park Central stated homes most sought after are those that can accommodate more than eight people. Large families like to meet in Estes Park. Many larger RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall homes are on larger lots that do not create any problems. Code enforcement and qualified property managers are important to make sure the guests follow the rules. He stated 98% follow the rules. He stated he is a pro-active property manager that immediately follows up on complaints from neighbors. The economic impact of vacation homes for the Estes Valley is huge. There are probably more than 440 vacation rentals in the area, and they are a large part of the success of this community. Linda Moak/county resident wants the Planning Commissioners to be very careful and thoughtful about the occupancy limits. She owns a nine bedroom vacation rental, and 99% of the renters are multi-generational families. She refuses to come into compliance by saying she can only sleep eight people. Her rental is on a large lot and does not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors. She lives next door and is an on-site manager. Mick Scarpella/town resident has owned vacation rentals in Estes for 11 years. He owns a five bedroom home that has beds for 12 guests. He has worked hard to engage the neighbors. He agreed with the statement about the popularity of multi-generational families wanting to rent larger homes. He stated Estes Park should realize and appreciate the multi-generational market, and should have allowances for such gatherings. He also supports regulations of short-term rentals. Dean Norton/Larimer County property owner was supportive of larger occupancy limits. Estes Park has a lot of activities for people of all ages. He was concerned that when potential visitors research the area before they make reservations, they will go elsewhere when they find out the maximum occupancy for a short-term vacation rental is eight individuals. Greg Perrotto/town resident stated he owns a property that can accommodate up to 32 people. Many of his renters are here for family reunions. His concern is that if the Estes Valley is too strict on occupancy, Estes Park will lose the marketability of being a place for families. Rebecca Urquhart/town resident was opposed to occupancy limits and supportive of a Conditional Use Hearing, similar to what Grand Lake requires. She shares a driveway with a large vacation home. She stated family reunions come with a lot of noise. She stated the Economic Development Corporation has tracked people that have moved out of the valley. She has talked to others who are tired of living in a hotel zone. She stated this has become an issue all over the country. She recommended grandfathering in the vacation homes that are available now, provided they have a conditional use hearing, and make the determination about neighbor impacts at that time. She stated complaints in her neighborhood are not adequately addressed by the police. She recommends capping the number of licenses until enforcement can be effective. She thinks property owners rights are being violated by having to live next to vacation rentals. Linda Beach/county resident stated she is a year-round resident living near a short-term rental. She was opposed to vacation rentals, and hoped the county and town could solve the disparity of ordinances between the two jurisdictions, specifically the noise ordinance. Quiet time within the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 September 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall town limits is 8 p.m., while the county’s is 10 p.m. She stated the Sheriff’s office treats noise violations as low priority. Code enforcement is needed, as tourists have no respect for the neighbors. She stated the neighboring home was built as a vacation rental. The owner of that property lives out of state, has never lived in the house, has no plans to live there, and does not realize how serious the issues are. She stated enforcement of the regulations is very important. She agreed with Ms. Urquhart about noise, parties, speeding, trespassing, fire danger, and other issues. Kurt Johnson/town resident agreed with Ms. Urquhart and Ms. Beach. He was opposed to allowing large numbers of occupants in vacation rentals, saying they have completely changed the character of his neighborhood, and because of that they are planning to move. Seth Smith/Ponderosa Property Management that manages 60-80 properties. He stated the biggest piece that is missing is enforcement. He thought some of the other issues would take care of themselves if the rules were enforced. Millicent Cozzie/town resident agreed that the larger homes should be allowed to have more than eight people. She stated code enforcement is the issue. There is a small percentage of less than desirable guests that have the potential to ruin what is being done responsibly. She stated most complaints seem to revolve around noise, and after researching the Estes Park Municipal Code, did not understand why citations are not being issued. She encouraged residents with noise issues to call the police, who should be enforcing the noise ordinance. Glenn Malpiede/town resident stated the biggest issue is enforcement. He stated the police should be issuing citations. A call list should be created so the property owners can be notified when there is a problem. He stated Air B&Bs should be licensed like everyone else, and that type of rental should be included in the proposed regulations. Barbara May/town resident stated the Planning Commissioners need to think seriously about the amount of money that should be spent on hiring the enforcers. Larger houses with more people require a larger enforcement budget. She thought the police department was understaffed and was unable to provide adequate enforcement because of that issue. She encouraged the enforcement of noise and parking violations. There are a lot of things on both sides that need to be addressed, and she hoped the Commissioners could find a way to make it balance. Fred Mares/town resident was neutral on vacation rentals. He stated the explosive growth of short-term rentals and the lack of enforcement over the years has impacted the community. It is difficult to know what comments to direct to which groups, as all issues are related and need to be intertwined in order to be effective. Cross-talk needs to happen with all groups involved. In recent history, the Town Board has discussed many issues; changing the character of Estes Park to a year-round economy, the aging population, the decline of the school population, etc. Family values are trying to get reestablished in town. The Planning Commission needs to be able to find balance between residents and visitors, and the balance seems to be shifting. He urged the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 September 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission to consider the larger picture: vacation rental owners versus people with issues about vacation rentals. The rules in place now may not be clear to property owners. While the Commissioners are being asked to allow more flexibility, there should be ways to maintain the small amount of control that we now have. A Conditional Use Permit may be helpful, but there could be other ways to address the issues. Nick Thomas/vacation home owner stated one of the biggest issues is people not being able to stand in each other’s shoes. Some of the examples provided today are extreme. In general, one size does not fit all. Estes Park is a vacation place for families. He does not appreciate trying to limit the occupancy. It is not a negative to celebrate things. There needs to be regulation and Estes Park needs to be able to back the rules. Different communities enforce things in different ways. He sees the biggest issue is to make sure that when people have a problem, it can be taken care of by the police and other enforcers. He questioned whether the statistics about number of vacation homes to the number of complaints was accurate, thinking that many complaints may be coming from one or two individuals about one or two vacation homes. He encouraged the Commissioners to be flexible and realize one rule will not fit every situation. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Sergeant Rick Life/Estes Park Police Department stated the local noise ordinance is based on decibels and the location where the reading is taken from. It is not as simple as it seems. Staff and Commissioner comments included but were not limited to: noise really varies; Estes Park and Larimer County have challenges with response times; Sheriff’s office does not have a deputy regularly assigned to the Estes Valley; the code regarding eight unrelated individuals has been in place for many years, and is derived from the state statute which defines small group homes as eight people or fewer; you cannot prohibit small group homes from residential neighborhoods; from a planning perspective, residential neighborhoods are for residential use, so if we allow vacation homes for more people than eight people, then we also need to look at increasing the number of people that can live in a residence or small group home; it is hard to determine regulations when you have to assume that enforcement would work; enforcement is one of the biggest issues; property owners that are out of state are maybe not as in tune to issues; staff will flush out the land use issues more fully than others and present it as a package with how the process would work and how enforcement would occur; the enforcement of covenants is a civil matter; if occupancy was maintained at eight people, a conditional use permit could allow a larger number; the Planning Commission could place regulations on the process for renewals; conditional use permits currently expire after one year of non-use. Planner Kleisler stated the next step will be a joint meeting with the Town Board and County Commission to present final recommendations. Following that meeting, a draft ordinance will be written and presented to the Planning Commission. At that meeting, the Planning Commission may request changes be made, that something else be flushed out differently, etc. At that point, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 September 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the Planning Commission would either ask for additional information, request changes be made to the ordinance, or make a recommendation to the decision-making boards. It is also contingent on Town Board feedback. REPORTS Planner Kleisler reported the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure project was heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on September 1, 2015. The variances for height and setbacks were approved. Planner Kleisler reported on the Downtown Plan, stating a grant was received from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for $190,000 to hire a consultant to create a downtown plan that would be the vision for the next ten years. That process is currently underway. The community has provided input on the submitted proposals, and interviews were held with the two finalists. The committee is nearing completion, and will be providing a recommendation to the Town Board in the near future. Commissioner White is a member of the committee. Chair Hull stated she will be filling in for Commissioner White while she is out of town. Director Chilcott reported there is no update on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Modernization. It is a very time-intensive project and other projects in the department have had higher priority. Director Chilcott will be providing a report to the Town Board on October 27, 2015 on goals for long- and short-term flood mitigation, with the main goal reducing flood risk to protect property owners from future flood damage, both economically and physically. Director Chilcott reported a consultant reviewed our current fee schedules for development review and building permit fees, and several recommendations have been presented to staff. Options to consider are (1) retain the current fee schedule but potentially increase the fees; (2) move to a cost reimbursement model, where the more you use the service the more you pay; and (3) a combined model for development review fees, where a simple review is a flat fee, and a complex project would be based on the amount of staff time incurred. The reason for reviewing the fee schedules is because our current fees are not covering the cost of services, due to the increase in demand. The other option would be to scale back on the level of services. The Town Board heard the presentation, and staff will be doing some public outreach to stakeholders to obtain feedback. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary