Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-10-18Prepared: October 11, 2016 • Revised: October 12, 2016 STUDY SESSION AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11 a.m. Room 202, Town Hall 11:00 Review of Minutes (5) Chair Hull 11:05 Review of EVDC Special Review criteria (30) Planner Gonzales 11:35 Lunch (10) Chair Hull 11:45 Discussion regarding amendment to EVDC Director Hunt & Senior regarding removal of minimum lot size Planner Chilcott requirements for multi-family development in the RM zone district (30) 12:15 Discussion regarding amendment to EVDC - Director Hunt & Senior Accessory Dwelling Units (40) Planner Chilcott 12:55 • Discussion regarding amendment to EVDC Director Hunt & Senior - Vacation Rental regulation (25) Planner Chilcott 1:20 Adjourn to meeting Chair Hull Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 10:45 a.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. Prepared: September 28, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION October 18, 2016 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes of September 20, 2016 B. Proposed Amendment to Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; Adoption of 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Staff requests to continue to November 15, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Continued from September meeting) Proposed text amendment to Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2.6.2.a to allow long-term rental (stays of 30 days or more) of attached accessory dwelling units. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Proposed amendment to Section 4.3, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts, to remove the minimum lot size requirement for multi-family development in the RM—Multi-Family Residential zone district, and to amend Section 7.1.A.2.b to remove reference to the RM minimum lot size requirement. 6. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Wilson Residence Variance — Approved October 4, 2016 B. Estes Park Town Board 1. Downtown Plan Consultant Contract Approval — Approved September 27, 2016 C. Larimer County Board of Commissioners 1. EVDC Amendment related to concurrent submittal and timing of review — Approved September 19, 2016 D. Community Development Update 1. Downtown Neighborhood Plan update 2. Floodplain Mapping Update E. Other 1. Planning Commission — Special Study Session scheduled for November 1, 2016 to discuss Vacation Rentals. Noon to 2 p.m., Town Board Room. 7. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 20160928 a westview townhomes water sewer The developers at West View Town Homes are asking the town to fund the extension of water and sewage mains down Highway 22 in lieu of additional deed restricted housing. DAcKsoo L-k New housing incentive studied s- 4- LAzio c By John Spina I Posted: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:30 am Following the referendum defeat of downtown District 2 ordinances, which included 100,000 square feet of short-term rentals to encourage workforce housing, the Town Council continues to search for ways to encourage developers to create units for workers. The latest proposal is to pay for infrastructure improvements for privately funded projects in exchange for deed-restricted units. "We can get immediate housing for local families if we act now," Mayor Sara Flitner wrote in an email to the News&Guide. "This is exactly the kind of public-private partnership we need. "We aren't developing," she wrote. "We aren't in a business we can't run. We are providing infrastructure — and we're good at that — in exchange for more housing for local working people. Deed-restricted, employment-based, apartments and lower income categories." But the town has never engaged in such an exchange, and it must determine how it can track the value of its investments and ensure public dollars are being effectively put to use. "I'm going to have to think long and hard about going down this path," Councilor Jim Stanford said during a Town Council workshop held Sept. 19. "This is a rather stark break from where we've gone in the past. "It's the issue of transparency," he said. "Up to this point when we're dealing with the [Jackson Hole Community] Housing Trust and Habitat for Humanity we're dealing with nonprofits, and we have a long relationship working with various ways with them. "So how do we ensure we're not simply putting public dollars into the pockets of private developers?" he asked. "How do we see what costs truly are? How do we get a fair deal for the public? What we're being asked for is hundreds of thousands of dollars in public subsidies." Two proposed developments raised the question of that kind of subsidy. r • $ One is Hidden Hollow, a 168-unit development proposed for the 10-acre Bridger-Teton National Forest parcel at 60 Rosencrans. The other is West View Town Homes, a 20-unit development proposed on Highway 22 just west of the "Y" intersection. With so many units planned at Hidden Hollow — 13 detached single-family houses, 20 townhomes and 135 condominiums or apartments in five buildings — the project's developers, along with Jackson Public Works, worry it could overrun sections of town's sewage system. "Should the housing development get approved," town staff wrote in a report, "certain challenges arise regarding new utility systems and locations at which new utilities will connect to existing town utilities to provide the new housing development with required water pressures and sewer capacities." Fixing the problem involves improving 1,000 linear feet of sewer main located under Mercill Avenue and Milward Street along the truck route that bypasses Town Square, and approximately 550 feet of sewer main under the alley behind the Rusty Parrot between West Gill and West Deloney avenues. In addition, about 750 feet of new water main would be built from Hidden Hollow through the Teton County/Jackson Parks and Recreation property to East Gill Avenue. The improvements would cost about $1.1 million. Though the number and type of deed-restricted units that sum would purchase has yet to be determined, Hidden Hollow developers said they would give the town a discounted rate. The West View Town Homes project, on the other hand, doesn't have access to any existing water and sewage mains. For it to be built a water line must be extended down Highway 22 approximately 335 feet, and the sewage main must be extended roughly 655 feet. "I would like to put more money into my development than chasing water and sewage down the street," Eric Grove, one of the principals of West View Town Homes, told the planning commission. "Any money we spend on infrastructure is money I can't spend on the development." Extending the water and sewage lines down Highway 22 is estimated to cost $371,250. While Grove said he would deed-restrict 11 additional units in exchange for the subsidy, he also said that extending the water and sewage lines down Highway 22 is inherently valuable to the town. "I've always felt that end of town has been underutilized," Grove said at a previous meeting. "I'm trying to set a tone for that end of town by providing this type of workforce housing and updating that part of town." Many cities throughout the country provide such infrastructure subsidies for developers constructing buildings that serve a community interest, especially for affordable housing. Examples include Raleigh, North Carolina, Austin, Texas, Cleveland and New Orleans. However, before the town of Jackson can move forward with any plans it must figure out a way to properly track the value of the subsidies and ensure fair value. "It's complex," Councilor Bob Lenz said. "It could have far-reaching effects for future projects." The topic will be brought before the council again Monday with additional staff information about the fair value of the improvements in terms of deed-restrictions. 1 I I I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, Schneider, and Hills Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately eight 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 Approval of minutes, August 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adoption of the 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff requests to continue this item to the October 18, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Planner Chilcott reviewed the data gathering process conducted by staff. Staff inquired with Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Estes Park Sanitation District, the Town Water Department, and the Larimer County Assessor regarding data they might be willing to share. The County Assessor had the most complete data, as other entities did not collect systematic data. Larimer County collects the following information for each building on a parcel: numbers of bedrooms, bathrooms, sinks, wet bars, and kitchens (not a complete list). Staff collected data on the numbers of second kitchen sinks and wet bar sinks in single-family dwellings. She showed a graph indicating the number of second kitchen sinks/wet bars by zone district, explaining these numbers RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall account only for permitted kitchens/wet bars. The breakdown for second kitchen sinks/wet bars by zone district is as follows: R-1 = 1, R = 36, E = 95, E-1 = 120, RE = 45, RE-1 = 36. Out of approximately 7,000 parcels, staff determined about five percent (5%) of the housing stock in the Estes Valley has a single-family dwelling with a second kitchen sink and/or a wet bar. Planner Chilcott clarified this does not mean any or all of these homes have accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The definition of an ADU includes the requirement of a kitchen. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Chilcott stated ADUs tend to be fairly evenly spread across the Estes Valley. There are approximately 330 dwellings in the valley with second kitchen sinks/wet bars, but there is no way to determine if they are associated with an ADU. Discussion included, but was not limited to: Planner Chilcott recalled the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) definition of a kitchen is an oven, sink, and a refrigerator; the restrictions regarding rentals of ADUs was adopted when the EVDC was adopted in 2000; an ADU is defined as having living, sanitary, and cooking facilities; many times ADUs are discovered when the property owner wants to make improvements to them and applies for a building permit; many people do not realize the rental of ADUs is not allowed; every community has different regulations, with college towns typically having tighter restrictions regarding rentals than other communities Commissioner Moon was concerned about the relaxation of the size requirement, and he would prefer to leave size out of the discussion when we are trying to collect data. He thought the only incentive for people to come forward with the knowledge of having an ADU would be the promise to be grandfathered in if there was a sunset clause. He liked the way it was stated now if a sunset clause was going to be involved, and 800 square feet seemed acceptable. Commissioner White stated she was in favor of limiting the size of an ADU to 800 square feet, and keeping the minimum lot size to '1.33 times the Minimum lot size for the zone district. She was concerned about blanket zoning of ADUs to all zones and lot sizes, stating it would create greater density in neighborhoods, more parking issues, etc. She was concerned about enforcement. She stated anything under one acre could be problematic, but would require additional study. She reminded the Commission the data collected was about sinks, not ADUs. Director Hunt stated this agenda item could be continued to next month if the Commissioners so desired. There are currently five zone districts that allow ADUs, and staff could determine how many potential ADUs could be on parcels that are sized one acre or greater, using the statistics provided by Planner Chilcott. He stated the data provided today was most likely as much as we would be able to collect. County Liaison Michael Whitley stated Larimer County has ADU regulations in the County Land Use Code. The County Commissioners have concerns about intertwining the ADU issue with workforce housing and vacation rentals. He has heard there would not be support from at least two of the County Commissioners unless there were changes to regulations on vacation homes, including a cap on the number of vacation homes allowed in the Estes Valley. Timelines on 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall vacation homes are moving forward, and this and the ADU timeline will converge at some point. The County Commissioners consider vacation homes and ADUs as being connected. Director Hunt stated there would be some additional County information available at the October study session. Public Comment Pat Newsom/town resident stated single-family residential zone districts should remain single- family, and was concerned about the increased density ADUs could create. There are additions in town with strict HOA covenants, and other areas built before HOAs were formed, making it difficult for some neighborhoods to have restrictions. Jay Heineman/county resident agreed with Mrs. Newsom on the increased density in single-family zone districts. There is zoning for a reason, and ADUs should be located in multi-family zone districts. He stated it was unfair to the property owners that live here year-round, the unintended consequences are numerous and would have a negative impact on single-family residential neighborhoods. John Phipps/town resident agreed with Mr. Heineman. The word "workforce" continues to be used. The determination of whether or not a member of the "workforce" is living in an ADU is non-enforceable. He thought the word."workforce" should not be used. He was concerned about making a drastic zoning change by cliangirig the uses allowed. This is what happened with vacation rentals, and he foresees the same issues coming up with ADUs. He stated there is no distinction between an ADU and a duplex. He encourage the Commissioners to read EVDC 4.3 A, which lists the purposes of each zone district. It was his opinion any amendment regarding ADUs would violate these paragraphs. Mr. Phipps asked the Commission to consider the EVDC definition of a family, and what might happen if`the occupancy limit between vacation rentals and ADUs was greater. He also wondered if it would be possible to have a home with an ADU used as both a vacation rental and a long-term rental. He thanked the Commission for their hard work and effort. Paul Brown/town resident stated he purchased his lot (in the town limits) in 1994. At that time, ADUs were allowed on lots the size of his, which was one of the reasons he purchased it. In 2000 that right was removed, and he thinks that resulted in devaluation of his property. He would like to have that right back so he could build an ADU so his children would have a place to stay. When he purchased his lot, Larimer County did not allow ADUs. Two months following the purchase, the County changediheir regulations to allow attached ADUs and came through with detached ADU allowances a few years later. He supports accessory dwelling units. He did extensive research on ADUs a couple of years ago, and remembered there were approximately 400 attached and detached ADUs in the Estes Valley. He submitted his research to the Community Development Department at the time. As a designer and builder, he often receives requests from property owners for ADUs. Rita Kurelja/Housing authority stated there is a need for additional housing. The Town participated with the Housing authority on a community-wide Housing Needs Assessment, which RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall brought about eleven recommendations. One of those was to adopt ADU regulations for workforce rentals. There are many mountain communities that allow rental of ADUs, and she stated there are ways workforce housing can be regulated. The housing situation is not going to be improved with one large step, but rather needs to be done step-by-step. Allowing the rental of ADUs is a small piece of the puzzle. This has been discussed for many years. Mary Murphy/county resident stated as a realtor, she is very diligent about going on tour of the new properties on the market to have a good understanding of what the housing inventory is. In almost 14 years, she has seen very few home with second sinks that also have other kitchen parts to make them an ADU. One cannot assume that the higher priced homes have attached ADUs, and stated the majority of second sinks are in wet bars. Fred Mares/town resident thanked the Commission for the discussion at study session. He was opposed to this specific issue as a matter of principal; it would change the zone districts, with the end result being no single-family zone districts. He thought it was a nice idea, but there was not much behind the implementation or enforcement. He had many questions: How do you limit ADUs to long-term rentals to the local workforce? How do you enforce that? How many are there in the Estes Valley? If they are already rented, how will they help workforce housing? How will we collect data? How will we control or limit new ADUs being built, and do we need to keep a limit on them? He was supportive of workforce housing, but did not see how this will help. He stated he has been involved with the vacation rental issue and thinks ADUs are totally related to vacation rentals. He provided some statistics from the Town Clerk's office regarding vacation rentals, stating the majority are 2-4 bedroom homes, which are also where the majority of the workforce housing needs to live. He stated 12% of those 2-4 bedroom houses in the Estes Valley are being rented as vacation rentals. These number directly affect ADUs and workforce housing. If we really want to bes a community, we really need neighborhoods and not just accommodations zones. Matthew Heiser/town resident lived in two ADUs when he first moved to the Estes Valley. He did not attack his neighborhood, and being able to live in an ADU was what made it possible for him to live here. As a current business owner with eight employees, there are people willing to live at a camp site in order to work at his business. There is a definite need for workforce housing. Joe Coop/county resident stated ADUs are already allowed, but only 20% of the properties qualify to have a legal ADU. There needs to be some way to loosen up the code to allow ADUs. Removing the minimum lot size is one step towards that change. On a regular basis, Van Horn Engineering receives requests to design ADUs (mainly detached) for customers. There is a current proposed project for small units with attached garages on 1/4 acre lots with ADUs above the garages. He stated he would like to add an ADU above his detached garage, but is unable to do so with the current regulations. Public comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 September 20, 201.6 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: Attached ADUs are currently allowed, but cannot be rented; zoning is in place for a reason, and this could have an impact on zoning; people are shifting to smaller houses; zoning and density are concerns; unintended consequences could have negative impacts; the sunset clause would not be enforceable; lack of enforcement and increased density were concerns; concerns about de facto rezoning; concerns about how vacation rentals will be intertwined with ADUs. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Schneider) to continue this agenda item to the October Planning Commission meeting, after the Commissioners will have received more information about the vacation rentals issue and the motion passed 5-0 with One absent, and Commission Murphy being absent from the dais at the time of voting. Director Hunt stated the October Planning Commission Study Session will include discussion regarding vacation rentals, with an additional Study Session to occur prior to the November Planning Commission meeting. 5. REPORTS A. Director Hunt reported the County commissioners voted to approve a code amendment to the EVDC regarding the sequencing of when a Variance application is reviewed. This will allow variances to be reviewed at the appropriate places during the review process. Formerly, variances were always reviewed following final action by the appropriate decision-making body. B. Director Hunt reported the Downtown Plan has been on hold for several months, due to a transition in consultants. The new consultant's contract award is on the Town Board agenda for next Tuesday. The Steering Committee has reviewed the new scope of work with the new consultant. The new target date for completion of the plan is December, 2017. The results will be fine-tuned in-house, so the presentation to the public will be delayed by a few months. He stated the goal is to have the Downtown Plan adopted into the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan in the Spring of 2018. Town Attorney White stated the previous consultant's contract was terminated for failure to comply with the terms of the contract. C. Director Hunt reported the Temple residence and Bruell residence variances were approved at the September Board of Adjustment meeting. A variance request for Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers loading area location was disapproved. D. Director Hunt reported Rex Poggenpohl was appointed by the County Commissioners as the newest member of the Board of Adjustment. E. Commissioner Schneider stated as the Commission prepares for any sessions and discussions, he did not like surprises. He was not aware of the Brownfield Report (Habitat for Humanity Development Plan) and did not appreciate being made aware of it during the public hearing. Director Hunt stated the essence of planning is predictability, and staff would do their best to alert the Commissioners of all the information in the file. Commissioner White stated it would have been nice to have known about the erroneous statement made at the Planning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 September 20, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission meeting regarding the Brownfield Report, instead of finding out about it at the Town Board meeting. F. Commissioner White stated many times when Planning Commission is the recommending body to the Town Board, staff presents a lengthy staff report to the Planning Commission, but does not always present the same, elaborate information to the Town Board. She requested the Planner making the presentation elaborate more on the Planning Commission decision in the public hearing. Town Board Liaison Ron Norris stated when there is a difference of opinion, he generally discusses the matter during the Town Board Study Session, but not at the regular meeting. He stated it may be more important to bring out those comments during the regular meeting, not just at study sessions. Director Hunt stated staff is looking to improve internal procedures and would like to consider adopting "findings of fact" with any motions, which are different than staff recommendations. G. Director Hunt stated he is always willing to hear additional feedback from the Commissioners. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary October 18th, 2016 SPECIAL REVIEW PROCESS EXAMPLE (Modeled after City of Gresham, Oregon) 1. Permitted by Special Review YES or NO? 2. What type of Special Review, Si (Planning Commission Level) or S2 (PC and Board Level)? 3. S1 and S2 must address the Review Criteria Standards below: For purposes of the Special Use Review, the application narrative shall describe the following, as applicable: 1. The proposed use and its operations; 2. Traffic generation; 3. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping, and surfacing; 4. Any effects on off-site parking; 5. Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design; 6. Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur; 7. Crime prevention measures; 8. Noxious odors; 9. Lighting; 10. Effects on air and water quality; 11. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as: a. Glare. This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding; b. Noise; c. Dust; and d. Vibration; 12. Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities; 13. Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and maintenance; and 14. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources, cultural resources, sensitive lands, or other significant natural resource. 4. If S1, in addition to the Special Use Review Criteria Standards, the following standards apply to (example: Religious Institutions Use) where they are allowed through the S1 Special Use Review procedure: (Example: Religious Institutions) In addition to the standards in Section XXXX (Special Use Review Criteria Standards), the following apply to Religious Institutions where they are allowed through the S1 Special Use Review procedure: A. The principal place of assembly has seating for no more than 300 persons. Those religious institutions that do not meet this standard shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. B. Street access: Proposed religious institutions shall have direct access to a street with a functional classification of Local Street or greater. C. Size: Proposed religious institutions shall be no larger than 10,000 SF of Gross Floor Area. If larger than 10,000 SF GFA, then shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. 5. If 52, in addition to the Special Use Review Criteria Standards, the following standards apply to Religious Institutions Use where they are allowed through the S2 Special Use Review procedure: (Example: Religious Institutions) In addition to Section XXXX (Religious Institutions Si standards), the following apply to Religious Institutions where they are subject to a 52 Special Use Review: A. This section is applicable to those religious institutions where the principal place of assembly can accommodate more than 300 individuals. B. This section is applicable to those religious institutions where the Gross Floor Area of the principal building is over 10,000 SF. C. Religious institutions shall have direct access to a street with a functional classification of Arterial Street or greater. Other Special Review Criteria Examples (Boulder and Greeley) 1. The proposed use shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use shall be compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, air pollution, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity. Reasonable conditions may be placed on uses by special review to protect the public health, safety and welfare by mitigating impacts to achieve compatibility and complementary design, especially where a nonresidential use is located adjacent to a residential use; 3. The site shall be physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed land use; 4. The proposed land use shall not adversely affect traffic flow or parking in the neighborhood; and 5. The location of other approved uses by special review in the neighborhood shall be determined so that a concentration and/or cumulative effect of such uses can be evaluated. 6. Except as otherwise noted, the use will comply with the minimum zoning requirements of the zoning district in which the use is to be established, and will also comply with all other applicable requirements; 7 The use will be compatible with the surrounding area. In determining compatibility, the Board should consider the location of structures and other improvements on the site; the size, height and massing of the structures; the number and arrangement of structures; the design of structures and other site features; the proposed removal or addition of vegetation; the extent of site disturbance, including, but not limited to, any grading and changes to natural topography; and the nature and intensity of the activities that will take place on the site. In determining the surrounding area, the Board should consider the unique location and environment of the proposed use; assess the relevant area that the use is expected to impact; and take note of important features in the area including, but not limited to, scenic vistas, mountainous terrain, agricultural lands and activities, sensitive environmental areas, and the characteristics of nearby development and neighborhoods; 8. The use will not result in an over-intensive use of land or excessive depletion of natural resources. In evaluating the intensity of the use, the Board should consider the extent of the proposed development in relation to parcel size and the natural landscape/topography; the area of impermeable surface; the amount of blasting, grading, or other alteration of the natural topography; the elimination or disruption of agricultural lands; the effect on significant natural areas and environmental resources; the disturbance of plant and animal habitat, and wildlife migration corridors; the relationship of the proposed development to natural hazards; and available mitigation measures such as the preservation of open lands, the addition or restoration of natural features and screening, the reduction or rearrangement of structures and land disturbance, and the use of sustainable construction techniques, resource use, and transportation management; 9. The use will not have a material adverse effect on community capital improvement programs; 10. The use will not require a level of community facilities and services greater than that which is available; 11. The use will support a multimodal transportation system and not result in significant negative impacts to the transportation system or traffic hazards; 12. The use will be adequately buffered or screened to mitigate any undue visual impacts of the use; 13. The use will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of the County; and 14. The use will establish an appropriate balance between current and future economic, environmental, and societal needs by minimizing the consumption and inefficient use of energy, materials, minerals, water, land, and other finite resources. 15. The use will not result in unreasonable risk of harm to people or property — both onsite and in the surrounding area — from natural hazards. Development or activity associated with the use must avoid natural hazards, including those on the subject property and those originating off-site with a reasonable likelihood of affecting the subject property. Natural hazards include, without limitation, expansive soils or claystone, subsiding soils, soil creep areas, or questionable soils where the safe-sustaining power of the soils is in doubt; landslides, mudslides, mudfalls, debris fans, unstable slopes, and rockfalls; flash flooding corridors, alluvial fans, floodways, floodplains, and flood-prone areas; and avalanche corridors; all as identified in the Comprehensive Plan Geologic Hazard and Constraint Areas Map or through the Special Review or Limited Impact Special Review process using the best available information. Best available information includes, without limitation, updated topographic or geologic data, Colorado Geologic Survey landslide or earth/debris flow data, interim floodplain mapping data, and creek planning studies. City of Commerce City (Up to applicant to describe how any impacts will be mitigated) 1. Compliance with the purpose, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Harmony with the character of the neighborhood. 3. General compatibility with the surrounding area. 4. Community need for the proposed use. 5. Effects on adjacent property and how they will be mitigated. 6. Effects on public infrastructure and services and how they will be mitigated. 7. Site characteristics. 8. Landscaping and screening strategies to mitigate impacts. 9. Noise, dust, odor or other nuisances that may impact the surrounding area. 10. Any other relevant information. a TOWN BOARD / PLANNING COMMISSION / COUNTY COMMISSIONER STUDY SESSION Tuesday, August 30, 2016 8:00 p.m. Board Room AGENDA 1. Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendation Presentation. (Larimer County Community Development Director Terry Gilbert) 2. Discussion of Recommendations. 3. Direction to Staff. 4. Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations on Enforcement. (Ed Peterson, Vacation Rental Task Force Representative) "Informal discussion among Trustees, Board and Commission concerning agenda items or other matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m." 2 TO: Board of County Commissioners Town of Estes Park Trustees 23 August 2016 FROM: COL Robert "Terry" Gilbert (ret.), AICP Director SUBJECT: Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations on Vacation Rentals for 9 or More Occupants 30 August 2016 Joint Work Session At the 2 February 2016 Joint Work Session between the Board of County Commissioners, Town Trustees, and the Estes Valley Planning Commission, I was asked to develop the Scope of Work and Timeline for a Vacation Rental Task Force. The Task Force was charged with developing recommendations, concerning vacation rentals that will accommodate 9 or more individuals. The Task Force was not charged with making recommendations on the Enforcement process, because the enforcement processes were going to be reviewed by the Town staff separately. Timeline Both Boards set mid-November 2016 as the approximate time for the final public hearing to decide on possible Development Code amendments, for vacation rentals, which accommodated 9 or more occupants. The Scope of Work and Timeline were developed with the mid-November date as a completion date. The Board of County Commissioners and the Town Trustees approved the Scope of Work & Timeline on 16 February and 23 February, respectively, with two changes: 1. Add a task force member from the Association of Responsible Development (ARD) and 2. Have a task force member selected by the property managers. The Task Force was made up of 15 members, not counting myself. The membership is made up of two primary categories: 1. Individuals (8 members) approved by the Town Trustees and Board of County Commissioners: a. 3 home owners within the town limits, living near or close to a vacation rental; b. 3 home owners within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area, living near or close to a vacation rental; c. 1 vacation rental owner, with a vacation rental in the town limits; d. 1 vacation rental owner, with a vacation rental within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area. 2. Organizations (7). Each organization was to select a representative to be on the Task Force. The actual list of organizations and their iepiesentative is shown in Tab A. On 12 April 2016, both the Town Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners met, via a tele-conference, to select the 8 members of group 1, above. The first meeting of the Task Force was held on 27 April 2016. The meetings were held every other Wednesday from 27 April through 3 August 2016, for a total of 8 meetings. 3 Between 27 April and 3 August both the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners were updated on the process of the Task Force in June and July. On 3 August 2016, the Task Force completed their assignment to recommend potential changes to the Estes Valley Land Development Code, should the Board of Trustees and the County Commissioners decide to allow Vacation Rentals for 9/above occupants. The current schedule for the potential adoption is as follows: 30 August 2016 - Work session between the Board of Trustees, Board of County Commissioners, and the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Should the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners decide to move forward with the Public Hearing process, the Town of Estes Community Development Department will develop appropriate Code amendments reflecting the Task Force recommendations and any additional language requested by either of the Boards. 18 October 2016 — Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing 17 November 2016 - Board of Trustees' and Board of County Commissioners' joint Public Hearing. It needs to be noted, an initial assumption in the timeline was the final determination on the amendments to the vacation rents for 8/below and whether there would be a cap on the total number of vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Area. As of the date of this report, no action has been taken to resolve the two items. The Process As both the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners know, the issue of vacation rentals is an extremely volatile issue. Although the members of the Task Force were appointed to work together in developing a set of recommendations for the two Boards, each representative still had their own opinions about vacation rentals. This was evident in the first half of the process and resulted in heated arguments. During the process, three Task Force members resigned, the most recent on the day of the last meeting. Those resigning were: one owner/occupied representative from within the Town limits (resigned on 6 July) and two owner/occupied representatives outside of the Town limits (one resigned on 19 July and the other on 3 August). However, in July and August, the representatives, for the most part, were working to develop recommendations each member could live with. As a result, 15 out of 17 tasks were completed and are being recommended with a unanimous vote. During the Task Force process, the method of determining the recommendations from the Task Force was changed, from a "Informed Consent/Unified Decision" process to a voting (head count) process. This caused some delay added one additional meeting on 3 August 2016. The end process of approving recommendations was two-fold: 1. The vote had to be a majority vote of all members 2. The vote had to be an "Equitable Vote": ie; a, A minimum of 5 out of the 8 members (that were not representing the Owner/Occupied residential properties) was needed, b. A minimum of 4 out of the 7 members (that were representing the Owner/Occupied residential properties) was needed. 4 Even though 3 of the 7 owner/occupied representatives resigned during the process, all 4 of the remaining members had to vote for a recommendation, in order for it to be considered an "Equitable Vote". Tab "A" shows the actual votes on each recommendation. Any task, not being recommended, would still be brought forward to the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners with an explanation of why the Task Force was not able to reach a final recommendation on a particular task. There were a total of eighteen (18) tasks discussed: 1. Fifteen (15) of the tasks are being recommended with a unanimous decision, 2. The Task Force could not reach a "Equitable Vote" on two of the tasks, 3. One Task (Neighborhood Character) was determined to be an item the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners would need to determine during their final approval or denial of an application. Throughout the process, a key issue of concern was the lack of enforcement of the current land use regulations and whether enforcement was going to continue to be an issue. Although Enforcement was not a task assigned to the Task Force, once the Task Force completed their assigned duties, they did discuss Enforcement of the land development code and addressed Building Code concerns. For the Building Codes, the Task Force recommends the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners modify the Building Codes to be consistent in how vacation rentals, for those that have occupancy of 9 and above, are regulated. The Task Force appointed Ed Peterson to speak on their behalf regarding concerns related to current and future enforcement of the Land Development Code. Mr. Peterson will speak at the end of the joint work session. Recommendations: Tab "A" below is a listing of the tasks, the Task Force identified, and the recommendations associated with the tasks. 5 TAB A Estes Valley Vacation Rental Task Force 9 & Above Occupancy Recommendations Date: 06 July 2016 Task: Process for establishing occupancy count Vote: Total: 13 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town) -111 Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: Process count should be (2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants) 7 Date: 06 July 2016 Task: Traffic limitations in areas adjacent to VR Vote: Total: 13 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town) . --1 Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: Traffic imitations in areas adjacent to Vacation Rentals are to be the same as the existing requirements for the area. a Date: 06 July 2016 Task: Speed limits in areas adjacent to VR Vote: Total: 13 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Scheip Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town) IV- II Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: Speed limits in areas adjacent to Vacation Rentals are to be the same as the existing requirements for the area. 9 Date: 06 July 2016 Task: Number of Vacation Rentals in a neighborhood — No Recommendation on Number Vote: Total: 10 - 3 Non-HO: 7 yes HO: 3 yes & 3 no Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Schelp Property. Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) j X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) IFillt1W X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town) Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) The TF recommendation was not approved with an equitable vote. Therefore, this is not a recommendation of the TF. A vote of 11-2 would be required to be considered equitable. Concerns were raised, by those not in favor of the motion, about the current lack of enforcement and that the character of the neighborhood would be changed if there was no restriction. 10 Date: 06 July 2016 Task: Review of Assessor's records vs Building Department records (le: number of bedrooms) Vote: Total: 13 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town) , I Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) The process is already underway and the TF recommends continuing to review the Assessor's records against the Building Department to determine the legal number of bedrooms associated with vacation rentals. 11 Date: 06 July 2016 & 03 August 2016 Task: Inspections to be conducted by local government, etc. Vote: Total: 14 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes i No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X I Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Schelp ProTerty Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) X ,.. , Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town) t-- - •. , • Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) X J Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: 1. All normal Land Use, Building, Health, Fire, etc. to be utilized 2. Annual inspections are not required Note: Originally, on 06 July 2016, the vote was 10 — 3 and was an approved with an equitable vote. On 03 Aug 2016, the individuals who voted no (Jane Livingston, Rainer Schelp, and Linda Moak, plus Bill Van Horn) requested their votes be changed to "yes", thus making the final vote 14 — 0. 12 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Grandfathering of 9/a bove Vacation Rentals Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cowie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) MIIMI RIO Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town) Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: 1. Effective 01 July 2016, Grandfather existing 9/above, or capacity for 9/above, Vacation Rentals, only for VRs that are currently permitted as 8/below and have existing capacity for 9/above. 2. Within 30 days of the final adoption of 9/above VR regulations, all potential grandfathered 9/above VRs are to submit for license/permit. (verification of the use must be provided) 3. Grandfather status for 9/above VR: a. Location on a lot of less than one (1) acre would be grandfathered b. Existing setback of less than 25 feet would be grandfathered c. Use as a grandfathered 9/above vacation rental is dependent on the number of bedrooms (2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants) d. Parking, Building, Health, Fire, etc. are not Grandfathered. Note: As of 01 July 2016, there were a total of 97 vacation rentals, which would potentially be considered under the Grandfather recommendation: 32 vacation rentals within the Town limits 65 vacation rentals within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area 13 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Location Requirements Vote: Total: 10 - Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town) t: W.a — Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: 1. Allowed in the same zoning districts as the 8/below are allowed 2. Minimum of 1 acre lot (smaller lots could be combined, utilizing the subdivision regulations, to create a 1 acre or larger lot) 3. Minimum of 25' setbacks for all a yards or the zoning district setbacks, whichever is greater 14 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Parking Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town) Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: Utilize the current language in the Estes Valley Land Development Code: 5.2.B.2.e_6 Limit on Number of Parked or Stored Vehicles, Not Including Recreational Equipment and Recreational Vehides, on a Lot. (a) This Section applies to all vehicles that are not parked or stored in a fully enclosed garage. (b) As Accessory to Single-Family and Two-Family Principal Uses. No more than a total of four (4) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot of two (2) acres or less. No more than a total of five (5) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot greater than two (2) acres in size, but less than five (5) acres. No more than a total of six (6) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres. No more than a total of eight (8) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than ten (10) acres. Note: A variance to the parking requirements would need to be added, to the VR application, to have more vehicles than listed above. 15 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Renter Notification Requirements for Posting Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) ,..... _ ._ Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) - Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: This is the recommended list to be posted in the home of vacation rentals of 9 or more. It does not include information that would be in the rental agreement or expanded information that would be included in the guest information binder/book in the home. However, it is recommended the same list be used for vacation rentals of 8 and below occupancy. YOU ARE STAYING IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORS ARE GOING ABOUT THEIR DAILY LIVES, INCLUDING GETTING UP TO GO TO WORK, POSSIBLY VERY EARLY (5 AM). SLOW DOWN WHILE DRIVING, RESPECT THEIR PRIVACY, DO NOT TRESPASS AND REDUCE THE OUTSIDE NOISE LEVEL AFTER 9:00 PM. THIS WILL GO A LONG WAY IN ASSURING OUR ABILITY TO RETAIN OUR VACATION RENTAL FOR FUTURE VISITORS. THANK YOU. 1. Physical address and License or Permit #: 2. Name and contact information for owner/manager: 16 3. Important contact information: Emergency 911 Police Department Fire Department Hospital Doctors Office (walk-in) 4. Maximum occupancy: 5. Visitors/Daily use: A visitor is an occupant in the rental property that is not staying overnight. The total number of persons permitted in rental property including visitors is . This property is not an event venue. 6. Parking: Number of vehicles allowed: Vehicles in garage do not count. On street parking Is prohibited by ordinance. 7. Location of fire extinguisher/s 8. Trash Disposal: (Information pertinent to each property). Leaving trash or food outside or in your car has the potential for attracting bears and other wildlife looking for an easy snack. This causes damage, puts people in danger and jeopardizes the life and safety of the wildlife involved. 9. Noise: Noise in the Estes Valley travels easily and far in the mountain air, especially in the evening, night and early morning hours. Tenant shall not make or permit any excessive, disturbing or annoying Noise in or on the Rental Property by tenants or guests, nor permit such persons to do anything that will interfere with the rights of neighbors in the surrounding area, specifically including, but not limited to, the right of quiet enjoyment. By ordinance, noise levels are strictly controlled and enforced with mandatory quiet hours between 10 pm and 9 am. Please read expanded version regarding noise in the house information book. 10. Wildlife Safety/Protection: Do not approach or feed any wild animals Including birds. Animals of any size are potentially dangerous. Do not allow small children to be outdoors except with adult supervision. You have a responsibility for the well-being 17 of wild animals by not putting yourself in a situation whereby you or your children could be injured thus requiring that the animal be destroyed. 11. Pet Regulations/Safety: Not relevant if owner does not allow pets. Estes Park has a leash law requiring all pets to be on a leash at all times-enforced with fines. Do not allow pet to chase wildlife. This puts the wildlife and the pet's life in danger and you in danger of a large fine. Do not tie up/tether pet outside as this only makes the pet available as coyote and mountain lion chow. Pick up your pets poop. 12. Exterior Lighting: Turn off all exterior lighting when not needed or by 10 pm. 13. Map/Plot Plan: - State where it can be found and encourage tenants to look at it. Mark boundary corners, if possible, so that they are noticeable. 14. Trespassing: Trespassing on private property is illegal in Colorado. Trespassing may result in the eviction of all guests. As part of your Vacation Rental Agreement you have agreed that all members in your group will refrain from trespassing on the adjacent neighbor's property. 15. Fire Alarms/Carbon Monoxide Detectors: The property has fire alarms and Carbon monoxide detectors installed and they are believed to be functioning properly at the time of rental. Notify management without delay if a fire alarm or carbon monoxide detector "chirps" or has a low battery condition. 16. Smoking: Not relevant if smoking is not allowed on property. If smoking outside, all cigarettes must be extinguished and butts placed in designated receptacles. Do not toss cigarette butts on ground as fires can quickly start. 17. Miscellaneous: No weddings or wedding related groups, large groups, parties, functions etc. 18 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Noise Requirements Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X _ Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town) - Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Current Town or County Noise Ordinance, depending on location in or out of Town, would apply. No additional requirements limiting use or time of use, for outside activities, would be required. 19 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Minimum age limit for counting an Individual as an Occupant Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X I Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X I Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) it = Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home. Owner (out of Town) k, .. 4 Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: All occupants, regardless of age, would be counted. This is due to health, safety, welfare concerns in case of fires, etc. 20 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Proof of Insurance Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town) Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) No Proof of Insurance will be required. Insurance is the responsibility of the VR owner. 21 Date: 20 July 2016 Task: Liability: Rental agreements to protect liability of neighbors Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Not Present Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Not Present Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X .. - Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) - a Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town) Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Not Present Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) No requirement for liability signoff by renters, for protection of adjacent property owners. The VR is subject to the same criteria as any other residential home Is, within the area. (Note: the VR owner will include the statement that renters are not to trespass onto adjacent properties. This will be in the list of posted items.) 22 Date: 3 Aug 2016 Task: Local Contact requirements for manager/owner Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative Not Present Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) Not Present Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) i _ i 4 Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) Jo Anne 011erenshaw (resigned on 3 Aug 2016) r, Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: "Local Contact. The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by phone and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The local resident or property manager shall respond to complaints within thirty (30) minutes." Additionally, the Task Force would recommend this same language be used for vacation rentals that have 8/below occupants. 23 Date: 3 Aug 2016 Task: Maximum Occupancy for 9/a bove Vacation Rentals (Two motions, see below, l.a. and 1.b.) (No matter how many bedrooms the vacation rental has) Vote: Total: Non-HO: HO: Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing l.a 1.b 1.a 1.b X X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors X X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative Not Present Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park ' X X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) Not Present Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) i- Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) It ,_. Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) ' Jo Anne 011erenshaw (resigned on 3 Aug 2016) Home Owner (out of Town) X X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) After a number of motions, to establish a specific maximum occupancy allowed for a 9/above vacation rental, no matter how many bedrooms there are, the following was established: 1. There were two motions, which were seconded, however neither motion was approved by the majority of Owner/occupied representatives. Those motions/votes were: a. A Motion was made to allow two people per bedroom plus two people with a maximum occupancy count of 20 people (and/or nine bedrooms plus two people). Seven members voted in favor the Motion. Three members voted against the Motion. b. A Motion was made to limit the maximum number of occupants to 8 occupants for any vacation rental located in a zoning district which had minimum lots sizes of anything less than one acre in size. Any vacation rental located within a zoning district that allowed lots of one acre or more in size (E-1, RE, RE-1, A and A-1) could have a maximum of 20 occupants. 7 members voting in favor of the Motion, and 3 members voted against the Motion. The reason for the no votes was: 24 • The lack of enforcement of all the current code and ordinance requirements (not just the noise ordnance) • At what occupancy does a short term rental in a residential zone become an actual commercial lodging business; • At what occupancy is the use of a dwelling as a short term rental in conflict with residential zoning regulations/definitions; • What is the mechanism for preventing neighborhoods, or developments, of 2 and 3 bedroom homes from being purchased and converted to 9+ VRs by the addition of bedroom wings or second floors; • How many high occupancy (9+) vacation rentals could, or should, be allowed in close proximity before neighborhood character is detrimentally impacted or lost completely and the resultant residential area turned into a de facto accommodations zone? (Please note) It was to be further noted that all the Task Force members came together and have 100% consensus on the enforcement concern. 2. Through the multiple motions and discussion, the highest maximum limit discussed was 20 occupants and the lowest maximum was 10. 3. The Task Force believes there should be a maximum occupancy but was not able to establish a specific occupation limit or establish criteria on how to establish the occupation limit. 25 Date: 3 Aug 2016 Task: Approval Process for 9/above Vacation Rentals (Current Special Review Process) Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO: 1 Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD) X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC) X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative Not Present Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) Not Present Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) , Vacant Home Owner out of Town) Vacant Home Owner (out of Town) _ ; Jo Anne 011erenshaw (resigned on 3 Aug 2016) Home Owner (out of Town) X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) Recommendation: 1. Initially utilize the current Special Review process. 2. Staff needs to develop a more streamlined (shorter) process, which results in an approval by the Board of Trustees, for applications within the Town and approval by the Board of County Commissioners for applications within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area. There was a lengthy discussion, on the approval process. All members agreed the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners (depending on whether within the Town limits or in the unincorporated area) should be the final approval authority through a Special Review process. There was discussion about administrative approvals, however the Task Force "did not have confidence in the town board or staff, based on past experience with the Town Board's actions". The members of the Task Force, who own and live in their homes, strongly oppose any change to the current Special Review process, which would allow for a staff approval of such an application, The Task Force firmly believe "there is need for a public hearing to allow the elected officials to hear, first hand, the pros and cons of such a change, contemplate the impact to neighbors, and to minimize any possible staff misinterpretation of the code". The Task Force members, who represent vacation rentals, agree the Special Review process should be utilized, with a Board of Trustees' or Board of County Commissioners' final approval. However, they feel the current Special Review process is too cumbersome and lengthy a process. 26 •••••=0M111.' EP TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS (9 Occupants and Above) 2 February 2016 Initial Joint Work Session 16 & 23. February 2016 Boards' Approved Scope of Work 12 April 2016 Boards' Final Selection of Task Force Members 27 April 2016 — 3 August 2016 Vacation Rental Task Force Meetings 30 August 2016 Joint Work Session 18 October 2016 Estes Valley Planning Commission (PH) 17 November 2016 Joint Boards' Public Hearing Next Steps 1 Provide Estes Park Community Development staff direction on whether to develop Code language. 2. Whether to move forward with public hearings: 18 October 2016 Estes Valley Planning Commission (PH) 17 November 2016 Joint Boards' Public Hearing EP 3 c:iGtt~41 R. Name of VR Representative Representing Art Blume Association of Responsible Development. (ARD) Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors Bill van Horn Estes PF -.--; Economic Development Corp (EDC) Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town) Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town) Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town) Resigned 19 July Home Owner (out of Town) Resigned 6 July Home Owner (out of Town) Resigned 3 August Home Owner (out of Town) Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town) Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town) EP The Process Of Reaching Recommendations During the Task Force process, the method of determining the recommendations from the Task Force was changed, from a "Informed Consent/Unified Decision" process to a voting (head count) process. This caused some delay and added one additional meeting on 3 August 2016 There were a total of eighteen (18) tasks discussed: Fifteen (15) of the tasks are being recommended with a unanimous decision, The Task Force could not reach a recommendation on two (2) of the tasks, One Task (Neighborhood Character) was determined to be an item the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners would need to determine during their final approval or denial of an application. 5 The Process Of Reaching Recommendations Throughout the process, a key issue of concern was the lack of enforcement of the current land use regulations and whether enforcement was going to continue to be an issue. Although Enforcement wa2 _s 3t a task assigned to the Task Force, once the Task Force completed their assigned duties, they did discuss Enforcement of the land development code and addressed Building. Code concerns. For the Building Codes, the Task Force recommends the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners modify the Building Codes to be consistent in how vacation rentals, for those that have occupancy Df 9 and above, are regulated. The Task Force appointed Ed Peterson to speak on their behalf regarding concerns related to current and future enforcement of the Land Development Code. Mr. Peterson will speak at the end of the joint work session. Recommendations fP It needs to be noted, an initial assumption in the timeline was the final determination on the amendments to the vacation rentals for 8/below and whether there would be a cap on the total number of vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Area. Recommendations Process For Establishing Occupancy Count o 2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants Traffic Limitations In Areas Adjacent To Vacation Rental o No additional traffic requirements Speed Limits In Areas Adjacent To Vacation Rental a No additional speed limit requirements Review of Assessor's Records Vs Building Dept records o Process already is underway, no change needed Inspections To Be Conducted By Local Government, etc, o All normal Land Use, Building, Health, Fire, etc. to be utilized o Annual inspections are not required Alkimems : t Recommendation IP Grandfathering Of 9/Above Vacation Rentals 1. Effective 01 July 2016, Grandfather existing 9/above, or capacity for 9/above, Vacation Rentals, only for VRs that are currently permitted as 8/below and have existing capacity for 9/above. 2. Within 30 days of the final adoption of 9/above VR regulations, all potential grandfathered 9/a bove VRs are to submit for license/permit. (verification of the use must be provided) 9 Am= Recommendation Grandfathering Of 9/Above Vacation Rentals (Continued) 3. Grandfather status for 9/above VR: a. Location on a lot of less than one (1) acre would be grandfathered b. Existing setback of less than 25 feet would be grandfathered c. Use as a grandfathered 9/above vacation rental is dependent on the number of bedrooms (2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants) d. Parking, Building, Health, Fire, etc. are not Grandfathered. Note: As of 01 July 2016, there were a total of 97 vacation rentals, which would potentially be considered under the Grandfather recommendation: 32 vacation rentals within the. Town limits 65 vacation rentals within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area 10 Recommendation [t) Location Requirements 1. Allowed in the same zoning districts as the 8/below are allowed 2. Minimum of 1 acre lot (smaller lots could be combined, utilizing the subdivision regulations, to create a 1 acre or larger lot) 3. Minimum of 25' setbacks for all a yards or the zoning district setbacks, whichever is greater 11 Recommendation Parking Utilize the current language in the Estes Valley Land Development Code: 5.2.B.2.e.6 Limit on Number of Parked or Stored Vehicles, Not Including Recreational Equipment and Recreational Vehicles, on a Lot. (a) This Section applies to all vehicles that are not parked or stored in a fully enclosed garage. (b) As Accessory to Single-Family and Two-Family Principal Uses. No more than a total of four (4) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot of two (2) acres or less. No more than a total of five (5) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot greater than two (2) acres in size, but less than five (5) acres. No more than a total of six (6) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres. No more than a total of eight (8) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than ten (10) acres. Note: A variance to the parking requirements would need to be added, to the VR application, to have more vehicles than listed above. EP LIMIR ['till till" unim Recommendation Renter Notification Requirements for Posting in the VR In the Task Force Report, pages 14.16, is the recommended list to be posted in the home of vacation rentals of 9 or more occupants. It is also recommended the same list be used for vacation rentals of 8 and below occupancy. 13 -114.11L.% 4111•11 Recommendation • Noise Requirements. The current Town or County Noise, depending on whether the location is in or out of Town, would apply. No additional requirements limiting use or time of use, for outside activities, would be required. 14 Recommendation EP Minimum Age Limit for Counting an Individual as an Occupant All occupants, regardless of age, would be counted. This is due to health, safety, welfare concerns in case of fires, etc. 15 Recommendations Proof of Insurance No Proof of Insurance will be required. Insurance is the responsibility of the VR owner. Liability: Rental Agreements to Protect Liability of Neighbors No requirement for liability signoff by renters, for protection of adjacent property owners. The VR is subject to the same criteria as any other residential home is, within the area. (Note: the VR owner will include the statement that renters are not to trespass onto adjacent properties. This will be in the list of posted items.) Recommendation fP Local Contact Requirements for Manager/Owner Recommended Language: "Local Contact. The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by phone and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The local resident or property manager shall respond to complaints within thirty (30) minutes." Additionally, the Task Force would recommend this same language be used for vacation rentals that have 8/below occupants. 17 Recommendation Approval Process for 9/above Vacation Rentals (Current Special Review Process) 1. Initially utilize the current Special Review process. 2. Staff needs to develop a more streamlined (shorter) process, which results in an approval by the Board of Trustees, for applications within the Town and approval by the Board of County Commissioners for applications within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area. There was discussion about administrative approvals, however the Task Force "did not have confidence in the town board or staff, based on past experience with the Town Board's actions". The members of the Task Force, who own and live in their homes, strongly oppose any change to the current Special Review process, which would allow for a staff approval of such an application. The Task Force firmly believe "there is need for a public hearing to allow the elected officials to hear, first hand, the pros and cons of such a change, contemplate the impact to neighbors, and to minimize any possible staff misinterpretation of the code". 18 [P 1.4ikit.HrLg Mom= Recommendation Number of Vacation Rentals in a Neighborhood No Recommendation The only motion made was to not have a limit on the number of vacation rentals, in a neighborhood. The TF recommendation was not approved with an equitable vote. Therefore, this is not a recommendation of the TF. A vote of 11-2 would be required to be considered equitable. Concerns were raised, by those not in favor of the motion, about the current lack of enforcement and that the character of the neighborhood would be changed if there was no restriction. Recommendation Maximum Occupancy for 9/above Vacation Rentals Through the multiple motions and discussion, the nighest maximum limit discussed was 20 occupants and the lowest maximum was it,. (See voting chart, page 24) The Task Force believes there should be a maximum occupancy but was not able to establish a specific occupation limit or establish criteria on how to establish the occupation limit. The reason for the no votes was: ▪ The lack of enforcement of all the current code and ordinance requirements (not just the noise ordnance) • At what occupancy does a. short term rental in a residential J L become an actual commercial lodging business; • At what occupancy is the use of a dwelling as a short term rental in conflict with residential zoning regulations/definitions; What is the mechanism for preventing neighborhoods, r.r developments, of 2 and 3 bedroom homes from being purchased and converi,:z --. 9*. c: the addition of bedroom wings or second floors; NOTE: If the process for adoption s 7-.aproved, a Special Use would be required • How many high occupancy (9+) vacation rentals could, or should, be allowed in close proximity before neighborhood character is detrimentally impacted or lost completely and the resultant residential area turned into a de facto accommodations zone? Please note) It was to be further noted that all the Task Force members EP Next Steps 1. Provide Estes Park Community Development staff direction on whether to develop Code language. 2. Whether to move forward with public hearings: 18 October 2016 Estes Valley Planning Commission (PH) 17 November 2016 Joint Boards' Public Hearing 21 Code Enforcement Task Force Concerns and Recommendations Ed Peterson ESTES PARK Gimp NEMligin PROGRAM FOR VISITING NEIGHIUMS WELCOME TO ESTES PARK THE BASE CAMP FOR ROCKY NATIONAL PARK Estes Park, Colorado is the base camp for amazing adventures in Rocky Mountain National Park & your favorite mountain getaway. Explore the Colorado Rockies. Encounter real Wildlife! Many visitors to our area choose to rent a home to fully enjoy their stay. Renting a home offers that "at home" feeling while giving you space to bring family and friends. An added benefit for vacation home renters is the peace that permanent residents enjoy year round. It is an extraordinary feeling to view the beauty of nature in a quiet and safe surrounding. We hope that you too will embrace this special sense of being dose to nature and respect the quiet means you too must be a good neighbor & protect your neighbor's peace with courtesy. This means you too must be a good neighbor & protect your neighbor's peace repose. HOW TO BE GOOD NEIGHBOR It is important that you park in the designated parking areas as permitted for your rental Only 3 cars are allowed outside Never at any tune block another's driveway or park in another's yard VISITING NEIGHBORS: This brochure is intended to highlight a few ways to ensure that your stay is an enjoyable one and remind every visitorto be a GOOD NEIGHBOR during your stay in Estes Park. HAVE A WONDERFUL TIME! '?ENTERS: Please keep in mind that you may be cited or fined up to $2,000 or evicted for creating a noise disturbance or violating parking or occupancy lirrirt for your vacation rental home. GARBAGE: Bears & other wildlife can be attracted to garbage & we care about your safety Never leave trash outside unless rt is in a bear resistant container Please see the trash information posted in your rental 27 August 25, 2016 Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Estes Park Town Board Vacation Rental Task Force c/o Estes Park Town Clerk To Task Force members, Board members and Commissioners: The Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) has contracted with Ascent Planning Solutions to evaluate proposed Vacation Home regulations and provide comments to the Vacation Rental Task Force, the Estes Park Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Ascent and EALA would like to thank the Task Force for their months of deliberative efforts to take on this difficult and largely debated social emergence. Vacation homes are a nationwide trend that the traveling public has embraced as a preferred alternative for multi-day visits and have become a necessity for destinations such as Estes Park that embrace a family brand. Ascent and EALA support the proposal to amend the Estes Valley Development Code regarding vacation homes. We believe vacation homes are a vital market force that cannot nor should not be eliminated or restricted. History has shown time and again that denying market forces and imposing prohibitions tend to drive that economy into a 'black market' instead of ending the behavior. This tends to incentivize illegal activities rather than eliminating the activities. Estes Park has been a vacation destination for over 150 years with vacation homes having a long-standing tradition throughout the Valley. Traditionally these have been 'summer cabins' occasionally rented or lent to friends and family. This traditional land use pattern has expanded in recent years due market forces such as population increase and introduction of internet marketing and social media. It is important to remember that vacation homes are by definition single-family dwellings. They are not hotels. They are not resorts. And they do not generate that intensity of use. When vacation homes are occupied for their 12-15 weeks a year they are typically occupied by families or small groups. The other times of occupancy are by the property owner. Owners invest in these dwellings as second homes for themselves and use them when possible throughout the year. These are their personal property and tend to be well-cared for. A recent EALA survey of vacation homes owners finds that 90% of vacation home owners would not rent their properties year-round. By making their home available for short-term rental property owners are able to generate some cost recovery without the burden and impact of a long-term renter. 28 By their nature second-homes tend to remain vacant for the majority of the year. This has both financial and social consequences. From a fiscal perspective vacation homes generate property and sales taxes but require minimal expenditure: they reduce impact on roads and other infrastructure and they do not send kids to school in Estes Park. In other words, they provide the revenue benefits of a commercial property but draw on fewer services than a typical residential property. This provides a net financial benefit to communities. Social impacts from short-term guests tend toward common human social activities and are largely confined to the summer months. This means for the majority of the year these dwellings have no impact on a neighborhood. The recent increase in vacation homes has led to a natural increase in conflicts between 'locals' and `others'. Because of the potential for conflicts, Ascent and EALA recommend adoption of pragmatic regulations that seek to minimize neighborhood impact through permitting, education and enforcement. These can be summarized as: • There should not be an artificial cap on the number of vacation homes. Economic forces will best determine a natural limit. • A yearly operating permit should be required. Regulations should allow for the denial or revocation of permits if the property owner demonstrates contempt for the neighborhood through repeated flagrant violations. • Enforcement of violations should be focused on the offending party, not the property owner. • Consider impact of building and fire codes on vacation homes. The Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley are unique within Larimer County. Tourism is the primary economic driver and source of revenue. Vacation homes are an essential component in the modem lodging industry and necessary to attract overnight visitors to Estes Park. From the time William James opened the Elkhorn Lodge in 1873 to F.O. Stanley bringing electricity west of the Mississippi, Estes Park has long history of lodging our visitors. Considering the presence of Rocky Mountain National Park and the projected growth along the Front Range and throughout the inter- mountain west, we believe that tourism will remain Estes Park's primary economic engine through the 21' Century regardless and accelerated social, environmental and technological changes. We thank you for your careful deliberation of this sensitive subject and hope you find the community wide benefits of vacation homes outweigh specific seasonal nuisances. Respectfully, Pod David W. Shirk, MU?, AICP Principal, Ascent Planning Solutions 29 City Trustees iYy family has owned the home at 1315 Devils Gulch outside of Estes Park for over 40 years. It has been an blivsful sanctuary for us for decades, enjoyed by multiple generations. In the recent past, we have been tremendously dismayed by the amount of activity and traffic at the 'home' across the street from us -- 1380 Devils &lick We were horrified to recently learn from neighbors that the 1380 properly is being considered by you for an 'event center. (Please note -- sce sending this email initially on or about 7/27, have learned Thot the proper-Ty is ap,,eying for VRE10 status, not that ©f an even? center. It is my understanding that as of this writing -- 8/3/16 -- that application is "on hold" by the Town Clerk's office. PF) Please do not approve the process for this nightmare to occur/ The noise (LOUD music at ail hours}, the traffic (causing CO/YSPenYarl on he rood, at the gate, at the blind corner), the lath of respect for wildlife (ATV's harassing deer and elk), the illegalities (we have Only witnessed fireworks -- I hate -d'o think what eke may be occurring) have ruined our decades-long sense of quiet, calm, privacy and solitude. HiStorically this area has been appreciated by the families living there in single family homes. When we purchased our house in the 70's, my folks carefully examined the legal ownerships of properties near us, appreciating the 'location, location, location' approach for such a major decision, There was of course absolutely no HINT that an 'event center' would ever be approved so nearby. Please respect our right to contkue to enjoy the appropriate level of occupancy in a really unique corner of the area, and deny any and all requests to utilize 1350 as an event center. Thank you in advance. Patti Freudenburg pfreudenburg@gmall corn 719.510.5301 30 ------ Forwarded message From: Jo Anne 011erenshaw <ollerenshawioamie@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [EVRT] Estes Valley 9+ Short Tenn Vacation Rental Task Force August 30, 2016 Joint Town Board/County Commission Work Session To: johnsosw®co.larimer.co.us, gaiterl@colarimer.co.us, donnelt@colarimer.co.us, girsa@ste s.arg. wkoenig@estes.ore, bholcomb@estes.org. pmartchinkQestes.org, wnelsoni@estes.org, Ron Norris <rnoms@estes.ore, cwalkerkZestes.org Cc: flancaster@,estes.org, kthompson@estes.org, pkleisler@.estes.org, hoffmalc(acolarimer.co.0 S Good Afternoon. I was a member of the Estes Valley 9+ Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force, until a resigned on July 20, 2016. I know that you are making a decision tonight about the 9+ Short Tenn Vacation Rentals. I want to let you know that the cleaned-up version of the minutes and status reports of the Estes Valley 9+ Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force is a joke! • The Task Force was a stacked deck weighing in on the Estes Valley 9+ Short Term Vacation Rental Side. • Not only that, but the attitude and intention of the 9+ pro members never came to the Task Force to "agree, to the extent practicable, on the best ways to craft regulations" as the full time Estes Valley Residents did. • The Pro-9+ members where rude, and bullied the full time residents. If you, as an elected official, feels that you want this behavior and attitude to permeate the Estes Valley, then you deserve the tsunami that will permeate the Estes Valley. Really, that is not what the tourist or residents want; I a sure!!! Please think very long and hard about your decision tonight. Many other communities around the country are dealing with the same thing that the Estes Valley is contending with wth Short Term Vacation Rentals. These communities have placed regulations, enforcement, or have stopped the STVR totally. You will change the course of the Estes Valley History. Remember that tonight, please. I ask that you read the letter following that I wrote to Terry Gilbert when I resigned on July 20th. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jo Anne 011erenshaw 535 Hondius Circle Estes Park, CO 847-220-0881 c 970-480-5297 h ollerenshawjoanne®gmail.com 31 Aug 3, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Jo Anne 011eranshavi <ollerenshawjoanne®gmail.com> wrote: Terry, I hereby resign from the [EVRT] Estes Valley !,31:z on Pirpa ',Taw of Rm 411 Task Force. https://www.colorado.gov/pacificitownofestespark/vacationrentals I find the rude attitude, inability to tell the truth, to find balance, to compromise, [and most important] to follow the agreed upon rules of conduct to set forth by you, Terry Gilbert, and the Larimer County Commissioners for the members of the Estes Valley Short Term Vacation rental Task Force. Ed Peterson, invited Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith to the 2nd to the last men :131y I:, 201.6. May I remind you that this BE=M 121n1b37 alga arrived late! Everyone was vazyTite while the Sheriff was in attendance, bin a fZell es he i the inappropriath Lr.A.:t vat, I find this appalling The same was th4 me,etir.g when the owners of the curiT,stly run STVRs had all their questions answered by the klikatag, code inspe,3tors fro EP and La irrier County. The majority members have gat en thic ruks fyf cyladucs: clIsnEM ficria -zansensus to majority vote! The 7 of the 9 nine members that htly f`.11...-wsR their currently 1-4r. 9+ SRVRs have the majority. The deck is sacked! Members wiao s:IL:p?ort the STVRs in the Estes Valley 1, DIE Van naidt,t,"4 COL:ZattrIL" [seems to be a rfesisonable individual] 2. Ed Peters v, .1--ttsidtzt, cl..t,i.L-t,ritly -41-1413 -.)4. KrkriIn [1-.5.Nyilypr,„Tkfld r,g-g's;th-zrs cp.h2 e.g., Rie)Yi.7.rd Spie42tIA tikries rity-13,,n1 late 7;,..,Lrblphe 3. Li-ka fp tan 01:, GT , ,.)TV[Z..z t, 3 state of CO, missed a meetirz, ij 9111e1 sAlorts th% Tv,fzi17,5 she returned after a missed mett.',..s, .h'irly Andes m, EP resident, realtor, and STVRs ntanzcw jse to be a reasonable iniM1411r1 5. _fat /Zit i:Y-4,:;ak, EP •rgi,,43.41,71';',, vim LTV:i.,f: [seems to be a '71K!.:7LVICIiiile 6. Lindsey Lamson, EP resident [usually claimed mat Estes Park has always been and always will be a tourist town, implying no place for full time residents, also missed meetings] Mick Scarpella, Fort Collins resident, currently runs 9+ STVRs [A Cease & Desis order his illegal properties, many complaints to the properties he manages by full time business- residents who live in Estes Park, also missed meetings] C. Rainer Schelp, EP zasne.".1 'clif!•., currently runs 9+ STY:as fo.d .rilinages &Wits 32 9. Millicent Cozzie, EP resident and retired Realtor from Iowa, will argue that she is a resident, with no financial gains for the STVRs, which all of the above members are residents [EXCEPT for Jane Livingston who lives in MN and owns STYR properties here In the Estes Valley]. Millicent will confer at public meetings with the STVR owners and will ask a STVR owner, "does that make you feel better...?" at a meetings. Members who have concerns about STVRs in residential neighborhoods: 1. Richard Spielman — retired homeowner 2. Art Blume - retired homeowner 3. Fred Mares - retired homeowner 4. Claudine Perrault - homeowner, resigned from the Task Force June 29, 2016, alter Jane Livingston threatened Jo Anne 011erenshaw during the meeting. Throwing down her eye glasses, Jane Livingston shouted " ...if you do not close your mouth, I will close it for youl" then lowered over me, with 2 members holding her down. May I remind you, Terry, I was trying to stop, yet again, Jane, and the other members who support the STVRs in the Estes Valley, from not following the guidelines: who bringing up the parking issue again, after Jane was not at the previous meeting, when the parking issue was voted upon. The guidelines of participation, rules and conduct indicated that is you missed you could not go back and revise the discussion. Yet, Jane, Ed, Lindsey, and Mick spent about 2 hours revisiting and revoting on the parking issue! sigh 5. Bernie Holien - retired homeowner, resigned from the Task Force after July 6, 2016 meeting. 6. Jo Anne 011erenshaw - retired homeowner, resigning from the Task Force, walked out during the July 20, 2016. These Guidelines were presented at the April 12, 2016 Study Session: The Task Force is comprised of diverse and balanced perspectives. Its purpose is to agree, to the =tent practicable, on the best ways to craft regulations that will signUicantly mitigate the possible impacts on the neighborhood and community of vacation rentals housing nine or more guests. The question of whether or not to allow this land use will be decided by the Town Trustees and County Commissioners. https://drive.google.comifile/d/OB9AXJg2v4scAMZH'ITMyND Zwbzg/view The guidelines were public and many of the Members who support the STVRs in the Estes Valley were either at the meetings or knew of the document prior to their TF participation. ALSO, at an earlier Joint Study Session: Vacation Homes Discussion with Town Board, Planning Commission & County Commissioners, February 2nd, 2016 was recorded. During that 33 meeting [which has been edited out] Chief Wes Kufeld, from the sidelines, indicated that the Task Force would NOT make decisions on Enforcement httn://estesgovtv.negcentral.com/player.php7video---43ca613647c23e5c5f8ff9a847e fffc3 However, we spent the first 3 meetings whib continual conversations about enforcement; until enforcement became the `E' word in conversations. We were cheated with the task "to agree on the best ways to craft regulations that will significandy mitigate the possible impacts on the neighborhood and community..." Tani, yoTi contacted everyone prior to the EVRT meetings [phone and a-ilsail] vetting the prospective members, and asserting their agreement to the rules of conduct and participation. From the very first meeting, many members could not attend or attended late. Since that time, many members still arrive late, leave early, and continually fight to change the rules of conduct and participation. The Members who support and currently own 9+ STVRs in the Estes Valley are so disrespectful and rode. the orgy think they can think about is with their wallet or purse. They are NOT trying to craft regulations that will significantly mitigate the possible impacts on the neighborhood and community of vacation rentals housing nine or more guests! Jo Anne 011erenshaw 535 liondiuz Estes Park, CO 847-220-0881 c 970-480-5297 h ollerenshawjoanne©gmail.com 34 My name is Ed Peterson, my address is 1295 Sixth Green Ln. Estes Park Colorado. I would like to say thank you for allowing me to be a part of the vacation rental task force. It is my understanding that our charge was to recommend enforceable rules for the nine and above vacation rentals. We were prohibited from discussing enforcement from the beginning, however Terry said that we would be allowed to discuss enforcement at the last meeting if we finished all of our other tasks. It is very difficult to put together rules that are enforceable without discussing enforcement. I have to confess that we did occasionally slip into the enforcement mode with a lot more commonality in our group. Would like to discuss briefly the importance of enforcement as it relates to...Licensing, Occupancy, Noise and Parking. I believe all of these areas can be addressed in a positive way to root out the noncompliant guests, owners & managers. In the big scheme of things, noise issues have driven the task force and many other discussions regarding vacation rentals... when in fact there were few complaints in comparison to the number of vacation rental homes. Unfortunately, for those people that have to live next to the problem rentals suffer tremendously. For whatever reason, there was no enforcement. That should never happen again. The Larimer County Sheriff, Justin Smith spoke to our task force and assured us that he is most happy to enforce noise issues, and is most happy to provide a backup for the county zoning department issues relating to parking, occupancy & licensing. Addressing these areas can be done without negative press from the tourists who are a vital part of our community. However, guest must be held responsible for their actions when they disregard reasonable rules. The vacation homes in the Estes Valley account for approximately 40% of the overall accommodations. The 9 and above play a very important part in the family reunions that our community was founded on. A. Vacation Rental License/Permit: A copy of the Vacation Rental License/Permit along with the "Good Neighbor Policy", maximum number of occupants, maximum number of cars, local contact phone I I I number, owners phone number, trash storage and pick up information, quiet hours (no noise) along with the notification of issuance of citations and amounts for any violations must be made part of a vacation rental agreement as well as being posted in a conspicuous place within the Vacation Rental home. Anyone who is not currently licensed should be given until 15 September to become legally licensed. After that point anyone who does not hold a license or permit should be issued an immediate $5000 fine for not being properly licensed. Should there be a second offense, they should have an additional $5000 fine and not be allowed to operate for one full year. All vacation rental owners should be required to display their license/permit number on any & all advertising. Failure to do so would constitute a warning first time, second offense a $250 fine and 3rd offense a $500 fine, fourth offense a $1000 fine. B. Occupancy. Studio: 2 persons total; 1 bedroom: 4 persons total; 2 bedrooms or more; 2 per bedroom plus 2 persons up to 8 bedrooms with a total of 18 persons. 70% of the task force would recommend that we do not count ages two and under. C. Noise. We recommend Quiet Time from 10 PM to 8 AM, Hot Tub and out-door noise should be kept to a minimum, " Excess noise is defined as...Any sound that is plainly audible for one (1) minute or longer at a distance of 25 feet or more when measured from the source property line between the hours of 10 PM and 8 AM daily. During the day any sound that is plainly audible for one (2) minute or longer at a distance of 50 feet or more when measured from the source of the property line between the hours of 8 AM and 10 PM is subject to a code violation of $500 spot fine, second violation is a $2,500 spot fine, third violation, immediate removal from the property. The party signing the vacation rental agreement is the responsible party, the guests must be notified by the Owner/Mgr prior to check-in and reminded again at the time of check-in reiterating that Noise carries and infractions are subject to spot fines... so please be a good neighbor. D. Parking. Tenants shall have no more than four (4) cars parked outside the premise in designated areas. More than four cars parked outside would be subject to a code violation of $500.00 spot fine, second violation is a $2,500 spot fine, third violation, immediate removal from the property. The party I 1 I II I II I II ik signing the vacation rental agreement is the responsible party; the guests must be notified by the Owner/Mgr prior to check-in and reminded again at the time of check-in. We strongly support and encourage the county and the town to contract a 24/7-hotline service that will not only contact owners & managers immediately if there is a complaint but also keep track of complaints/caller. The owner should have one hour to contact/resolve the issue; if the issue has not been resolved within one hour the service should contact the enforcement officer, If it is a noise issue/party etc, we strongly encourage the enforcement officer to get a backup officer from either the Police Department or the Sheriff Department to accompanied them on such a complaint. The code enforcement officer/police should issue a spot fine as noted below. It is vitally important that the individual creating the problem be fined immediately! The Owner/Manager fines should he calculated per individual guest/reservation duration and the complaint is confirmed to be valid. A property with valid/legitimate violation over a designated amount should be penalized. The Owner/Manager fines should apply to repeated violation by a single rental party/reservation. Repeated failures by Owners/Managers to timely respond to complaints may result in additional consequences. Spot Fines have/are successfully collected by many major tourist areas! Fines for Guest Violation Violator/Manager or Owner (same guest repeating the same offense) (same guest repeating the same offense) "--)P r-)9 1st Violation Warning No Fine, notification of citation 2nd Violation $500 $250, plus warning re: renewal fe 3rd Violation $2,500 $1,000, plus higher renewal fee Fines for Owner/Manager should not be accumulative. Regarding parking issues... There needs to be common sense involved as there may be people that are being dropped off or picked up, perhaps an owner is onsite with their vehicle making a repair etc. We understand the parking can be an issue, however we also believe there should be designated parking areas for the guests in order to not destroy the neighborhood character, we need to come up with common sense solutions. J III I We would respectfully request that the town and the county appoint a vacation rental owner and neighbor to be a part of the recommendation process for any new rules or recommendations... This comment isn't intended to discredit or diminish the importance of an administrator or planning and zoning department, however most do not have the working understanding of the industry. We should be able to work together to get it done right the first time. Respectfully Ed Peterson r I I 'I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 30, 2016 Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD, LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSION AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 30th day of August, 2016. Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tern Koenig, Trustees Holcomb, Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker County Commission: Chair Donnelly, Commissioner Gaiter and Commissioner Johnson Planning Commission: Commissioners Hills, Hull, Klink, Moon, Murphree, Schneider, and White Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, County Manager Hoffman, Attorney White, Code Enforcement Officer Hardin, County Planner Whitley, County Community Development Director Gilbert, Community Development Director Hunt, Senior Planner Chilcott and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. VACATION RENTAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION PRESENTATION. The meeting between Town Board, County Commissioners and Estes Valley Planning Commission was held to discuss the Vacation Rental Task Force recommendations for vacation homes of nine or more. Latimer County Community Development Director Terry Gilbert reviewed the process used by the Task Force in considering each recommendation item. During the Task Force process, the method of determining the recommendations from the Task Force was changed, from a "Informed Consent/Unified Decision" process to a voting (head count) process. This caused some delay and added one additional meeting on August 3, 2016. A total of 18 items were discussed with 15 items coming forward with unanimous recommendations from the Task Force. The Task Force could not reach a recommendation on two of the items. Neighborhood character was determined to be an item the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners would need to determine during their final approval or denial of an application, A key issue of concern discussed by the Task Force was the lack of enforcement of the current land use regulations and whether enforcement was going to continue to be an issue. The Task Force would recommend the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners modify the Building Codes to be consistent in how vacation rentals, for those that have occupancy of nine and above, are regulated. Task Force Recommendations have been outlined below: • Occupancy — Each home would be limited to two per bedroom plus two. • Traffic Limitations — No additional traffic requirements in areas adjacent to vacation rentals. • Speed Limits — No additional speed limit requirements in areas adjacent to vacation rentals. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session — August 30, 2016 — Page 2 • Establishing Bedroom Count — Staff has begun the review of both the Assessor's records and the Building records to establish the number of legal bedrooms that can be permitted. • Inspections — All normal land use, building, health, fire, etc. inspections to be completed and no annual inspections would be required. • Grandfathering All vacation homes existing as of July 1, 2016 with the capacity of nine or more per the established guidelines of two per bedroom plus two would be grandfathered as it relates to the following: lot size of less than one acre and setbacks of less than 25 feet. All vacation homes of nine or more would have to submit an application within 30 days of the final adoption of the new regulations in order to be grandfathered from the new minimum lot size and setback requirements. ▪ Location Requirements — Vacation homes of nine or more would be allowed in the same zoning district as the eight and under, Restrictions would include the minimum lot size of one acre lot and minimum setbacks of 25 foot setbacks or the zoning district setbacks, whichever would be greater. • Parking — The current Estes Valley Development Code language in Section 5.2.B.2.e.6 (a) & (b) would be used to determine the number of cars allowed to be parked outside. This number would be dependent on the acreage of the lot. A variance to the parking requirements would need to be added to the application in order for more vehicles to be parked on the lot than allowed by code. • Renter Notification Requirements — A posting in the home for both nine and above and eight and under was recommended to include physical address, license/permit number, owner/manager contact information, important local contact information (police, fire, etc.), maximum occupancy, visitor/daily use occupancy, parking limits, location of fire extinguisher, trash disposal, noise ordinance regulations, wildlife safety/protection, pet regulations/safety, exterior lighting, property boundary identified via a map or marking of the boundary corners, trespassing laws of Colorado, fire alarms/carbon monoxide detectors, proper disposal of cigarettes or other smoking devices, and no weddings or wedding related groups, large groups, parties, etc. • Noise Requirements — The current noise ordinances would apply and no additional requirements limiting use or time of use for outside activities would be required. • Minimum Age Requirement for Occupancy — All occupants, regardless of age, would be counted toward the two per bedroom plus two. • Proof of Insurance — No proof of insurance would be required for vacation homes. • Liability to Protect Neighbors — No requirement for liability signoff by renters to protect adjacent property owners would be required. • Local Contact Requirement for Manager/Owner - The application shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by phone and be available twenty-four hours per day, with regard to any violation. The local contact or property manager shall respond to complaints within thirty minutes. The requirement should be the same for eight and under. • Approval Process — Utilize the current Special Review process outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code and develop a streamlined process for approval by the appropriate governing board with a public hearing. Items the Task force could not resolve and bring forward a recommendation include the following: Number of Vacation Home per Neighborhood — The Task Force considered a motion to not establish a limit on the number of vacation rentals in a neighborhood and it did not pass. Those not in favor of the motion stated concern with the lack of enforcement and the change in the character of the neighborhood without a limit. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session — August 30, 2016 — Page 3 • Maximum Occupancy — The Task Force confirmed there should be a maximum occupancy but was not able to establish consensus on the maximum. Through multiple motions and discussions, the highest maximum limit discussed was 20 occupants and the lowest maximum was 10. Concerns were raised in relation to the lack of enforcement, higher occupancy could lead to defacto rezoning of residential properties to commercial zoning, no mechanism in place to prevent current two and three bedroom homes from being renovated to include additional bedrooms and create large nine and above vacation rentals, and how many high occupancy vacation rentals should be allowed in close proximity before the neighborhood character would be negatively impacted. Staff requested direction from the Town Board and County Commissioners on whether or not to move forward with drafting code language to address the items outlined by the Task Force. If the items are to move forward, staff would prepare draft language for the Planning Commission to review at their October 18, 2016 meeting and recommend to the Town Board and County Commissioners during a joint public hearing on November 17, 2016. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS. Discussion followed by the elected officials and Planning Commission members on the recommendations and has been summarized: There was significant confusion on the need/purpose for grandfathering of nine or more, how they would be identified, and the impact the grandfathering would have; how the Town and the County would address the enforcement issue; questioned the justification for a Special Review process and suggested the Special Review process once a violation had occurred at a vacation home; a qualifier needs to be established for the maximum number of occupancy; questioned why accommodation properties were not speaking out against the establishment of larger vacation homes because these homes directly compete with accommodation businesses, yet do not have to meet the same requirements related to fire codes, ADA requirements, parking limits, landscaping, etc.; enforcement needs to be improved with the addition of software such as iCompass to provide a 24/7 violation hotline; and property managers need to be local and accountable if they do not respond to a complaint. DIRECTION TO STAFF. Comments from the group were heard and have been summarized: Commissioner Gaiter stated the Special Review process provides a mechanism to address vacation homes with violations through a show cause hearing and allows for the permit to be revoked. The new regulations provide a framework for which both the Town and County can begin to enforce violations. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated concerns with the grandfathering and the need to protect neighborhoods from the proliferation of vacation homes. He requested staff develop code language for the Planning Commission and governing bodies to review individually. Commissioner Donnelly commented on the good work of the Task Force and was pleased a number of the recommendations came forward with consensus. He agreed the individual Boards should review the recommendations and evaluate the issues individually. Trustee Norris stated concern with changes in some neighborhoods that have become defacto accommodation zoning district due to the number of vacation homes in the area. He agreed the grandfathering issue needs work, review the implementation of iCompass to improve code enforcement, address occupancy limits and develop improved criteria for Special Reviews. Community Development Director Hunt stated staff would develop code language to address the approved recommendations of the Task Force; however, staff would require additional time. He recommended bringing forward draft language for the Planning Commission to review at their November meeting. Planning Commissioner Moon suggested intermediate study sessions be held during the next two months to discuss and review proposed code language prior to the November Planning Commission meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session — August 30, 2016 — Page 4 Administrator Lancaster provided a review of the next steps, including staff to draft code amendments on approved recommendations for nine and above and incorporate change for eight and under to insure consistency; undecided items would remain unaddressed until future discussion and direction is provided by the elected bodies; draft language would be reviewed by the Planning Commission in study sessions; staff would redraft language based on comments and discussions by Planning Commission; final draft language would be forwarded to the Town Board and County Commissioners for independent review and revision; Town and County staff would meet to discuss the changes and recommendations to address any differences; Planning Commission to review the final revised code language; and once a final recommendation has been provided by Planning Commission the code amendments would be presented to the Town Board and County Commissioners for final adoption. VACATION RENTAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ENFORCEMENT. Ed Peterson/Town citizen and Task Force member reviewed a prepared statement outlining recommendations for enforcement. He stated there are few complaints in comparison to the number of vacation rentals in the valley. County Sheriff Justin Smith spoke to the Task Force and assured the group his Deputies would enforce the County noise ordinance and other zoning issues related to parking, occupancy and permitting. He commented guests need to be held accountable for their disregard to reasonable regulations. Recommended enforcement actions would include a $5,000 fine for properties not properly licensed/permitted by September 15, 2016 and a second offense would be an additional $5,000 fine and the property would not be allowed to operate for one year; a failure to list your license/permit number on advertising would be a warning for the 1st offense and fines thereafter; noise violations would be a spot fine to the subject renter; parking violations would be a spot fine to the subject renter; and hold managers and owners accountable if they are not responding to guest violations in a timely manner. He stated 70% of the Task Force would recommend counting individuals over the age two toward the occupancy limit. The Task Force strongly encourages the Town and County to contract with a 24/7 hotline service. The vacation rental owners and neighbors would request a representative of each have a role in developing the new regulations as they have a good working understanding of the industry. Jeannie Haag/County Attorney reviewed the legalities related to the County's ability/inability to levy fines for items such as a violation to the noise ordinance, number of cars, occupancy, etc. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk /eNA ascentplanningsolutions@gmail.com Ascent. Planning Solufr-ons 970-231-1178 Land Use Consultation Design Owners Representative August 25, 2016 Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Estes Park Town Board Vacation Rental Task Force c/o Estes Park Town Clerk To Task Force members, Board members and Commissioners: The Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) has contracted with Ascent Planning Solutions to evaluate proposed Vacation Home regulations and provide comments to the Vacation Rental Task Force, the Estes Park Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Ascent and EALA would like to thank the Task Force for their months of deliberative efforts to take on this difficult and largely debated social emergence. Vacation homes are a nationwide trend that the traveling public has embraced as a preferred alternative for multi-day visits and have become a necessity for destinations such as Estes Park that embrace a family brand. Ascent and EALA support the proposal to amend the Estes Valley Development Code regarding vacation homes. We believe vacation homes are a vital market force that cannot nor should not be eliminated or restricted. History has shown time and again that denying market forces and imposing prohibitions tend to drive that economy into a 'black market' instead of ending the behavior. This tends to incentivize illegal activities rather than eliminating the activities. Estes Park has been a vacation destination for over 150 years with vacation homes having a long-standing tradition throughout the Valley. Traditionally these have been 'summer cabins' occasionally rented or lent to friends and family. This traditional land use pattern has expanded in recent years due market forces such as population increase and introduction of internet marketing and social media. It is important to remember that vacation homes are by definition single-family dwellings. They are not hotels. They are not resorts. And they do not generate that intensity of use. When vacation homes are occupied for their 12-15 weeks a year they are typically occupied by families or small groups. The other times of occupancy are by the property owner. Owners invest in these dwellings as second homes for themselves and use them when possible throughout the year. These are their personal property and tend to be well-cared for. A recent EALA survey of vacation homes owners finds that 90% of vacation home owners would not rent their properties year-round. By making their home available for short-term rental property owners are able to generate some cost recovery without the burden and impact of a long-term renter. A bca,liciu-e land biantiin • company specializing in Moupioin land Use and Nve1cipmen By their nature second-homes tend to remain vacant for the majority of the year. This has both financial and social consequences. From a fiscal perspective vacation homes generate property and sales taxes but require minimal expenditure: they reduce impact on roads and other infrastructure and they do not send kids to school in Estes Park. In other words, they provide the revenue benefits of a commercial property but draw on fewer services than a typical residential property. This provides a net financial benefit to communities. Social impacts from short-term guests tend toward common human social activities and are largely confined to the summer months. This means for the majority of the year these dwellings have no impact on a neighborhood. The recent increase in vacation homes has led to a natural increase in conflicts between 'locals' and `others'. Because of the potential for conflicts, Ascent and EALA recommend adoption of pragmatic regulations that seek to minimize neighborhood impact through permitting, education and enforcement. These can be summarized as: • There should not be an artificial cap on the number of vacation homes. Economic forces will best determine a natural limit. • A yearly operating permit should be required. Regulations should allow for the denial or revocation of permits if the property owner demonstrates contempt for the neighborhood through repeated flagrant violations. • Enforcement of violations should be focused on the offending party, not the property owner. • Consider impact of building and fire codes on vacation homes. The Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley are unique within Larimer County. Tourism is the primary economic driver and source of revenue. Vacation homes are an essential component in the modem lodging industry and necessary to attract overnight visitors to Estes Park. From the time William James opened the Elkhorn Lodge in 1873 to F.O. Stanley bringing electricity west of the Mississippi, Estes Park has long history of lodging our visitors. Considering the presence of Rocky Mountain National Park and the projected growth along the Front Range and throughout the inter- mountain west, we believe that tourism will remain Estes Park's primary economic engine through the 21' Century regardless and accelerated social, environmental and technological changes. We thank you for your careful deliberation of this sensitive subject and hope you find the community wide benefits of vacation homes outweigh specific seasonal nuisances. Respectfully, °ova' 11( Ski .1 David W. Shirk, MU?, AICP Principal, Ascent Planning Solutions 28 City Trustees -- My family has owned the home at 1315 Devils Gulch outside of Estes Park for over 40 years. It has been an blissful sanctuary far us for decades, enjoyed by multiple generations. In the recent past, we have been tremendously dismayed by the amount of activity and traffic at the 'home' across the street from us --1380 Devils Gulch. We were horrified to recently learn from neighbors that the 1380 property is being considered by you for an 'event center. (Please note -- since sending this email initially on or about 7/27, I have learned that the property is applying for VRBO status, not that of an event center. It is my understanding that as of this writing -- 8/3/16 -- that application is "on hold" by the Town Clerk's office. PF) Please do not approve the process for this nightmare to occur! The noise (LOUD music at all hours), the traffic (causing congestion on the road, at the gate, at the blind corner), the lack of respect for wildlife (ATV's harassing deer and elk), the illegalities (we have only witnessed fireworks -- I hate to think what else may be occurring) have ruined our decades-long sense of quiet, calm, privacy and solitude. Historically this area has been appreciated by the families living there in single family homes. When we purchased our house in the 70's, my folks carefully examined the legal ownerships of properties near us, appreciating the 'location, location, location' approach for such a major decision. There was of course absolutely no HINT that an 'event center' would ever be approved so nearby. Please respect our right to continue to enjoy the appropriate level of occupancy in a really unique corner of the area, and deny any and all requests to utilize 1380 as an event center. Thank you in advance. Patti freudenburg pfreudenburgegmailcom 719.510.5301 29 I Staff Report I [p TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Alison ChiIca% Senior Planner Date: October 18, 2016 (Public Hearing Date — continued from Sept. 20, 2016) RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: Long Term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Plannina Commission Objective: Review of a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Present Situation: During the Sept. 20 Planning Commission public hearing, commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed code amendment, including: • being a de-facto rezoning; • increasing density; and • having unintended consequences. Commissioners also raised concerns about lack of enforcement and commented that ADU and vacation rental issues were intertwined. Planning Commission then continued the public hearing from Sept. 20 to Oct. 18 to obtain input about the vacation rental aspect. (NOTE: The original staff reports to Planning Commission from your Aug. 18, 2016 and Sept. 20, 2016 hearings are included in this memorandum, with no changes to those reports since the meeting. Please refer to those reports for context. The following is new information since the Sept. 20 report was finalized.] Sunset Staff previously suggested a sunset date of Oct. 31, 2017, which would have provided the ability to enter into a year lease, if a text amendment were adopted this October. Given that the soonest a text amendment could now be adopted is Dec. 2016, staff proposes revising the date to December 31, 2017. We suggest that a sunset date be aimed at providing for a full one-year lease possibility for any ADUs allowed during the sunset period, as one year is a standard lease term. ADUs allowed and registered during a sunset period would be eligible to retain legal non-conforming status beyond the sunset date. This provision will be addressed in the adoption ordinance. Data Gathering As staff reported during the Sept. 20 public hearing, staff has identified approximately 330 single-family dwellings in the Estes Valley that have second sinks, i.e., a second kitchen sink or wetbar sink. These second sinks are likely to be located within either an ADU or a family room/den area. is unknown how many of these may be located within ADUs, as opposed to having been installed in connection with, e.g., a family room/dery area. Staff obtained this data by cross-referencing Larimer County Tax Assessor records with Town zoning records parcel-by-parcel for the entire Estes Valley. Larimer County records identify which parcels contain single-family dwellings and which single-family dwellings contain second kitchen sinks or wetbar sinks. Town records identify in which zoning districts the dwellings are located. Summary results are shown in pie-chart below. Numbers:' 2nd Kitchens Sinks and/or Wetbar Sinks in Single-Family Homes per Larimer County Tax Asssessor Records 1 36 36 Zoning DI striCtS E - 1/2 acre - R - 1/4 acre 95 E-1 - 1 acre EIRE - 2.5 aCre RE-1 - 10 acre 120 Staff has determined that this is the best available data from which to estimate the number of attached accessory dwelling units that currently exist in the Estes Valley. With a fairly high level of confidence, staff concludes that there are no more than 330 attached accessory dwelling units. In staff's judgment, the number is likely to be significantly less than 330. In theory, more precise data could possibly be obtained through a scientific survey or similar intensive data-collection methods. In practice, such a survey would be expensive, time-consuming, and not commensurate with the informational value it would yield. If this data is important, we would judge that the registrations process during the sunset period as proposed in the current draft (Exhibit A, Draft #3) would yield good data with minimal cost to the public. For October 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff previously suggested gathering data through a permitting system. Staff now suggests use of a registration system as this is a simpler system. To incentivize registration, staff suggests that ADUs registered prior to the end of the sunset be deemed legally "grandfathered". The draft ordinance (Exhibit A, Draft #3) has been modified to include that provision. Proposal: Amend the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following questions. • Should long-term rental of accessory dwelling units be allowed to help address the Estes Valley's workforce housing shortage? • Should the ADU long-term rental provision sunset? If so, when? • Should the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size be removed? • Should the 800 square foot size limit be removed? • Should the code language be adopted as proposed? The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss and comment on the issue of the amendment being effective in Town if the County does not approve the amendment and may forward their collective position on this issue to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Staff is not recommending that the Town and County adopt different provisions in connection with ADUs. Options for Recommendation: NOTE: Staff would suggest that Planning Commission on Oct. 18 discharge this amendment (i.e., vote upon and send onward) with any appropriate amendments and an appropriate recommendation. Amendments and recommendation are, of course, at the will of the Planning Commission, as determined by majority vote thereof. For October 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff would observe that there is much value in allowing for full discussion and debate on ADUs (and many important issues) among Planning Commissioners and dialogue on same between Planning Commission and the public. By the same token, there would seem to be a point at which discussion and dialog have run their course. In fact, beyond a certain point, discussion that does not provide new information or insights can become damaging to the community. We ask that the Commission discharge the ADU amendment on October 18, unless the Commission can identify additional information that's needed to further understand the issues at hand. Discharge with amendments (if any) will allow the next level of discussion by the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners to take place with all deliberate speed. Options for discharge by Planning Commission are: 1. Recommendation for approval of the amendment (with or without amendments); 2. Recommendation for denial of the amendment; or 3. Majority vote to send the amendment forward with no recommendation by Planning Commission. Option 3 appears never to have been utilized by EVPC to staffs awareness. It is an unusual — but acceptable — parliamentary device in cases where a majority or consensus recommendation is not agreed upon by those present and voting. Although unusual, this option is preferable to an indefinite continuance or series of postponements, which would offer no resolution of the issues at all. Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and !After County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, and with the findings recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because... (state reason(s) for continuance - findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and [After County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment and proposed sunset clause to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . (state reason(s) for denial). For October 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission Public Hearing DISCHARGE I move to DISCHARGE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting without recommendation because... (state reason(s) for discharge - findings). Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: Draft Code Amendment, Draft #3, in redline-strikethrough format, and Sunset Clause 2. Staff report to Planning Commission (previous), dated September 20, 2016(includes Exhibit A: Draft Code Amendment, Draft #2 in redline-strikethrough format, and Sunset Clause) 3. Letter from Ms. Rita Kurelja, Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, to Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, dated August 24, 2016 4. Staff report to Planning Commission (previous), dated August 18, 2016 (includes Exhibit A: Draft Code Amendment, Draft #2 in redline-strikethrough format, and Sunset Clause) 5. Exhibit A: Draft Code Amendment, Draft #1 in redline-strikethrough format) and Sunset Clause 6. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Housing Policies arhil-iuusing Action Plan, 1996 7. Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment, 2016 Not printed for Planning Commission packets, refer to www.esteshousing.org for document 8. Long-term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units Considered to Aid Workforce Housing Strategies, Town/County News Release, Aug. 1, 2016 9. Accessory Dwelling Units, American Planning Association QuickNotes No. 19, 2009 For October 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHUSHT A pre f2 Estes Valley Development Cad® Section 5.2.B.2 Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted, Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit 11 . An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. (3) Limit on Tenancy. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as rental units, (4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirement. (5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.C.28 below. (7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an accessory dwelling unit. (9) Lot Aroa. Lot area must be one and thirty three ene-hundredths-(1,33)41ffies-the Mi41111114M-let-afea-g-the-distrist Registration. The owner of an accessory dwelling unit may apply to have their accessory dwelling unit recorded in the official accessory dwelling unit registry. Accessory dwelling units in compliance with the provisions of this section and all other applicable provisions on this Code shall be accepted for registration. (9)(10) Other Regulations. (a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling will be located. Exhibit A October 18, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Draft #3 Planning Commission Public Hearing (b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Requirements RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Accessory dwelling unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.13.2.a 1.33 tinic minimum-let area-requited Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases Registration, shall mean the act of recording an accessory dwelling unit in the official list of accessory dwelling units maintained by the Town Clerk, in accordance with the annual registration procedures promulgated by the Town Clerk. Sunset Clause for Town Ordinance and County Resolution This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately upon its adoption and publication, and shall be effective through December 31, 2017. Exhibit A October 18, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Draft #3 Planning Commission Public Hearing . I 11 Staff Report i ilaWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Date: September 20, 2016 (Public Hearing Date — continued from Aug. 16, 2016) RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: Long-Term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Planning Commission Objective: Review of a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Present Situation: Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing from August 16 to Sept 20 to: • Allow additional public input • Provide for staff time to consider drafting code language to include: o Controlled implementation of the ADU concept o Issuance of temporary permits for ADUs o Establishment and implementation of an enforcement plan and a sunset provision • Provide time for further discussion by the Planning Commission [NOTE: The original staff report to Planning Commission from your August 18, 2016 hearing is included in this memorandum, with no changes to that memo since the meeting. Please refer to that memo for context. The following is new information since the Aug. 18 memo was finalized.] Sunset Staff perceives that the sunset element in the draft amendment was not well explained on Aug. 18_ Here is a little more information on how sunsetting would work, and why it's proposed: A sunset clause in a given code-amendment ordinance provides that on a certain date in the future, that code amendment will go away and the code language will revert back to exactly what it was before the amendment took effect (assuming no other changes to that code section in the meantime.) In this case, the staffs suggested sunset date is October 31, 2017. There are four options for any code section that was adopted with a sunset clause: 1) Do Nothing: If the sunset language is adopted and then nothing happens before the sunset date, then the code language reverts back to what it was before the amendment's effective date. This possibility has two variations: a. A sunset provision could in effect make the units "un-authorized" on the sunset date. This would mean any units newly built d uring the effective run of the amendment, as well as units that already existed and became legitimate due to the amendment, would lose any "grandfathering" (legal non-conforming status) that they might otherwise acquire on the sunset date. b. Another variation would be to allow a sunset, but grandfather all units that became conforming as a result of the amendment. 2) Repeal the sunset provision: This option would mean repealing the sunset clause, so that the amendment would remain permanent — pretty straightforward. 3) Modify the code further before the sunset provision takes effect: This option would allow monitoring of how the ADU phenomenon is going, and allow for adjustments as data and information became available during the pre-sunset period. At or near the end, the sunset clause would presumably be either kept or repealed. Staff would suggest that any of these options is open to us at the current time. The one choice that should be made during the initial adoption is picking either 1)a or 1)b, since the grandfathering-or-not decision should be made known up front. Sunsetting does have a practical impact, and may be of value in allowing the community to gauge the impact of ADUs in a graduated or transitional way. Specifically, staff believes it is unlikely that a lot of building permits for new houses with attached ADUs, or for new ADU additions to existing houses, would be likely during a sunset period. This is for two reasons: (a) A bank or lender who's aware of the sunset provision would probably not lend money if their investment might become unmarketable; and (b) many owners would be reluctant for the same reason. Thus, the primary impact would be to legitimize already-existing ADUs in the Valley during the sunset period. This could in theory lead to growth in measurable density, as owners may now be leaving their ADUs vacant and unrented due to their illegal status. That is no doubt true for some, but frankly, it seems more likely that owners may already be renting and just taking their chances on operating undetected. For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 2 of 6 Commission Public Hearing Size Questions have arisen regarding whether an attached ADU would be in effect a duplex dwelling unit. Although the term "duplex" is not defined in the EVDC, in typical planning and zoning practice a true duplex consists of two units in one structure, each of which has more or less the same floor area. ADUs — existing now, and proposed under the amended regulations — would not be "duplexes". Specifically, the amendments would not change the current ADU regulation that limits the accessory unit to one-third (1/3) size limit of the principal dwelling unit to which it's attached. The amendment does propose to remove the maximum 800 square-foot limitation on ADU size. In practice, this would allow single-family houses that are already medium- to large-size (over 2,400 square feet floor area) to add proportionally- scaled ADUs. Occupancy Limits Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the number that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.C.28 below. 28. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident caregivers) living together in a single dwelling unit with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Household living shall include occupancy by a renter household for terms of thirty (30) days or more. Refer to the definition of accommodations use for renter occupancy for terms of less than thirty (30) days. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, other multi-family structures, manufactured housing and other structures with self- contained dwelling units. For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 3 of 6 Commission Public Hearing Another way of puffing this is to say that — in the case of a property with an attached ADU — the maximum occupancy is the same number of residents as it would be without the ADU. Just how the residents are distributed internally between the principal dwelling and the ADU dwelling is not a regulated matter under the EVDC. Density Concerns have been expressed regarding the potential for increased residential density in single-family areas of the Valley is the ADU amendment is adopted. This is a legitimate possibility, if the amendment is made permanent. As noted, in the amendment that's proposed, the sunset clause is probably the most effective (albeit informal) deterrent against this phenomenon. Parking The current provision in EVDC (see draft) would remain unchanged: Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. The practical import is that small-lot single-family houses will not be able to fit the additional parking on their lots. A building permit for a new or added ADU would not be approvable under this circumstance. (This likely would continue to be a much better control for small-lot properties than the 800 square-foot minimum.) Data Gathering Staff needs to acknowledge two things: (a) Some data will simply take some time to gather, and that gathering is going on but not complete at this writing (it is expected more data will be available at the Sep. 20 meeting); and (b) other data cannot be gathered until the ADUs are actually allowed to operate. On point (b): Long-Term additional data can be gathered through a permitting system. Staff has discussed this with the Town Clerk's office, and establishing an ADU permitting system is feasible and would not require significant additional resources to implement and maintain. We suggest there be no charge for an ADU permit, as effective data gathering, at least during the sunset period. Especially for a phenomenon that may already be going on, registration seems likely to be ignored or disregarded if payment is required. Enforcement Enforcement is easy to describe but tough to implement. The easy part is that this enforcement action is similar to many others: Complaints are taken, investigations are For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 4 of 6 Commission Public Hearing opened, and if a violation is known to be occurring, action is taken according to a standardized escalation process. The tough part is that this costs money, takes time to administer, and takes more time to make a violation cease. If an ADU amendment is adopted, and especially if a sunset clause is not included or is removed (i.e., the amendment is made permanent), the resources will need to be made available. This is no different in principle than decisions made on any law-enforcement issue in local government. Administration Administration of ADU code provisions is proposed to remain on a code compliance complaint basis. Other options that could be considered if the amendment were to be permanent include developing a more specific permit process for ADU long-term rentals. In the future, a charge could be implemented, possibly through a phase-in mechanism. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.a Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following questions. • Should long-term rental of accessory dwelling units be allowed to help address the Estes Valley's workforce housing shortage? • Should the ADU long-term rental provision sunset? if so, when? • Should the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size be removed? • Should the 800 square foot size limit be removed? • Should the code language be adopted as proposed? The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss ana comment on the issue of the amendment being effective in Town if the County does not approve the amendment and may forward their collective position on this issue to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Attachments: For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 5 of 6 Commission Public Hearing 1 Staff memorandum to Planning Commission (previous), dated August 18, 2016 (includes Exhibit A: Draft Code Amendment in redline-strikethrough format) 2. Letter from Ms. Rita Kurelja, Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, to Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, dated August 24, 2016, and public comment received after the August EVPC meeting. For September 20, 2016 Planning Page 6 of 6 Commission Public Hearing Estes Park , orm nf, Housing Authority August 24, 2016 Mr. Randy Hunt Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Dear Randy: I am writing in response to the Planning Commission chairperson, Betty Hull's question regarding non workforce housing residents living in Falcon Ridge and Talons Pointe. This is very simply a function of the financing mechanisms used to develop these properties. The major source of funding for both projects is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Through this program, we are awarded tax credits which are subsequently sold to an Investor. In the case of Falcon Ridge, the investor is Wells Fargo. As per Section 42 of the IRS code (Tax Credit program) household income in the qualifying units must not exceed 60% of the Area Median Income. For Falcon Ridge and Talons Pointe 100% of the units are qualifying. Therefore in order to put a restriction on Workforce, the household would still need to income qualify at 60% of the Area Median Income. After CHFA has awarded the Tax Credits we find an investor who will purchase these credits. That investor injects a tremendous amount of equity into the project. In the case of Falcon Ridge that amounted to approximately $9.6 million. In choosing to invest in a project the investor wants to ensure that the project will be in full compliance with the regulations as well as be financially stable. Any additional requirements in the eyes of the investor can make the project less desirable. Another consideration at Falcon Ridge is the $1.8 million we received in CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)-Disaster Recovery funds tied to the floods of 2013. The use of these funds requires that we give first preference to households that were affected by the flooding of September 2013 of which there are 11 at Falcon Ridge. Now, The Estes Park Housing Authority does have the right to set, after the funders, a set of local preferences provided it doesn't impede overall lease up or result in discrimination. We have done and continue to do this on all of our properties including Falcon Ridge and Talons Pointe. That preference is given to households who live and/or work in the Estes Valley. The result of all of these preferences and regulations at Falcon Ridge is that 38 out of 48 households that reside there are part of the local workforce. The remaining 10 households are retired and/or disabled. The use of requiring a project to house members of the local workforce is not without precedence and can and is being done in many Colorado resort communities and well as throughout the country. It just needs to be in alignment with the funding sources used at the property. In the case of renting ADUs no such financing would be utilized and therefore not relevant. hope this is helpful in explaining this issue. I plan to be present for the September 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and can answer any additional questions at that time. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance prior to September 20th . Sincerely, Rita Kurelja 1 „kA,02,1<)1 Executive Director Estes Park Housing Authority TO: Planning Commission From: Pat Newsom - 450 W Wonderview Ave On a personal note: 1 believe because we are in the real estate business, many people bring their concerns to us and ask what we think... and this time it is about the Vacation Rentals and Accessoty Dwelling Units. Several people have asked about the re-zoning of residential zones allowing ADU's. They are concerned about their neighborhoods. They have not received notices from the Town telling them of the intent of action - to allow ADU's - that would affect them. Doesn't an actual re-zoning of E-1(one acre lots) and residential E (half acre) - and any zone restriction as matter of concern - require this notification? I can see where this could end up with no single- family lots anywhere...this is not right for the community. (A "code change just doesn't work forme!) If this re-zoning took place, the ADU's would actually be duplexes. Questions... 1) How large can it be? - one-third the size of the single family residence?..as 1 understand 800 sq ft is no longer the limit. 2) How many can occupy an ADU? Many of the workforce have families so what determines the number of occupants?... How would this number be enforced? How many cars to each ADU? 3) These are supposed to be for the workforce and at least one adult has to work 30 hours a week...how are these requirements going to be enforced? 4) No short term rentals... so no ADU rentals of less than 30 days! (...What about the vacation rentals? ...short term?... long term? If long term, do these renters become permanent residents with all privileges of the community? Needless to say, ADU's will double the density of areas. Think this through!!! Double the density all over town?...is that what you want? What you see is what you get! Along with ADU's, isn't it possible to have both ADUs and Vacation Rentals in the same neighborhood? Even possible to have both in the same structure if the owner turned his side into a VR? The EVDCode limits families in residential zones to occupancy of eight (8). What will the decision in November be regarding the number of occupants in a Vacation Rental? Is this right and fair?...I question. ADU lodging options not only increases the population of Estes Park and the Valley, thus putting a strain on the services of the area with no obligation. What will be coming next for the residents of our Town? For one, the affordable housing, which if built to the "estimated need"... again for workforce (?) housing (or, any one who wants to move to Estes Park and have low cost housing?). They say we will need 1,400 -1,700 units in - I am not sure how many years out but... with the factor of 2.2 persons living in one unit (which is low for a 3-bedroom unit), do you realize this will increase our permanent population by one-half or more of the current population? Will the need ever stop? I don't think so as long as "we" continue to provide by re-zoning and not considering our permanent residents and what is best for Estes Park. I believe when you volunteered for the seat granting you opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission you felt you could better the Estes Valley. I hope you continue this good faith in times to come. In closing, my 1 leave my thought of the present times: Over time we work to be Everything to Everybody! There will be a time - perhaps soon - we will not mean anything to anybody. Respectfully submitted, Pat Newsom 37 year resident 9.8.2016 Bob Leavitt 3:54 PM (7 minutes ago) to me I have some comments, questions, and recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider with regard to the proposed ADU regulations. Please add this email to the public record and forward to the Planning Commission. 1. Administration of these regulations on the basis of code violation complaints seems very problematic. I strongly recommend that a permitllicensing process be used for ADUs, and that it be put in place when the renting of ADUs begins rather than at a later date. Here are my reasons: a. Ensure that an ADU is rented long-term as opposed to short-term. b. Ensure that an ADU is rented to a member of the local workforce. c. Allows the town to know how many ADUs are being rented, and thus determine whether the policy is having a positive effect on the workforce housing shortage. d. Without a permit process it puts the responsibility on residents to monitor the activities of their neighbors to ensure, for example, that the ADU Is not being rented short-term. e. Allows the town to enforce the maximum occupancy limit for the combined dwelling. f. Short term regulations have a way of becoming permanent even with a sunset clause. Without a permitllicensing process at the beginning we run the risk of having no control over ADUs now or later. g. Allows the town to develop enforcement procedures consistent with those being developed for vacation rentals. 2. The push to move forward now is based on the assumption that there are a number of ADUs ready to be rented to help mitigate the Highway 34 closure in the canyon. From listening to the Planning Commission's study session and public hearing, it's clear that no one has any idea how many ADUs exist in the Estes Valley and how many might be available for rent. recommend that the town to do a survey before rushing head-long into a valley-wide zoning change. 3. Should the owner be required to live in the main dwelling when the ADU is rented long-term? To me this seems like a reasonable requirement. It would reduce the likelihood of the ADU being rented short-term. If the owner is not required to live in the main dwelling unit, it opens up other questions. These include: Can both the main dwelling and ADU be rented long-term? If both are rented long-term, can they be rented to separate tenants or to one tenant who will rent both the main dwelling and ADU (perhaps subletting the ADU)? 4. How will dwellings with existing ADUs be addressed? Some of these may not meet existing and proposed codes for ADUs. I recommend that an inspection process be included with the issuance of the permit/license. 5. A new ADU may impact the capacity of utilities in the area, especially sewer and water. How will this be addressed in the ADU regulations? Also an existing ADU may have been unused for years due to current regulations. When that unit is occupied again there could be an impact on utilities in the area, an area which may have grown since the ADU was last used. I recommend this be addressed during the issuance of the permit/license. 6. What happens when HOAIPOA covenants state that ADUs are not allowed? For example, the covenants for Carriage Hills do not allow ADUs. HOA's throughout the valley will have to review their covenants and decide what to do. At a minimum, HOA boards (and all citizens) will require an unambiguous, clearly written set of ADU regulations. Equally important, the regulations must be clearly communicated to the community in laymen's terms. 7. A clear definition of an ADU is needed. The code defines it as follows, "Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units." A number of questions need to be clarified: a. If you have an extra bedroom with its own bathroom that you want to rent out, is that an ADU? Or does an ADU require an accessory kitchen in addition to the bedroom and bathroom? b. If you have an accessory kitchen do you automatically have a (potential) ADU? c. Can an ADU be connected to the main dwelling unit (say via a breezeway or vestibule?) d. If you have a bedroom loft over an attached garage and the tenant shares some of the primary resident's facilities (bathroom, laundry, kitchen) is that an ADU? e. Does an ADU require a separate entrance from the main dwelling unit? 8. Under no circumstances should the Town proceed on its own if the County is not ready to move forward. If we go this route then the carefully crafted and jointly managed land use codes begin to unravel. Other Ideas to Mitigate Closing of the Canyon 1. Many homes sit empty during the winter months. The town should work with property managers and reactors to identify properties where the owner would be willing to rent out over the winter. Potentially, this could cover September through mid-May. Like everything else, this is not a perfect solution but one that would certainly help. 2. House swapping is a possibility. Many people commute both directions between Estes Park and towns in the valley. I've seen house swapping requests on social media. The town could work with Loveland, Longmont, and Ft. Collins to create lists of people willing to consider a swap. Regards, Bob Rebecca Urquhart to planning 3:48 PM (12 minutes ago) Just a short answer to Mr. Klink's question at the Study Session... why isn't the Lodging Association opposing VRs (seems like it is competition)? Because, the lodges are expanding by buying and renting houses in residential areas. (e.g. Range Management, an arm of the Stanley, and others). They use the same websites to advertise as their lodges, they put renters in either the lodges or houses, they use the same cleaning crews, accounting, etc, They are, in fact, supporting VR growth (per Ed Peterson's representation). Their business plans are not improving or expanding their lodges, or expanding in Accommodation zones. it is to increase use of houses in residential areas. This way, they avoid commercial property taxes, structural requirements, ADA, fire safety. In short, as we have been saying, VRs are commercial, not residential, now. Others will be submitting formal comments and research , but the Task Force resident reps did not think through the agreement to allow 9+ in all areas. The starting point was supposed to be to allow new ones in Accommodation zones only. Research shows that when these are allowed, small, older residences get bulldozed or expanded and operated as mini-hotels by the lodging industry. Loss of housing, degradation of neighborhoods. Maybe allow the ones licensed by July 1, but stop there. No one builds big houses any more, except for reunion and event centers. License the big houses people are stuck with now (but good grief, on acre or even 1 acre lots, and the joke of special review? At least consider the distance between houses, and the location of hot tubs). Since the Task Force started, the Denver ordinance became known. If only this new approach, and using Icompass, are adopted, it will solve 80-90% of the problems. This is so complex, lets just look at those 2 steps. Denver allows only owners who have used a house as a primary residence at one time to rent short term. And, if .a VR investor owner sells, the next owner cannot rent. Has to use it as a primary residence first. Benefits: 1. Makes short term rental in residential zones in line with its purpose... a residential use by right, not a right to buy up houses and run empires (70% of all the VR purchases are by corporations and lodges In the last few years). That should be only in commercial zones. 2. Prohibits ownership by commercial operators, who use these to expand lodges, or the 2 week visitor who wants a free place and income (a time share that pays) from eroding neighborhoods 3. Increases inventory for workers and year round residents. Preserves primarily residential character of areas. 4. Overcomes the current resistance to caps, by allowing residents who live here now the option of some day renting out their house. (I believe that is why the volume of protestors has remained low..they are thinking, no I don't like them, but, I may want to spend my winters with grandkids or in Arizona.. want the option, some day) No one saw VRBO exploding when short term use by right was codified. it was supposed to allow the 2" home owner hold on to his house, that he used regularly. But investors saw it. It was not intended for what we see.. owners buying 3-5, giving up other jobs and careers to run lucrative lodging in residential areas (like the Minnesota lawyer who is leaving her practice because she makes more running her 3 houses here). This is turning residential zones into accommodation zones. Allow the lodges to build big house style units in Accommodations zones, upgrade the run down hotels, if that is what is needed. Current VR investors and licensed operators would be grandfathered. We already have almost 500. Could allow another 300 or so to get those licenses, to be fair and meet the real lodging demand these meet at some limited level. Note that there are 2500 second homes in Estes. About 800 are already viis. I estimate another 1000 are owned by 80+- something Midwesterners, and will soon be sold off or inherited by Boomers. You can bet they will be turned into VRs- no body comes here for an entire summer any more. Note that Grand Lake closed their schools about 4 years ago, because the VRBO explosion starteed about 6-8 years ago (due to the recession, and the word getting out about the advantages of these investments). This community will die. Rebeceitv L. eJr.9,0-144-4-/- 970-586-7586 Wayne Newsom via es tes.o rg 10:20 AM (18 minutes ago) to planning To Whom It May Concern: Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans. I have a problem with the issue coming up RE: ADU's. My understanding is an ADU is a separate living unit of a single family home — attached or detached, with or without (?) a kitchen. Is this correct. I know there are several/perhaps many ADU's established. I believe these should be grandfathered in and those that have had restrictions be allowed to return to active status. I do not believe zoning should be changed to accommodate ADU's in certain areas. It is my understanding that one-half (1/2) and one acre lots zoned for single family dwellings cannot have ADU's. My concern is: I have heard there are plans to re-zone these two categories to allow ADUs. Is this true? Residents who own/live in the above mentioned properties choose to have this restriction. I believe it is wrong to change the zoning of properties. Please respond to this note. Pat Newsom newsomPfrii.com day phone 586-4425 (Coldwell Banker) Wayne Newsom, CRS, GRI Coldwell Banker Estes Village Properties, Ltd. PO Box 4130 - 320 E. Elkhorn Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970,586.4425 - Fax: 970-586-8579 E-mail: Newsom@Frii.com www.WavneNewsom.com ESTE S Fw: Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations 2 messages Norm Alkali! <sonny418sw@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Norm Mcgill <sonny416swgyahoo.com> To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:24 PM, Norm Mcgill <sonny418sw@yahoo.com> wrote: Sir, I studied with great interest your very splendid article on the subject above. The lack of housing in the Estes Valley is so profound, that it threatens the economic viability of both our businesses and our town of ESTES! I suspect that both the Town and its Planning Commission have a grasp on this situation, but do you have full knowledge of its scope! There are business owners housing employees in their own homes, those of family members, trailers, ranches, and on and on! There are homes in Carriage Hills that have been converted to duplexes and apartments. I am not speculating, I know this by fact and even observation of my neighbors. The true owners of these properties may not even know that their renters are subletting space in their homes. I wonder at the legal ramifications and insurance problems, should the sub renters cause a fire or other problems. We need an atmosphere for openness and legality! My children have businesses in Downtown Estes. They struggle with employee retention on a daily basis. New "YOUNG" folks come to Town and fall in love with Estes. They want to stay and be a viable part of the Community and we need this new young blood. Weeks or months, sometimes years, later they find it impossible to stay. No affordable housing, even if they could afford it, it is not available! The high school kids, after they graduate, find it not possible to stay in Estes. My son and his wife are Estes graduates. They are trying to succeed here in business and family with our grandson. They have high school friends who graduated and left Estes. They want to return here to raise families, but can't even come back and find an apartment to get started in. If I could give you an example, I will do so! My sons best friend from high school currently works for CDOT. He drives the snow removal truck from Estes up through Aliens Park and Seven Highway. He, his wife, and baby live in Loveland. He must commute up to Estes before he can start his work. With heavy snow, highway closures and accidents, what are his delays costing in economics, but more importantly in lives lost to accidents! He wants to move here to Estes, and we are struggling to find a small place for them to rent. Even with our network of friends, we find it nearly impossible. We are in the begging stage for help from friends and landlords. My wife had several high school kids working in the store she manages. They left for college this past week and it has left the older workers to pickup the slack. One young girl lives in Greely and wants to continue to work on weekends. She left work on a previous Sunday. She encountered a deadly motorcycle accident on 34 Highway and turned back to Estes and 36 Highway to get home. She left the store at 4 PM and got home after 9 PM. This is not worth her effort and my wife told her it is not worth her life to continue. Especially with the highway shut downs. As for my wife and I, we have a home. We moved away from Estes a number of years ago to a small, affordable farm in MO. We came back in 2013 to Carriage Hills when our grandchildren started showing up. We carry a rather large mortgage on our home for two people at age 66. Jan continues to work to supplement our income for this mortgage. She would like to cut back a little, but can not. She and an employee in her 50's are the work force. All the others are transient workers trying to stay in Estes, but failing! We need youth to stay in Estes for the benefit of we old folks! The proposed changes in the Accessory Dwelling Regulations could be a GOD send for us. We could add a detached building to the back of our property. It would be allowed under code and permit. We could have two small, new, clean functional apartments in this structure. A couple of new teachers for the Estes District could take up residence here, or employees for my children, or how about a replacement young employee for my wife, who could retire with the rental income from these legal apartments. Should one of us pass away, and it will happen, the other could continue to stay in our home. With a loss of one spouses income from SS, pension, etc., it is not likely the other could stay here! This structure would not even be seen from the road here in Carriage Hills. We want legally approved housing here in Estes Valley. You must be aware of all the illegal housing in the Valley. To enforce the law could drive many hundreds from housing and the Estes Valley. Everyone would suffer. Lets do the right thing! The one other mountain communities found to be the best solution. Let us approve Accessory Dwellings for all of us! For those needing housing and those old folks like us who could better survive by its existence! Let us legalize the accessory housing in Estes Valley. Make it safer for those using it, more available and affordable. Let us keep the money these employees make in Estes, here in Estes Park. Spent in the very places they may work in and expanding revenue for the businesses. Even creating an atmosphere for higher wages. Tax revenues would increase and our schools would benefit with the addition of new children to the Valley! Thank you for your attention: Norm McGill, Carriage Hills. Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM To: Norm Mcgill <sonny418sw@yahoo.corn> Cc: "planning©estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Norm, Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town websfte, Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org [Quoted text hidden] Racine Broker/Owner ANGE ALTY, LTD. The Oldest Real Estate Company In Estes Park AAlik EST. 1969 !I II I', I AUG 9. B 2016 August 29, 2016 Town of Estes Park Trustees Town of Estes Park Planning Commision RE: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) What the Town Administrator is proposing on ADU's, should not take place by changing zoning use. This is a zoning change. The homeowners of Estes Park have rights and without an actual "zoning change", we have no voice. What is the big hurry? Affordable housing is not a crises. The 2013 flood was what you would call a crisis. Families to stay and work year round in town do not want to live in a ADU. Families will want a home to rent or buy like in "The Neighborhood" subdivision. The work force will be here during our busy months and then leave as there is "less work". That's the history. Find another way rather than taking our property rights away from us. Thank you for listening. 300 East Elkhorn Avenue P.O. Box 1604 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586.2345 Fax (970) 586-5293 I y I II 1 I I I I, , From: Lisa Mcfarlane Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 9:52 PM To: rhunt@estes.org Subject: long term rental amendment Randy, I am sorry that my husband and I will be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting due to our work schedules. We totally agree with the need for long- term year around housing especially for those working in the Estes Park area. Currently we own three homes here in town and rent two of them out to year around residents. Our concern with this proposed amendment is how will it be enforced and/or monitored. There is a larger profit margin for vacation rentals and we are concerned that this will create more VRBO for Estes Park area. If this proposed amendment cannot be monitored and enforced properly; we arc against this amendment. We would love to see other home owners in Estes Park rent their cabins/homes to local people who are working in the area to help with the shortage of housing available to them. Please don't hesitate to call or e-mail if you have questions. Regards, Gary and Lisa McFarlane 920 East Lane Estes Park (970)443-9844 lcmcfarl ane63(4mail.com II I II A IP TOWN OF ESTES PARK Staff Report EVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Date: August 16, 2016 (Public Hearing Date) RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: Long-Term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Planning] Commission Objective: Review of a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Code Amendment Objective: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to increase the supply of workforce housing in the Estes Valley, specifically the supply of rental housing. During the August 9, 2016 Town Board Study Session housing discussion, Trustees directed staff to draft code amendments removing the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size and the 800 square foot minimum for an ADU. Trustees also directed staff to draft a mechanism that could enable this ADU code amendment to be effective within town limits, if the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners elects not to approve the amendments. These amendments are included in the package of amendments for Planning Commission review. Present Situation: The Estes Valley Development Code currently regulates new accessory dwelling units in accordance with certain limited situations. ADUs: • Cannot be rented, short-term, i.e., for stays of less than 30 days, or long-term, i.e., for stays of for more than 30 days; • Can be no larger than 800 square feet, or 33% of the habitable size of the principal dwelling unit; and • Must be on lots with 1.33 times the minimum lot area of the zoning district, e.g., in the Rural Estate RE-1 district, the minimum lot size is 10 acres, so at least 13.33 acres is required for an ADU. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and always located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed in some cases. While current regulations prevent both sort-term and long-term rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment is one of several possible code amendments that may be considered by the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners to address the workforce housing shortage. A primary goal within the Town Board's strategic plan is to serve as a catalyst to develop available housing soluticns for ail segments of the community. The Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment is available at www.esteshousino.org. Public Process: • On Aug. 1, a news release informing the public of the code amendment was posted on the Town website, shared via the Town Facebook webpage and delivered to the Estes Park Trail Gazette and Estes Park News for publication. • Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. • Public comment can be submitted to achilcottaestes.oro Public comment will be posted online, and provided lc Panning Commission, Town Board and County Commission for consideration. o Public comment can also be provided during 'tire Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission public hearings. O The public will have the opportunity to provide input throughout the public process, which is anticipated to last approximately three-months. Meetings and public hearings are tentative!y scheduled as follows: Date Review/ Decision-Making Bodies Meeting Type Purpose Aug. 16 Planning Commission Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3,3.0 and forward recommendation to Town Board and County Commission Sept. 19 County Commission Work Session Project Update Sept. 27 Town Board Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D and consider adoption Oct. 17 County Commission Public Hearing Review for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D and consider adoption Revision #2 Page 2 of 8 Revised August 10, 2018 Public Hearing Legal Notice Requirements The legal notice requirements for the Estes Valley Planning Commission public hearing have been satisfied. The legal notice for the public hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 29, 2016. Prior ADU code amendment proposals and Accessory Kitchen Code Amendment Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission have considered several previous proposals to revise the ADU regulations; however, prior ADU code amendment proposals were broader in scope, e.g., the amendments addressed unit type (attached, detached, and integrated) in addition to the ability to rent long-term, minimum lot size, and unit type. With the prior proposals there was both opposition and support for rental of ADUs. For all practical purposes accessory kitchens allow accessory dwelling units by another name. However, there has been very limited use of the accessory kitchen regulations. Staff assumes this is because few people are either aware of, or understand, the regulation. There now appears to be much more vocal and broad based public support for addressing the housing needs of our workforce due to the current housing crisis that has resulted in community-wide negative impacts. Staff would suggest the option of a "sunset" provision in this code amendment. Sunset provisions serve to make a code section expire on a given date, so that unless further action is taken, meanwhile, the section is effectively temporary. The option always exists to amend the code further to remove the sunset provision (i.e., make the amendment permanent), or to extend the sunset date. It is understood that ADUs have been a topic of great public interest. One possible advantage of a sunset provision is to allow the community and the decision-makers time and opportunity to see the amendment in action, and perceive what may be working well and what may not. It also provides effective notice to landlords that lease arrangements beyond the sunset date may be problematic. Administration Administration of ADU code provisions is proposed to remain on a code compliance compiaint basis. Other options that could be considered if the amendment were to be permanent include developing a permit process for ADU long-term rentals. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.a Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as per the elements discussed above.as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Revision #2 Page 3 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Staff Findings: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D. §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review "All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:" 1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;" Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment describes those changes in depth and quantifies the worsening of the housing problem since last measured in 2007, the peak of the economic period prior to the recession (refer to page 11 of the Housing Needs Assessment). 2. "The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;" Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. A development plan is not required. The code amendment aligns with both the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan housing policies and the 2016 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment recommendations. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan established housing policies for the Estes Valley. The comprehensive plan states, "The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community." "Policies include: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Revision #2 Page 4 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements." 3. "The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved." Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment was discussed with providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services. Providers expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment. If a new accessory dwelling unit is proposed on a property with a well or an on- site wastewater treatment system, review and approval of the Larimer County Health Department will be required during building permit review. The Health Department has the authority to determine if the connection to public water or sewer will be required. Also, the Colorado Division of Water Resources may not allow accessory dwelling units to be served by a well. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Is another step towards addressing the workforce housing shortage in the Estes Valley, one of the community's most pressing problems. • There appears to be a broad base of public support for addressing the workforce housing shortage, including support from employers in need of workers, local residents that are homeless or part of the hidden homeless, and commuters that would prefer to live in the Valley if rental housing were available. • From Oct. 2016 through June 2017, travel on Highway 34 travel in the Big Thompson Canyon will be limited. Employees commuting to the Estes Valley will need to use US 36 and CO 66 to travel to the Estes Valley (CDOT, 2016). The entire corridor rebuild is anticipated to last three years from construction start. During this time there will be additional travel delays. In addition to addressing the long-term workforce housing shortage, this code amendment could help some commuters relocate to the Estes Valley in the medium-term. Revision #2 Page 5 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 • Removal of the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size removes a potentially unnecessary regulation and allows for more equal regulation of ADUs across zoning districts. • Removal of the 800 square foot size limit for accessory dwelling units removes a potentially unnecessary regulation. • Pre-existing accessory dwelling units that comply with the ADU code requirements could be rented. • The proposed sunset provision in the regulation means the amendment will automatically expire, unless renewed through a public process with public hearings. This provides for the opportunity to evaluate how the amendment is working and whether is it appropriate to retain the code amendment. Disadvantages: • Allowing rental of ADUs is likely to produce a fairly limited number of units at first, as compared to development of new workforce housing; however, as noted in the Needs Assessment "some strategies may only produce a few units, but in combination with other efforts are key for a diversified inventory of workforce housing that meet a wide spectrum of needs." • The proposed code amendment will not result in one unified set of ADU regulations, i.e., the amendment does not fully reconcile conflicts between the ADU and Accessory Kitchen regulations, at this time. • Numerous reasons to not allow long-term rental of ADUs have been provided by the public. Reasons include, but are not limited to: Rental will result in an increase in land use nuisances (noise, parking, lighting, and more), and change the character of neighborhoods. Concern has also been raised that ADUs will be rented as vacation rentals and the Town and County either cannot, or will not, enforce the short-term rental prohibition of ADUs. Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. Revision #2 Page 6 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following questions. • Should long-term rental of accessory dwelling units be allowed to help address the Estes Valley's workforce housing shortage? • Should the ADU long-term rental provision sunset? If so, when? • Should the 1.33 times multiplier to minimum lot size be removed? • Should the 800 square foot size limit be removed? • Should the code language be adopted as proposed? The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss and comment on the issue of the amendment being effective in Town if the County does not approve the amendment and may forward their collective position on this issue to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Level of Public Interest: High: Addressing housing shortage in the Estes Valley High: Code amendment The level of public interest in this code amendment is anticipated to be high. Proposed ADU code amendments have been discussed in depth, at and length, over a five-year period from 2008 — 2012, with a significant amount of public comment in support and opposition. The end result was that no amendments to ADU regulations were adopted; however, in 2010 accessory kitchen regulations were added to the code. Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code and proposed sunset clause as presented in Exhibit A, and with the findings recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because... (state reason(s) for continuance - findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment and proposed sunset clause to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reason(s) for denial). Revision #2 Page 7 of 8 Revised August 10, 2016 Attachments: 1. Exhibit A, Draft Estes Valley Code Amendment and Sunset Clause 2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Housing Policies and Housing Action Pian, 1996 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment, 2016 Not printed for Planning Commission packets, refer to www.esteshousinq.orq for document 4. Long-term Rental of Accessory Dwelling Units Considered to Aid Workforce Housing Strategies, Town/County News Release, Aug. 1, 2016 5. Accessory DiveiNng Units, American Planning Association QuickNotes No. 19, 2009 Revision #2 Page 8 of 2 Revised August 10, 2016 EXHIBIT A Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2.B.2 a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit -eight hundred (800) square feet, whichever is lcso. An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. I (3) Limit on Tenancy. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as short-term rental units. (4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirement. (5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.C.28 below, (7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an accessory dwelling unit. 1: • = _ • : • -• • - e • = • _ • min4murn-let-area-ef-the-distri-st, (10)(9) Other Regulations. (a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling will be located. (b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. Exhibit A Draft #2 August 16, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Requirements RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Accessory dwelling unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.B.2.a 443-times min.imuin-let area-required Runset CEauzs for Town Ordinance and County Resokotton This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately upon its adoption and publication, and shall be effective upon through October 31, 2017. Exhibit A August 16, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Draft #2 Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT A Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2.B.2 a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings snail consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit or eight hundred (800) square feet, whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. (3) Limit on Tenancy. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as short-term rental units, with the exception that through October 31. 2017 long-term rental of accessory dwelling units shall be allowed (4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirement. (5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.C.28 below. (7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an accessory dwelling unit. (9) Lot Area. Lot area must be one and thirty-three one-hundredths (1.33) times the minimum lot area of the district. (10) Other Regulations. (a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling will be located. (b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. Exhibit A August 16, 2018 Page 1 of 1 Planning Commission Public Hearing I I I I I I I Chapter Six • Community Wide Policies 5.0 HOUSING The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community. Policies include: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.4 Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas. 5.5 Provide for mixed use developments which integrate commercial, housing, employment, and service needs. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements. 5.9 Support the creation of public and private funding sources for affordable housing. 5.10 Establish a linkage between new developments and the provision of affordable housing. 6.0 SCENIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The quality of life for residents and the visitor experience within the Valley are, in large part, determined by the natural setting and relatively unspoiled environment. Many components of the natural environment have attracted the tourist and resident alike. They include dean water, a pristine landscape and beautiful views. Environmental resources and scenic quality are the foundations of the economy and critical livability factors for residents. Protecting these important environmental assets is necessary to maintain a high quality community. .1ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAND 6-5 Chapter Seven • Action Plan A. Action Plan INTRODUCTION This section includes specific recommended actions for implementing the plan. Some of the actions also include a series of sub-tasks. Many are project related, while others are focused on developing additional information for a specific area of interest. The actions are organized by categories. Government departments and many organizations often have specific needs and wish to have the recommended actions presented together for their specific area. In reality, however, many of the recommendations overlap categories, and it could be argued that some of the recommendations could easily be presented in a different category. It is important to understand that the categories have been utilized only to provide a more convenient access to each of the recommendations. This portion of the plan is meant to be regularly updated and modified. The actions, funding recommendations, and implementation organizations or agencies were developed over an eighteen-month period leading up to June 1995. Over time, new ideas will be developed, new options presented, and individual recommendations will be refined. New projects will arise and organizational capacity will be modified. It is suggested that this action plan be reviewed and modified on an annual basis. The intent of preparing the document has not been to draw a map for the next decade that provides detailed directions for each department. Instead, we have chosen to utilize the broader community vision and community values to act as a compass, always pointed toward "true north." Therefore, reviewing the recommended actions on an annual basis will allow the vision and the actions to be regularly aligned. There are substantially more short-term recommendations than mid- or long-term recommendations. The document was structured in this fashion to insure that it focused on creating enough momentum in the short term to begin the implementation process. Unless this occurs, the plan has little chance of success, and mid- or long-term recommendations become less meaningful. In addition, given current fiscal realities and funding opportunities, it is difficult to provide detailed information related to funding agencies, estimated costs and realistic implementation time frames for many of the long-term action items. Therefore, long-term concepts — such as creating outlying parking with transit facilities — have been identified without defining the specifics for each action. The resulting action plan therefore identifies a long-term direction, but also creates the initial momentum necessary to make the plan a reality. For each of these six categories, there follows a brief discussion of needs and a series of recommendations: • Land use, • Growth management, • Mobility and circulation, • Urban Renewal Authority, • Housing, and • Intergovernmental cooperation. ,CESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> 7-1 Chapter Seven • Action Plan A.5 Housing - Recommended Actions Maintaining the supply of affordable housing within the Estes Valley continues to be a significant issue. Part of the solution will include the identification of land for affordable housing development, which may include utilizing some Town or County owned properties. Other solutions are likely to include a combination of incentives and/or linkages with new commercial or lodging developments. There may also be opportunities to modify zoning classifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units. Providing incentives for the development of second floor apartments in the commercial core or in new commercial developments may create additional opportunities. It should be remembered that the overall solution is likely to be the result of a comprehensive set of strategies being implemented together. While the community as a whole has not been supportive of large-scale subsidies, they would like to address the issue incrementally, using a variety of tools. Specific actions include: 1. Completing existing Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) project. The Lone Tree Apartments are under construction. This project will assist local residents and employees to access affordable housing options. 2. Define residential infill areas and strategy. Within the downtown core and a number of neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the core, significant infill opportunities exist. By identifying these areas and creating a special incentive zoning overlay, these opportunities and the associated density incentives would be made apparent. It may also be possible to work with local lending institutions to coordinate the use of Community Reinvestment Funds in these areas. 3. Evaluate accessory structure options. Within the core and in a number of outlying areas, it may be appropriate to allow accessory structures such as Garage Apartments or Attached Units. Specific criteria should be created to define more specifically where such development should be encouraged. 4. Evaluate commercial residential linkages and incentives. Because a substantial portion of impacts associated with employee housing can be correlated with development of commercial or lodging uses, it may be appropriate to link these uses to the creation of affordable/employee housing. Programs could be incentive-based or tied to a direct requirement based on the number units or square footage developed. qESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> 7-13 Chapter Seven • Action Plan FIGURE 7.4 Housing Work Program Summary Recommended Action Time Frame Est. Cost Funding Source Planning Schedule Implementation Planning Areas Affected Cm. Impacts Capital O&M i Housing Schedule - I Rec. #1- Complete Lone Tree Project Short-term Land Local/State/Priv y Year 1+ Year 1+ all No No Rec. #2 - Define Residential Infill Areas & Strategy Phase III None NA Year 1 Year 1 all No No Rec. #3 - Evaluate Accessory Structure Options Phase DI NA NA Year 1 Year 2 all No No Rec. #4 - Evaluate Comm.-Res. Linkages/Incentives Phase DI NA NA Year 1 Year 2 all No No ES TES V A L I. E Y COMP R E H E N S E P L A NS- 7-14 LARIMEFt NiCOUNTY 7:STES PARK COP OuADO Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 www.estes.org Larimer County 200 W. Oak St. For Collins, CO 80521 www.larimer.org August 1, 2016 Kate Rusch Town of Estes Park Public Information Officer krusch@estes.org Tom Clayton Larimer County Communications Specialist clavtontm@co.larimer. co.us Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered to aid workforce housing shortage At its next meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission will consider amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and located on the same lot as the single- family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed, in some cases. While current regulations prevent rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The Planning Commission meeting takes place Aug. 16 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room of Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave. Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.orgJEVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at www.estes.ordboardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the proposed code amendment with the standards for review in the Estes Valley Development Code, which includes determining whether the amendment is compatible and consistent with the polices and intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. At the Aug. 16 meeting, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and is expected to make a formal recommendation to the Town Board, which is tentatively scheduled to review the recommendation and draft regulations at its Sept. 20 meeting. Next, the recommendations will be scheduled to be reviewed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, tentatively Oct. 17. The proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment is one of several possible code amendments that might be considered by the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners to address the workforce housing shortage. A primary goal within the Town Board's strategic plan is to serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for all segments of the community. The Estes Park Housing Authority, with support from the Town of Estes Park, conducted the 2016 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment. The assessment identified strategies to address a. MORE CONTINUED workforce housing needs, calling for partners to first convene a Housing Summit to prioritize those strategies. A top priority identified at the May summit is to amend codes to allow and encourage workforce housing. Another recommendation was to allow accessory dwelling units in all residential zones provided that they are rented long-term to employees. The Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment is available at www.esteshousing.org The Estes Valley model for land-use regulations is unique in Colorado. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County partnered in the mid-1990s to develop the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan — a unified vision for land-use planning in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. In 2000, they jointly established the Estes Valley Development Code. The Planning Commission reviews development and subdivision proposals and proposed code amendments within the entire Estes Valley, though the final decision-making authority lies with the County Commissioners and Town Board for their respective jurisdictions. Information on the topic of accessory dwelling units will be available at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments For more information, please contact Community Development Director Randy Hunt at 970-577-3719 or rhunt@estes.org. Sign up to receive Town news and/or agendas at www.estes.org/subscribe. More Town news is available at www.facebook.com/townofestesoarkco, and www.twitter.com/townofestespark. END 'Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs! American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen rfir.V.1.00.01-0.11.C10.1? tai'S Offa.rcit,!, — — k Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained living units that typically have their own kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom space. Often called granny flats, eider cottage housing opportuni- ties (ECHO), mother-daughter residences, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs are apartments that can be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi- tion to an existing home. They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn. The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many. For the home owner, ADUs provide the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owners grown son or daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby. The unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families, which would provide the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental income to the owner. Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage, utilities, and real estate taxes. Finally, leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home owner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and yard fora discount on rent. Despite the benefits, some communities resist allowing ADUs, or allow them only after time-consuming and costly review procedures and requirements. Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood, increase density, add to traffic, make parking on the street more difficult, increase school enrollment, and put additional pres- sure on fire and police service, parks, or water and wastewater. However, communities that have allowed ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually built. ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom- ic climate, changes in household size, increasing numbers of aging baby boomers, and the shortage of affordable housing choices. They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range of housing choices. LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTO THE ACT Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs. This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con- ditional use. In either case, reasonable conditions may be Imposed. Some states, including California, have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs. In 2001 AARP retained APA's Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested in convincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it. Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Model Local Ordinance, the monograph provides alternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs. The Model Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities. Additionally, the intent of the ordinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval, and further outlines standards for ADU approval pertaining to lot size, occupancy, building standards, parking and traffic public health, and how to deal with nonconforming ADUs. The Model State Act provides findings and policies encouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickiVotes No. 19 C 3 a can area tr! 9 F J Single story ADC/ floor plan. adoption of an ADU statute. It specifies the limits to which local governments may prohibit ADUs and outlines default permitting provisions if a locali- ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance. It details optional approaches for adopting ADU ordinances, certifying local ADU ordinances, gathering data on ADU efforts, preparing reports and recommendations, and forming a statewide board overseeing ADUs. WHAT ISSUES ARISE WHEN A PROPOSED ADU ORDINANCE IS CONSIDERED? ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben- efits to local communities but the road to implementation may not be an easy process. While ADUs are more widely accepted now than in years past, skeptics still re. rainand some still oppose ADU zoning. The following describes some issues or decision points that communities must address in order to successfully navigate the perilous waters of public acceptance. The approach that is right for your city or town will be unique, based on local physical, political, social, and economic conditions. By-right Permitting. Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right (with clear standards built into the ordinance) or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after a public hearing? Occupancy. Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the property lives in one of the units? Form of Ownership. Should the ordinance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium? Preexisting, MB= =Ate ADUs. How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs? How do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit? Unit SEgs: Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly accessory to the principal dwelling on the property? Adequacy of Iiik2a7 and Sewer: Services. How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in sewer lines, pumping stations, and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs? These are not easy issues. However, communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach that: allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupan- cy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan- dard. PAS QuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Copyright 0 2009. Visit PAS online at www.planning.org/pas to and out how PAS can work for you. American Planning Association staff: W Paul Farmer, mu, Executive Director and CEO; William R. Klein, No, Director of Research and Advisory Services; Tre Jerdon, QuickNotes Editor; Tim Mennel, Senior Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No. 19 For a complete list of references visit http://www.planning.org/pas/quic.kriotesi REFERENCES 1. Published by American Planning Association American Planning Association. "Affordable Housing Reader AMcles from Zoning News and Zoning Practice. Available at http://myapaplanningorg/affordableread er (members-only access). Amencan Planning Association 2006 Policy Guide on Housing Chicago American Planning Association Available at www.pfanning.org/policy/guides/pdf/hou sing.pcif • Baggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and Deborah Howe 1994 Planning for an Aging Society Planning Advisory Service Report no 451 Chicago American Planning Association For more information on this topic visit www.planning org American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen 'AO References: Accessory Dwelling Units 1. Published by American Planning Association American Planning Association. Affordable Housing Reader: Articles from Zoning News and Zoning Practice. Available at http://myapa.planningorg/affordablereader (members-only access). American Planning Association. 2006. Policy Guide on Housing. Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at www.planning.org/policy/g uides/pdf/housing.pdf. Baggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and Deborah Howe. 1994. Planning for an Aging Society. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 451. Chicago: American Planning Association. Baron Pollak, Patricia. 1994, 'Rethinking Zoning to Accommodate the Elderly in Single Family Housing!Journai of the American Planning Association 60 (4): 521-531. Gorman, Alice, and Patricia Pollak. 1989. Community-Based Housing for the Elderly. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 420. Chicago: American Planning Association. Howe, Deborah A. 1990, 'The Flexible House Designing for Changing Needs! 'Journal of the American Planning Association 56 (1): 69-77. Lubell, Jeffrey. 2006. 'Zoning to Expand Affordable Housing7Zoning Practice. December. Chicago; American Planning Association. Meyerson, Deborah. 2007:The Ultimate in Accessibility! Planning, December, 44-45. Wittenberg, Jason. 2002. 'Garages: Not Just for Cars Anymore! Zoning News. August. Chicago: American Planning Association. 2. Other Resources Center for Housing Policy. 2008. Ensuring Zoning Policies Allow Housing Diversity: Accessory Dwelling Units. Available at www.housingpolicy.org/toolboxistrategy/policies/diverse housing types.html?tierid=42. Cobb, Rodney, and Scott Dvorak. 2000. Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Washington, D.C.: AARP. Available at http://assets.aarp.orgirgcenter/consume/d17158_dwell.pcfr. Cram, Leo. 1993. Missouri Gerontology Institute. 'Accessory Apartments.' University of Missouri Extension. Available at http://extension.rnissourleciu/explore/agingigg0014.htm. Massachusetts Executive Office of the Environment (N.d,) Model Bylaw for Accessory Dwelling Units. Massachusetts Smart Growth Toolkit Bylaw. Available at wwwmass.gov/eiwir/smart_growth toolkit/bylaws/ADU-Bylaw.pdf Minnetonka (Minnesota), City of A Citizen's Guide to Accessory Apartments. Available at www.eminnetonkacom/community_development/plannIng/brochures/accessory apartments.pdf Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 1995. Accessory Dwelling Units. Report No. 33. Seattle Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. Available at www.mrsc.org/Publications/adu30.pdf. Phillips, Jory. 2004. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: Director's Report. Seattle: City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. Available at www.mrscorg/GovDocs/s42ADUrptpdf. Portland (Oregon), City of. 2006. Planning and Zoning Code. Chapter 33.205. Accessory Dwelling Units. Available at www.portlandonlinecom/auditorfindexcfm?a=53301&c=28197 Also see www.portlandonfine.com/bds/index.cfmk=dgghg. Provo (Utah), City of. 2007. Zoning Code. Section 14.46A Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. Available at www.provaorg/downloads/councilititle 14 chapters 41-49c_combined.pdE Santa Cruz (California), City of. 2003. Accessory Dwelling Unit Manual. Available at www.ci.santa- cruz.ca.us/pVhcd/ADU/PDF/ADU_Manual.pdf. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2004. Accessory Housing is Part of the Solution'Available at www.huduser.org/rbc/newsletter/vol3iss1morehtml A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No. 19 3. Case Law Anderson v. Provo City Corp., 2005 UT 5 (2005). City of Wilmington v. Hill, 657 5.E.2d 670 (2008). Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 CalApp.4th 451 (2001). Desmond v. County of Corm -a Costa, 21 CalApp.4th 330 (1993). Ham's v. City of Costa Mesa, 25 Cal.App.4th 963 (1994). Kasper v. Town of Brookhaven, 142. A.D.2d 213 (1988). Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of My°, 157 Cal. App. 4th1437 (2007). Sounhein v. City of San Dimas, 47 CalApp. 4th 1181 (1996). Village of Belle Terre v Boracs, 416 U.S. 1 (1976). A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No. 19 Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> P.AK i:wd: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; Citizen Survey online through August 31 6 messages Art Messal <art. messal@gmailcom> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:52 AM To: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>, Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org> Cc: Michelle Hiland <michelle.hiland@gmail.corn> Hi All, Can someone tell me about the process leading up to the Planning Commission now considering this Auu change? I've heard chatter here and there for some time but no substantial discussion. Will this really be going up for a vote with so little dialogue? This will further increase density and warrants very careful consideration, extensive public input, and considerable time for the public to become informed. Thanks, -Art- Forwarded message From: Town of Estes Park - Public Information Office <krusch@estes.org> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:09 PM Subject: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; Citizen Survey online through August 31 To: art.messal@gmaii.com Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Li SR tli Elj Like' •m•10•••=, 4 ER TOWN OF LSTES PARIc_ Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered to aid workforce housing shortage At its next meeting, the Estes Valley Planning commission will consider amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow long-term rental of accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling integrated with a single-family detached dwelling, typically smaller and located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. It does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. Prior to 2000, detached accessory dwelling units were allowed, in some cases. While current regulations prevent rental of accessory dwelling units, removal of this prohibition for long-term rentals may help relieve a critical shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. The Planning Commission meeting takes place Aug. 16 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room of Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave. Draft proposed regulations will be available for review by Aug. 4 at www.estes.org/EVDCamendments. They will also be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting packet at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by Aug. 12. Read the complete article. Participate in the Town of Estes Park's Citizen Survey online through August 31 A random sample of 1,500 Estes Park households received the Town of Estes Park's 2016 Citizen Survey in late June. The same survey is now available for broad participation on the Town's website www.estes.org through August 31. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster encourages everyone to take the opportunity to weigh in on Town and community programs and services, including residents outside the Town limits. "The Town understands many people who weren't included in the scientific sample also rely on our services, and the online survey is a convenient way for all citizens to tell us what they think," he explained. Read the complete article. You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in news from the Town of Estes Park. Please add krusch@estes.org to your address book. lik) Like us on Facebook Town of Estes Park, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 SafeUnsubscribew artmessal@gmail.com Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by krusch@estes.org in collaboration with Constant Contact A Try it free today Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM To: Alison Chilcott <achilcott©estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt©estes.org>, Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> FYI- Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org [Quoted text hidden] Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM To: Art Messal <art.messal@gmail.com> Cc: Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>, Michelle Hiland <michelle.hiland@gmail.com> Good afternoon Art, Thank you for your email. The code amendment that would allow for the long-term rental of attached ADUs is being brought to the tnree bodies by staff as an option to help address the affordable housing issues in the Estes Valley. The consideration of this amendment will be a public process (Planning Commission, Town Board, County Commission) with ample opportunity for public comment and feedback. We do recognize that the timeline, while wholly within our procedural requirements, Is faster than usual. This decision was made in an effort to address this potential code amendment prior to (or soon after) the Highway 34 road closure. The thought behind this is that the change might assist employees in the community who commute to stes Park from other Front Range communities cope with the highway closure. Planning Commission is the first stop for discussion on this item. Of course, they always have the prerogative to continue an agenda item if they do not feel comfortable making a decision/recommendation. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Best, TM Travis Machalek Assistant Town Administrator Town of Estes Park 970-577-3707 [Quoted text hidden] From: Art Messal Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:20 PM To: Travis Machalek Cc: Todd Jirsa; Frank Lancaster; Michelle Hiland; Randy Hunt Subject: Re: Long-term rental of accessory dwelling units considered; CitizenSurvey online through August 31 Happy Thursday Travis, I don't follow the logic for pushing this so quickly. The 34 closure starts around the time when many daily or weekly rentals historically shift to longer term and I find it unlikely many will break their leases just to move into an ADU. My concern with the public process is that many in our community are starting to notice that this board has some strong agendas and that participation isn't really worth the effort. We need staff to slow things down.:) I have some specific questions that I sent to Randy. Thanks, -Art- Staff i;teport TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Date: October 18, 2016 (Public Hearing Date) RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: RM Multi-Family Residential Minimum Lot Size Planning Commission Objective: Review of a proposed text amendment for compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Proposed Amendment: This is a proposed amendment to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts, to remove the minimum lot size requirement for multi-family development in the RM—Multi- Family Residential zoning district, and to amend Section 7.1.A.2.b to remove reference to the RM minimum lot size requirement. Code Amendment Objective: The objective of this proposed text amendment is to remove the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement for development of multi-family housing on multi-family zoned lots, thereby removing a regulatory barrier to multi-family housing development. Note: Multifamily development is development of residential dwellings in buildings containing three or more units. The proposed amendment would not affect minimum lot size for single-family or two- family (duplex) development in the RM District. It also would not change the density standard in RM District, which remains 5,400 square feet of lot area per each unit (actual square footage required per unit may be lower due to the density rounding code amendment adopted earlier this year). Present Situation: The Valley is experiencing a housing crisis. Town Board recognizes the dire housing situation and has established a strategic goal to serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for all segments of the community. During an Aug. 9, 2016 Town Board Study Session Housing Needs and Response discussion, "the Board consensus was to move forward with reviewing barriers to development such as those outlined by staff." In accordance with this direction, staff has identified the minimum lot size requirement in the RM zoning district as a barrier to some types of multi-family housing development and has drafted this proposed code amendment to remove that barrier. Staff recommends regulating multi-family development density by units per area, not minimum lot size. For lots that meet the "magic" 40,000 sq. ft. size, multi-family development can be built with 5,400 square feet of land area per unit. Nonsensically, an RM lot containing 39,999 sq. ft. can developed with only two units, yet an RM lot containing just one square foot more land can be developed with eight units. The minimum lot size requirement inhibits efficient use of RM zoned land and discourages smaller multi-development developments, i.e., developments of between three and seven units. The three-to-seven-unit housing niche seems to be a missing or under-represented segment on the local housing supply, at least by anecdotal evidence. Staff has been contacted numerous times in recent years by developers who wished to propose such developments, only to find that the 40,000 square-foot minimum does not allow it. This proposed code amendment, working in concert with a code amendment adopted earlier this year to allow rounding density upward, would allow a triplex to be built on just over 13,500 square feet of land. It is important to note that elimination of minimum lot size and regulating only units per acre is actually a technique suggested by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in their guide, Making Housing Affordable: Breaking Down Regulator), Barriers (Prepared for HUD by the Council of State Community Development Agencies, National Conference of States on Building Codes & Standards, 1994). Minimum lot sizes have long been recognized as a barrier to affordable housing, including workforce housing, development. Staff propose retaining minimum lot size requirements for single-family and duplex development in the RM zoning district at this time, to incentivize multi-family development, over single-family and duplex development in the RM District. Public Hearing Legal Notice Requirements The legal notice requirements for the Estes Valley Planning Commission public hearing have been satisfied. The legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on Sept. 30, 2016. Public Comment: The public will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed code amendment throughout the public process, which includes Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission public hearings. This public process is anticipated to last three to four months. Public comment can be submitted to olannincaestes.orq and will be posted online, and provided to Planning Commission, Town Board and County Commission for consideration. Comment can also be provided during the public hearings. October 18, 2016 Page 2 of 6 At this writing, staff has not received any public comment in connection with the proposed amendment. Proposal: Amend the EVDC as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Staff Findings: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D. §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review "All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:" 1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;" Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment describes those changes in depth and quantifies the worsening of the housing problem since last measured in 2007, the peak of the economic period prior to the recession (refer to page 11 of the Housing Needs Assessment). 2. "The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;" Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. A development plan is not required. The code amendment aligns with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan housing policies and also aligns with the 2016 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment recommendations, including the recommendation to "Amend Town code to allow and encourage workforce housing." The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan established housing policies for the Estes Valley. The comprehensive plan states, "The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community." October 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5 "Policies include: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.4 Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements." 3. "The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved." Staff Finding: Providers have not had concerns with development of multi-family housing on multi-family zoned land; therefore, it is anticipated that they will not have concerns with this proposed amendment. However, staff will verify this with service providers on Oct. 14. Conclusions of Law: The amendment is proceeding in accordance with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code and Colorado Revised Statutes. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Is another step towards addressing the workforce housing shortage in the Estes Valley, one of the community's most pressing problems. • More efficient use of RM Multi-Family zoned, particularly land that is vacant or has redevelopment potential. o RM-Multi-Family zoned land is scarce and efficient use of this scarce resource is critical to addressing our housing crisis. o Of the approximately 20,000 acres of zoned land within the Estes Valley, only 319 acres or two percent is zoned RM —Multi-Family Residential and most of this land is built out. o Of the approximately 220 RM parcels, about 150 contain less than 40,000 square feet of land area. The likelihood of land assembly to reach the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement is low. in fact, since the code was adopted in 2000, no such land assembly as occurred. While these 150 parcels account for just 39 acre acres of land, much of this land is located in October 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5 areas well-suited for workforce housing development, e.g. the Virginia Drive/Big Horn Drive area. Disadvantapes: • This code amendment does not advance nor inhibit housing developed under the provisions of the amendment from being rented as vacation rentals. Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval, denial or approval with conditions to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. Level of Public Interest: High: Addressing housing shortage in the Estes Valley Low: Code amendment Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because... (state reason(s) for continuance - findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and 'After County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state finding of fact and conclusions of law for denial). Attachments: 1. Exhibit A, Draft Estes Valley Code Amendment October 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5 ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 3. ZONING DISTRICTS Section 4.3.C.4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 ase Densit and Dimensional Standards Residential Zonings Districts Zoning District Max. Net Density (units/acre) Minimum Lot Standards [1] [4] Minimum Building/Structure Property Line Setbacks [2] [7] Max. Building Height (ft.) [8] Min. Building Width (ft.) Area (sq ft.) Width (t) Front 00 Side (l) Rear [ft.) RM L Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,900; 5,400 sq. ft./unit [6] Senior Institutional Living Uses: %Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 10 30 20 [5] Notes to Table 4-2 (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. Section 7.1.A.2.b RM Zone: : ••• _ - For each percentage point by which average slope exceeds twelve percent (12%), the base zone minimum land area per unit requirement (five thousand four hundred [5,400] square feet per unit = maximum density of eight [8] dwelling units per acre) shall be increased by three hundred (300) square feet per dwelling unit. Exhibit A October 18, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Estes Valley Planning Commission