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